• Please note that Audiokarma will be offline briefly for updates early on Monday morning, September 28th.

Best 70's Quad Receiver

M

MitsuMan

Super Member
I've been seriously considering picking up a quad receiver. I see so many of them available, and I remember thinking it was the coolest thing ever when they came out.

What is all of your opinions on what you feel was the best unit available? I am familiar with the Pioneers and Technics of the period, as well as a Kenwood.

(Chris, no need to bash the Technics in this thread please. :thmbsp: )
 
Register to hide this ad
The "4 Martini" sound should not be overlooked (See attachment).
 

Attachments

  • Marantz4400quad.jpg
    Marantz4400quad.jpg
    82 KB · Views: 207
See, I'm totally open with regards to quad receivers because I don't know what to look for specifically. Certainly some obvious things when it comes to components used, layout, etc., but what other things were critical with the quad receiver design? I've heard they tended to run hot in many cases. Who was the first company to release a high-end quad receiver? :scratch2:
 
MitsuMan said:
(Chris, no need to bash the Technics in this thread please. :thmbsp: )
Click to expand...

Mitsu -- I'm not down on all Technics, just some of their Receivers (notably the SA line topped by the SA-1000). Their earlier Receivers were EXCELLENT!

-- Chris
 
MitsuMan said:
I've been seriously considering picking up a quad receiver. I see so many of them available, and I remember thinking it was the coolest thing ever when they came out.

What is all of your opinions on what you feel was the best unit available? I am familiar with the Pioneers and Technics of the period, as well as a Kenwood.
Click to expand...

The best Quads were the Sansui QRX-9001, Marantz 4400 and Pioneer QX-949A. Of those, the hands down "pick of the litter" had to be the 4400.

-- Chris
 
29_3.JPG


:thmbsp:
 
MitsuMan -- Thanks for correcting my memory. Technics by Panasonic. For some reason the Panasonic is what stuck in my brain. That's it!

Is that an O'scope in there???? That's one of the ealier model Technics units which are EXCELLENT, although I don't think it's in the same league as the others I mentioned, since you were interested in the "best".

-- Chris
 
Sure, some Quad Receivers could be bridged to produce a hi-power stereo mode, but, still that was not the same as "the real thing". To me, Quad was just a scam and it died a quick death as it deseved to (only to be rivived as "Home Theater" in the late 1980's).
Click to expand...

So the ones you listed were the best scams available at the time? :scratch2:
 
MitsuMan said:
So the ones you listed were the best scams available at the time? :scratch2:
Click to expand...

As far as Quad units were concerned, those were the best. The Quad Scam is my opinion. I don't think there would be much dispute about that. Kenwood dropped out of the race early. JVC's entries were very low powered. I don't think Nikko had any. Rotel had a couple very low powered ones....as did Superscope. Marantz and Sansui had the biggest lineup for sure, followed by Technics by Panasonic. Visually, the Sansui QRX-9001 and the Marantz 4400 "took home the bacon" and many people bought them just for their looks alone!

I will confess to most recently owning a Pioneer QX-949A, just like an SX-1010 inside but with significantly less power. I tried the various Quad formats it came with, except for CD-4, because I don't have any Shibata styli for my Turntables, and was totally underwhelmed.....just as I remember back in the day. So, it was sold on E-Bay.

-- Chris
 
Toka said:
I think a QuadBob'd Sansui QRX-9001 would hold that title. :)
Click to expand...

Seconded. I've seen and heard his personal QRX-999 (overseas 9001) and it is definitely something to hear and see before you die :D


I've tried Technics, JVC, pioneer, marantz, and sansui.

If you want the best overall sound quality and looks, the marantz 4400 is definitely on top. If you want looks, good sound, and an awesome decoder and 4 channel synthesiser, the QRX-x001/xxx series is the way to go.

Personally I favor the Sansui QRX-x001 series for the look, sound, and QS decoder/synthesiser. They're also ALOT cheaper than a marantz 4400.

If you want reliabliity, get an early sansui quad. A QR-4500/6500 or a QRX-4500/6500 are both built like tanks and sound warm and tube-like. You can get them for fairly cheap compared to others. Perhaps not the best when it comes to 4 channel seperation, but not a bad pick at all

The pioneer QX-949/A is a goood looking unit with plenty of power, and a bridgable amp, but the decoders just plain suck IMHO. They also have some nasty problems with caps on the preamp/tone board getting noisy. The QX-9900 is another good sounding pioneer, with slightly less power then the 949, and 4 cool power meters instead of the "scope" like thingy. The tuner is nice, and it has pre-out/main-in jacks. However it also has the speaker plugs that annoy me.

Just another man's opinion...
 
Sansui QRX-9001

The Sansui QRX-9001 was/is the king of the hill. No other receiver had the decoders, demodulators and power of the top-of-the-line QRX-9001. The QRX-8001 at slightly lower power is a good second choice.
 
What is your basis for wanting a quad receiver? Do you plan to play pre-recorded quad media or just listen to stereo through four speakers? If you plan to play pre recorded quad media, any of the TOTL receivers mentioned will do a good job. Just make sure they have decoders for the recording formats of your media. There were three different quad formats and each requires a dedicated decoder. Not all quad receivers can read all formats. Sansui developed the QS format in house and was the only equipment manufacturer to develop a quad format. SQ and CD-4 were developed by recording companies.

If you want to synthesize quad, then there is only one choice, Sansui vario-matrix receivers. The QRX-x001 series. These receivers all used Sansui's proprietary vario-matrix decoder. It is capable of converting well recorded stereo sound into quad playback better than any of the decoders used by competitors.

The Sansui QRX-9001 and its black faced cousin the QRX-999 have the same basic amplifier section as the 9090DB. It’s power supply uses a toroidal transformer. It has decoding circuits for all three Quad formats, QS, SQ and CD-4. The QRX-8001 has the same basic amp section with a little less power and a conventional transformer in the power supply. The QRX-5001 through 7001 use the same basic amp section as the 9090 receivers. It’s a little older design.

I have also heard Quad Bob’s QRX-999 and was very impressed. It gets my vote.

- Pete
 
vintagestereo said:
Mitsu -- I'm not down on all Technics, just some of their Receivers (notably the SA line topped by the SA-1000). Their earlier Receivers were EXCELLENT!

-- Chris
Click to expand...

Fwiw, the TECHNICS SA-5770 I have, has a better signal-pulling tuner, AND phono section, when compared side-by-side to the Concept 16.5

What is your problem with the entire line of Technics SA receivers?

do tell

Marko
 
Marko said:
Fwiw, the TECHNICS SA-5770 I have, has a better signal-pulling tuner, AND phono section, when compared side-by-side to the Concept 16.5

What is your problem with the entire line of Technics SA receivers?

do tell

Marko
Click to expand...

Marko -- If the Technics outpeforms the 16.5, I'd take your 16.5 in for a tuneup since it shouldn't be that way. However, your Technics is one of the earlier Technics, which I said were EXCELLENT. It looks nothing like the SA-1000, or the other units of that particular line, which are the ones that I find lacking. I've owned a Technics SA-500, 700 and 800 and all of them were deficient when compared to Marantz, Pioneer and Sausui models of the same power rating. That's the basis for my opinion on Technics. I've also owned some of the ealier Technics, including an SA-5760, and it was certainly competive with other Monster units. I just never developed a fondness for it so I sold it.

-- Chris

-- Chris
 
vintagestereo said:
Marko -- If the Technics outpeforms the 16.5, I'd take your 16.5 in for a tuneup since it shouldn't be that way. However, your Technics is one of the earlier Technics, which I said were EXCELLENT. It looks nothing like the SA-1000, or the other units of that particular line, which are the ones that I find lacking. I've owned a Technics SA-500, 700 and 800 and all of them were deficient when compared to Marantz, Pioneer and Sausui models of the same power rating. That's the basis for my opinion on Technics. I've also owned some of the ealier Technics, including an SA-5760, and it was certainly competive with other Monster units. I just never developed a fondness for it so I sold it.

-- Chris

-- Chris
Click to expand...

Well, you said, "SA", and since I have no interest in the timeline of the SA-series manufacturing effort of Technics/Panasonic, I took this as a broad poo-poo generalization. I assumed your comment about the "earlier Technics being excellent" was speaking about a different model series designation entirely. My mistake.

When I first acquired the 16.5, it was gone over by a qualified Tech. Other than a dial lamp being out, and the weak mechanically functioning power on/off switch, it functions great. However, the FM tuning section on the 5770 is truly firstrate, no question. It pulls in and locks on better than the 16.5.

The narrow 30-15kHz Phono Stage bandwidth of the Concept 16.5 is(imho) the achilles heel of the 16.5 preamp design effort. This is compounded by the fact that the 16.5 does NOT have an AUX channel, like many other receivers, which prevents me from doing a TT workaround by adding a better phono stage.... OTOH, the Phono stage of the Technics SA-5770 sounds noticeably better....

Quite often, it has been said that the 16.5 performs like quality 'seperates'. In my experience, the 16.5 phono stage is lacking when compared to the phono stages of many dedicated preamps, which do the 20-20kHx thingy all day long.

Hopefully, the fellow who designed these receivers will be able to help tweek the 16.5 phono stage, and bring it closer to the 20-20 bandwidth performance of most all preamplifiers out there. If that could be done, I would shut my trap, and happily live with the 16.5 from here on out.... I'd invest in a killer antennae.

I have zero qualms about the power amp side of the 16.5, it is indeed superior to most other receivers that I am familiar with, and works great with the speakers I have, and my room acoustics. And it is power amp section of the 16.5 which performs as if it were a quality, high-powered 'seperate', similar to the several individual power amps I've owned over the course of time, .... No question... The 16.5 has that Damping Factor grip, which for receivers, is very unique.

Chris, no offense intended, just my hands-on experience.

...my apologies for temporarily highjacking this thread.....rant is now off...!

carry on!...

Marko
 
I've yet to fire up my Marantz 4400 on quad, but in stereo, it's a fine receiver, anti-Quadrites be damned. Besides, having a oscilloscope on your receiver is something you don't know you need until you have one.

Four martinis indeed...
 
I like the more "simple" integrated Quad amps. I haven't heard any Quad receivers, but if it's any indication about separates being better sounding than receivers. You might want to look into those.

http://audiokarma.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=14927

Over the weekend I had 8 speakers hooked up and playing all at once. I know it's not "real" in the way music is performed but hell...it's definitely a blast!

Eight Martinis?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom