Quad 66 v 67 CD players
 

Hi,

What are the main differences between a Quad 66 CD player and a Quad 67
CD player?

Regards,

John Smith.

Quad 66 v 67 CD players
 

wrote:

Hi,

What are the main differences between a Quad 66 CD player and a Quad 67
CD player?

Regards,

John Smith.

66 is ****, 67 is better, in fact not bad at all

Quad 66 v 67 CD players
 

Tim wrote:
wrote:

Hi,

What are the main differences between a Quad 66 CD player and a Quad 67
CD player?

Regards,

John Smith.

66 is ****, 67 is better, in fact not bad at all

Ugh. Here we have some dumb clown retailing street myth in emotive
language like "****", with a heavy dose of patronising bull**** ("in
fact not bad at all") thrown in. The implication is that this jerkoff
is qualified to judge Peter Walker's firm and therefore is somehow
superior to a great audio designer. Jesus, save us.

I doubt whether this Tim has ever heard the players in question. But I
have both, and I challenge him to come to my house and tell me the
difference between them when played behind a curtain in a very high
resolution system. Stand up and be counted, Timmie!

I don't know if the Usenet breeds morons or is merely magnetic to
fools, but Tim is an depressing example of both cases.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Quad 66 v 67 CD players
 

wrote:
Hi,

What are the main differences between a Quad 66 CD player and a Quad 67
CD player?

Regards,

John Smith.

The major difference is that you can buy the CD66 cheaper. I have both
CD66 and CD67 and there is no audible difference when played through
ESL 63 or upgraded Lowther Fidelio type horns or various other high
resolution speakers with all kinds of good SS and tube amps.

However, the self-appointed high priesthood decided the CD66 used the
"wrong" or at least an outdated chip, and therefore was not perfect, so
Quad obligingly made the CD67. My CD66, incidentally, was a gift from
Ross Walker who challenged me to tell the difference between it and my
CD67. I couldn't. I use them interchangably. I also had a CD66 that I
modded but it wasn't as satisfying in the long term as the standard
Quad item and I sold it on. I'm playing Bach Cantata 199 "My Heart
Swims in Blood" on a CD66 right now, which perhaps influenced my brutal
reply to the moron who claims there's a difference.

However, if you find a limp seller of a CD66 who trusts street myth
more than his ears, you can beat the price down by saying, "Oh,
everyone knows it isn't as good as the CD67." Of course, you might be
too nice to do something that dishonest, in which case I withdraw the
suggestion.

Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone should ask the opinion of
"audiophiles" on any gear. Most of the people who offer opinions have
never even heard the gear they witter on about, never mind owned it
long enough to come to an informed opinion. Length of ownership is
important in all cases but particularly in the case of CD player. I'll
explain why:

The CD player is the component that colours your sound least. In theory
it is digital and all CD players should sound alike. The CD player is
the part of your audio chain where theory most closely approaches the
real world: most do sound alike. For years, when I was the most widely
syndicated music writer in the world, I used a Sony Discman as my main
and sometimes only CD player. (I used to have it swapped in and out
with a Marantz player that I also had and the highly qualified panels
never noticed any change -- that explains why so many reviewers hate
proper scientific testing). So what becomes important about a CD player
is simply that it should be reliable and long-lasting; if you're the
sort of person who buys Quad gear, whose longevity most owners
appreciate, it becomes worthwhile buying the expensive (even second
hand it is a lot of money for a CD player) Quad CD player not because
it sounds different to anything else but because it will last forever.
My CD66, for instance, was on lease to the BBC, then inspected but not
rebuilt by Quad at Huntingdon, then came to meabout fifteen years ago
and currently sits at my left hand blandly being the perfect piece Quad
equipment, taken for granted, not requiring attention or even
mollycodling: perfect. In that time I've thrown out or sold on as more
trouble than they are worth several Marantzes and other Philips CD
players and gone through at least three Sony's as well. (When I was
silly enough to sell some horns of my own devising with the promise of
"broken-in" Lowther drivers, I trashed three players just sitting there
playing noise 24/7.)

If you need street cred among the audiophiles (why? they're mostly
opinionated fools), by all means find a CD67 and pay more for it than
for a CD66. If you're a music lover, buy the CD66 and save the money,
or the CD67 simply because it is newer and that is worth the extra
money.

HTH.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Quad 66 v 67 CD players
 

"Tim" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:

Hi,

What are the main differences between a Quad 66 CD player and a Quad 67
CD player?

Regards,

John Smith.

66 is ****, 67 is better, in fact not bad at all

I think you should explain that statement.
Regards Mike.

Quad 66 v 67 CD players
 

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:51:23 -0000, "Mike Cawood, HND BIT"
wrote:

66 is ****, 67 is better, in fact not bad at all

I think you should explain that statement.

Perhaps he's leading up to the joys of 69? :-)