Recently, I found a great old amplifier. It was made in Britain and
imported into the US by British Radio Electronics, Ltd. Here are
pictures of it and ads about it.

http://public.fotki.com/farleybob/williamson/

It has two chassis and when I first saw them from a distance, I
thought they were a pair of QUAD II's. Then I thought they just
knocked off the QUAD look, but the amp was released in Sept. 1952,
which I think predates the QUAD. The ads claim that the amp was
actually planned and authorized by DTN Williamson.

Does anyone else pot transformers in this fashion, except QUAD? I
know that Williamson was had just authored a paper with Peter Walker
on the QUAD II circuit in response to the Ultralinear circuit, and
that they were working together on the ESL. Is it possible that
Acoustical mfg. did a run of amps under a different for Williamson?
The preamp shipped with the amp was a rebranded QC II. Again, I'd say
it's strictly a copy of QUAD's trade dress, except that it appears
that this amp was introduced first.

If anyone recognizes this amp or who knows who manufactured it, I'd be
glad to hear. Thanks

"Steve"

Recently, I found a great old amplifier. It was made in Britain and
imported into the US by British Radio Electronics, Ltd. Here are
pictures of it and ads about it.

http://public.fotki.com/farleybob/williamson/

It has two chassis and when I first saw them from a distance, I
thought they were a pair of QUAD II's. Then I thought they just
knocked off the QUAD look, but the amp was released in Sept. 1952,
which I think predates the QUAD.


** Only just.


The ads claim that the amp was
actually planned and authorized by DTN Williamson.

Does anyone else pot transformers in this fashion, except QUAD? I
know that Williamson was had just authored a paper with Peter Walker
on the QUAD II circuit in response to the Ultralinear circuit, and
that they were working together on the ESL. Is it possible that
Acoustical mfg. did a run of amps under a different for Williamson?
The preamp shipped with the amp was a rebranded QC II. Again, I'd say
it's strictly a copy of QUAD's trade dress, except that it appears
that this amp was introduced first.



** As you say, the pre-amp is simply a badge engineered Quad QC2.

The pics of the two chassis and their internals indicate they were produced
by Acoustical, under some contract arrangement with Mr Williamson.

Find another one - you can have stereo !





....... Phil

On Sep 3, 5:52 pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Steve"

Recently, I found a great old amplifier. It was made in Britain and
imported into the US by British Radio Electronics, Ltd. Here are
pictures of it and ads about it.

http://public.fotki.com/farleybob/williamson/

It has two chassis and when I first saw them from a distance, I
thought they were a pair of QUAD II's. Then I thought they just
knocked off the QUAD look, but the amp was released in Sept. 1952,
which I think predates the QUAD.

** Only just.

It does lead to an interesting question though, about the casework
chronology and provenance. We all know that casework is tiresome,
timeconsuming and expensive, and no less so for manufacturers than for
DIYers. Considering the connection between Walker and Williamson, and
the fact that Acoustical was rooted in contract work, it seems to me
exceedingly likely that this amp was built for the distributor by
Acoustical in Huntingdon. (Acoustical was Peter Walker's company; it
was not called QUAD then; QUAD was the Quality Unit Audio, not a
suitable company name!).

In the QUAD (that is, first series, after the QUAD.12 and before the
QUAD II) promo/operating booklet, it is categorically stated that
Acoustical did "all metal work, finishing" etc in-house under the
supervision of the AID department (whatever that may be). In Britain
at this time, and well beyond the Quad II period, any manufacturer who
didn't want to lose his reputation took very great care of metal
preparation. (For instance, one of the bugbears of Rolls-Royce and
Bentley of this period is mu-metal pitting on door handles and other
brightwork one handles, ugly --and rough on fine pigskin gloves -- and
not capable of refinishing to the standard required for successful
rechroming.)

The question then arises,

a) was the Williamson designed first and found good and adapted for
the QUAD II?

OR

b) was the QUAD II designed and ready to go, and the design adapted to
the Williamson, perhaps with QUAD II bent metalwork blanks just taken
off the shelf and punched in different places?

I have no difficulty in believing that Walker would put off the launch
of his own product to produce the Williamson first. There was then
detailed bureaucratic allocation of materials, the government
deliberately gave manufacturers of exports preference in materials
allocation (you couldn't even buy the Rolls mentioned above in England
until into the 1950s -- they were all for export). Thus the
Williamson, clearly an export order, would have taken precedence, and
may well have been the mechanism which allowed Walker to launch the
QUAD II at all, perhaps with a little materials "siphoning" between
the projects.

The Q22, as badge-engineered for the Williamson, was already a
standing product at this time, having progressed in recognizable form
from the earlier models of QUAD amps listed above. I don't know at
what precise date the Q22 acquired the row of selector buttons along
the bottom; perhaps the Williamson was their first appearance.

***

Those of you who aren't as fascinated by QUAD II as those of us with
more culture should keep quiet either now or when we stick the pins in
your wax doll. Being fascinated by QUAD is at least better than being
obsessed by Madonna (I'm not; I left my literary publishers when they
greedily published her book of self-pornography) -- and a hundred
times better than being obsessed with Kylie, even for an Australian
(1).

***

Hey, Phil, don't you miss the "authoritative* views of Pinkerton on
QUAD? Rolling on the carpet!

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

(1) And, to save the usual dumb clucks the effort of accusing me of
being an ocker-knocker, I should confess that I'm an Australian too. I
just admire a better class of Australian, like Barry Humphries and
Paul Hogan (I used to write one-liners for the latter when we were
both young and hungry -- literally, I mean; we met in a King's Cross
caff where the waitress would serve appreciably bigger meals to
handsome young men).

The ads claim that the amp was
actually planned and authorized by DTN Williamson.

Does anyone else pot transformers in this fashion, except QUAD? I
know that Williamson was had just authored a paper with Peter Walker
on the QUAD II circuit in response to the Ultralinear circuit, and
that they were working together on the ESL. Is it possible that
Acoustical mfg. did a run of amps under a different for Williamson?
The preamp shipped with the amp was a rebranded QC II. Again, I'd say
it's strictly a copy of QUAD's trade dress, except that it appears
that this amp was introduced first.

** As you say, the pre-amp is simply a badge engineered Quad QC2.

The pics of the two chassis and their internals indicate they were produced
by Acoustical, under some contract arrangement with Mr Williamson.

Find another one - you can have stereo !

...... Phil

"Andre Jute"
"Phil Allison"

Recently, I found a great old amplifier. It was made in Britain and
imported into the US by British Radio Electronics, Ltd. Here are
pictures of it and ads about it.

http://public.fotki.com/farleybob/williamson/

It has two chassis and when I first saw them from a distance, I
thought they were a pair of QUAD II's. Then I thought they just
knocked off the QUAD look, but the amp was released in Sept. 1952,
which I think predates the QUAD.

** Only just.

It does lead to an interesting question though, about the casework
chronology and provenance. We all know that casework is tiresome,
timeconsuming and expensive, and no less so for manufacturers than for
DIYers. Considering the connection between Walker and Williamson, and
the fact that Acoustical was rooted in contract work, it seems to me
exceedingly likely that this amp was built for the distributor by
Acoustical in Huntingdon. (Acoustical was Peter Walker's company; it
was not called QUAD then; QUAD was the Quality Unit Audio, not a
suitable company name!).


** I read " QUAD " was short for " QUality Amplifier Domestic " ?


In the QUAD (that is, first series, after the QUAD.12 and before the
QUAD II) promo/operating booklet, it is categorically stated that
Acoustical did "all metal work, finishing" etc in-house under the
supervision of the AID department (whatever that may be).


** AID = " Acoustical In-house Design " - surely ?


Hey, Phil, don't you miss the "authoritative* views of Pinkerton on
QUAD? Rolling on the carpet!


** Mr Pinkerton's copious jottings never approached the reputation of his
famous namesake - the Pinkerton Men.

Just another Mr Plod, with ambitions above his station, really.





....... Phil

On Sep 4, 6:57 am, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Andre Jute"

Acoustical in Huntingdon. (Acoustical was Peter Walker's company; it
was not called QUAD then; QUAD was the Quality Unit Audio, not a
suitable company name!).

** I read " QUAD " was short for " QUality Amplifier Domestic " ?

I was looking for the words from which the acronym was formed in my
archive of QUAD materials. I now wonder if they ever announced what it
stands for. The word "unit" is repeatedly used in the literature,
admittedly more often in the combination "control unit". I have seen
"Quality Unit Amplifier Domestic" but cannot now remember where.
"Unit" in this use may be what modern manufacturers more pompously
call "modular"; the QUAD was from the beginning intended to be part of
a *system*.

The exact name hardly matters: the two important points are that the
QUAD brought BBC *quality* into the *domestic* setting.

That even in an acronynym, however it may be derived, Walker should
honour the conventions of English, U after Q, once more demonstrates
his punctillio in everything, not only audio engineering.

In the QUAD (that is, first series, after the QUAD.12 and before the
QUAD II) promo/operating booklet, it is categorically stated that
Acoustical did "all metal work, finishing" etc in-house under the
supervision of the AID department (whatever that may be).

** AID = " Acoustical In-house Design " - surely ?

Are you pulling my leg, Phil?

"In-house" is surely an anachronism. Besides, it sounds a bit self-
conscious to me for an Englishman of the time and place, especially
considering that Acoustical grew out of a design consultancy, where
"in-house design" was so axiomatic as hardly to rate a mention (and
would be offensive to customers like the BBC as implying that they
were so incompetent they couldn't do the job in their own house(1)). I
wondered whether it might mean "Assurance and Inspection Department"
or even more bluntly "Adjustment and Inspection Department".

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

(1) When Prof F Porsche founded his auto design consultancy about the
time Acoustical was started, he called it not the "Porsche Design
Office" but more politically the "Porsche Development Office",
implying that his customers did the creative work and he merely
undertook the dog-work of developing their brilliant ideas, whereas
the truth was the other way round.

In article .com,
Andre Jute scribeth thus

The exact name hardly matters: the two important points are that the
QUAD brought BBC *quality* into the *domestic* setting.

Those were the days when quality meant something.. not anymore;(...
--
Tony Sayer

"Andre Jute"
Phil Allison

Acoustical in Huntingdon. (Acoustical was Peter Walker's company; it
was not called QUAD then; QUAD was the Quality Unit Audio, not a
suitable company name!).

** I read " QUAD " was short for " QUality Amplifier Domestic " ?

I was looking for the words from which the acronym was formed in my
archive of QUAD materials. I now wonder if they ever announced what it
stands for. The word "unit" is repeatedly used in the literature,
admittedly more often in the combination "control unit". I have seen
"Quality Unit Amplifier Domestic" but cannot now remember where.
"Unit" in this use may be what modern manufacturers more pompously
call "modular"; the QUAD was from the beginning intended to be part of
a *system*.


** Another explanation I read ( in an interview with Peter Walker,
IIRC ) was that Acoustical dubbed their
first hi-fi amplifier the " QADU " for " Quality Amplifier Domestic Unit
".

When genteel folk rang Acoustical wishing to order one of same, they
regularly failed to get the awkward acronym right - instead coming out
with all manner of weird variations. One such folk ( possibly a tad
dyslexic) explained that he wished to purchase a " Quad " amplifier.

When told the correct acronym, he was clear the letters spelled QUAD.

That neat variation was seen buy management to have merit, was adopted as
the product name and later the trademark of Acoustical.



** AID = " Acoustical In-house Design " - surely ?

Are you pulling my leg, Phil?


** How about: " Acoustical Internal Design ".

BTW

Read your own words:

" ... AID department .. "

Indicates the " D" does not stand for " department" .



......... Phil

In the QUAD (that is, first series, after the QUAD.12 and before the
QUAD II) promo/operating booklet, it is categorically stated that
Acoustical did "all metal work, finishing" etc in-house under the
supervision of the AID department (whatever that may be). In Britain
at this time, and well beyond the Quad II period, any manufacturer who
didn't want to lose his reputation took very great care of metal
preparation. (For instance, one of the bugbears of Rolls-Royce and
Bentley of this period is mu-metal pitting on door handles and other
brightwork one handles, ugly --and rough on fine pigskin gloves -- and
not capable of refinishing to the standard required for successful
rechroming.)



If one can afford to restore a Rolls to RR standards one can afford
to restore it better-which means having those parts filled and molds
made to make steel investment castings of them. In fact I think there
is a place selling a kit of them already done fairly reasonably.

Another substantial upgrade is the use of Oldsmobile valves in the RR
V8 engine.

In article .com,
Bret Ludwig wrote:
Another substantial upgrade is the use of Oldsmobile valves in the RR
V8 engine.

Do you mean the Range Rover engine? That started out life as a Buick/Olds
unit.

--
*A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sep 6, 1:58 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article .com,
Bret Ludwig wrote:

Another substantial upgrade is the use of Oldsmobile valves in the RR
V8 engine.

Do you mean the Range Rover engine? That started out life as a Buick/Olds
unit.


No, the valve that fits the RR V8 is a big block Olds valve. You
order them from Manley (the engine valve Manley and not the
"thermionic valve" one) and the length is a little different-there's a
small up charge. Still a hell of a lot cheaper and a better part.