DaveLaPorte53
Well-known Member
I've had Quad Equipment since it's inception , Started out with Layfette, then Marantz, Sansui, and I like the Pioneer the best.
The holy grail of Sansui quad is...?
- Thread starter Morepower
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
DaveLaPorte53
Well-known Member
I did not say I didn't like them, I just prefer having all modes built in to one unit. I remember looking at the prices of External decoders, special cartridges at the time, some cost as much as a receiver , and went for SQ. It was a much more inexpensive route to go for Four channel sound. Besides My favorite FM radio station broad cast in SQ Quad. (see my Imogi)
Years latter just before the Rebirth of records, I picked up the Pioneer, and my Denon turntables.
slshearer
Member
Just to raise the bar. There were 4 leading manufacturers when Quad was in its heyday! Any brand not mentioned here was kind of the Chevy of Quad. Not that they were terrible cause I think everyone on this forum would agree that really 4 speakers always sound better than 2 stereo speakers! Sound is sound and listening in the middle of the sound and will always be better than sitting outside-facing 2 speakers.
So to me and I have owned all these Receivers and still have 3 of them, the Sansui for QS decoding and providing a massive lot of Buttons, Meters. Its huge large size is the KING of glitter; the sound is OK, not really live unless it's cranked up. The venerable and always collectable Marantz 4400 with the Last SQ decoder, they manufactured, awe-inspiring construction, High-Quality everything, Awesome built-in Scope much better than any inaccurate Meters! Sound is OK, very Powerful but again not really dynamic unless high volume like The Sansui.
Next, the refined Kenwood, another Japanese model 9940 Good looking, Powerful. Had an excellent CD4 decoder, but unfortunately, CD4 material was not really available and also expensive hardware add-ons. This is definitely is a very Reliable and most accessible design to service!!! Mainly due to well thought out plug-in modules/Boards throughout the whole design, much easier to service and repair than all the 3 other models due to their design soldering boards tied into a messy wiring harness which over the years doesn't like to be pulled apart to service the all the complicated circuit boards!
So I am sure everyone would agree, and in my opinion, everyone plays their favourite sounding system. If you're lucky enough to have several ( I have too many right now!), you will play the one that gives you the best sound enjoyment hour after hour.
So for me, what is the best 4 channel out of the box Receiver? Well, it certainly is not the most popular ones listed here on this forum.
To me is without a doubt, a Harman Kardon 900+ (HK) was hands down had the best sounding 4 channel amplifiers. This 50-pound behemoth HK was the only one to provide an advanced a Twin Power Supply, carried from their Citation amplifiers. Still, today Citation of this period is recognized as one of the best ways to provide lots of sound without running out of power! They designed a 4 speaker JoyStick which was simple but very
effective JoyStick control, the easiest way to allow a fast and simple way to balance your speakers using your ears instead of looking at 4 separate controls. Then they like the Marantz provided a separate bass, a separate midrange, and separate treble controls, which allows more sound shaping for music and the room your speakers are in. Then if paired up with an efficient set of speakers like 4 Cerwin Vega 3 way with 15" woofers of the period, you could literally felt you were at the concert or the dance floor. If you weren't too careful, loud playback would loosen nails on a deck.
Why do I think this? The main reason is that the 900+ amplifier was much more dynamic and accurate at reproducing the music. HK was the only manufacturer with an actual eight-pole SQ circuit designed by Jim Fosgate. He had been under contract to HK for several projects in the early 1970s. All the other manufacturers were still modifying their 4 pole filters. HK has an excellent separation in SQ for a factory designed unit. I would venture to say it was better or at least as good as the highly acclaimed Sansui QS decoder. Harman Kardon was designed the receiver in New York, NY. It was contracted out to be built by Crown Electronics in Japan under license. Crown was a premier Japanese manufacturer. Also, the hardware chosen, knobs, lights, and finish of the HK was of higher quality, especially compared to the models from Sansui or Kenwood.
Realistically if you want excellent 4 channel separation, there only one way to get it from all sources. You need to get a Fosgate Tate II decoder, which is highly acclaimed by true Quadraphonic Purists. Designed by Jim Fosgate, who used a 32 pole filter, that's why the separation is superior to all the Receivers I listed above. Jim Fosgate also designed products for Dolby and was responsible for the development of Dolby Surround!
In my opinion, any of these 4 Quad units will provide better separation and better great sound with a Tate II. I also understand that the looks of these engineering marvels are a very personal matter anyway... Thanks for listening, sorry, I mean reading.
So from an old Quad guy to the group like I said earlier, any Quad is better than Stereo, and if you think Stereo is better, you are on the wrong forum.
Stewart
So to me and I have owned all these Receivers and still have 3 of them, the Sansui for QS decoding and providing a massive lot of Buttons, Meters. Its huge large size is the KING of glitter; the sound is OK, not really live unless it's cranked up. The venerable and always collectable Marantz 4400 with the Last SQ decoder, they manufactured, awe-inspiring construction, High-Quality everything, Awesome built-in Scope much better than any inaccurate Meters! Sound is OK, very Powerful but again not really dynamic unless high volume like The Sansui.
Next, the refined Kenwood, another Japanese model 9940 Good looking, Powerful. Had an excellent CD4 decoder, but unfortunately, CD4 material was not really available and also expensive hardware add-ons. This is definitely is a very Reliable and most accessible design to service!!! Mainly due to well thought out plug-in modules/Boards throughout the whole design, much easier to service and repair than all the 3 other models due to their design soldering boards tied into a messy wiring harness which over the years doesn't like to be pulled apart to service the all the complicated circuit boards!
So I am sure everyone would agree, and in my opinion, everyone plays their favourite sounding system. If you're lucky enough to have several ( I have too many right now!), you will play the one that gives you the best sound enjoyment hour after hour.
So for me, what is the best 4 channel out of the box Receiver? Well, it certainly is not the most popular ones listed here on this forum.
To me is without a doubt, a Harman Kardon 900+ (HK) was hands down had the best sounding 4 channel amplifiers. This 50-pound behemoth HK was the only one to provide an advanced a Twin Power Supply, carried from their Citation amplifiers. Still, today Citation of this period is recognized as one of the best ways to provide lots of sound without running out of power! They designed a 4 speaker JoyStick which was simple but very
Why do I think this? The main reason is that the 900+ amplifier was much more dynamic and accurate at reproducing the music. HK was the only manufacturer with an actual eight-pole SQ circuit designed by Jim Fosgate. He had been under contract to HK for several projects in the early 1970s. All the other manufacturers were still modifying their 4 pole filters. HK has an excellent separation in SQ for a factory designed unit. I would venture to say it was better or at least as good as the highly acclaimed Sansui QS decoder. Harman Kardon was designed the receiver in New York, NY. It was contracted out to be built by Crown Electronics in Japan under license. Crown was a premier Japanese manufacturer. Also, the hardware chosen, knobs, lights, and finish of the HK was of higher quality, especially compared to the models from Sansui or Kenwood.
Realistically if you want excellent 4 channel separation, there only one way to get it from all sources. You need to get a Fosgate Tate II decoder, which is highly acclaimed by true Quadraphonic Purists. Designed by Jim Fosgate, who used a 32 pole filter, that's why the separation is superior to all the Receivers I listed above. Jim Fosgate also designed products for Dolby and was responsible for the development of Dolby Surround!
In my opinion, any of these 4 Quad units will provide better separation and better great sound with a Tate II. I also understand that the looks of these engineering marvels are a very personal matter anyway... Thanks for listening, sorry, I mean reading.
So from an old Quad guy to the group like I said earlier, any Quad is better than Stereo, and if you think Stereo is better, you are on the wrong forum.
Stewart
Last edited:
Good stereo is preferable to bad quad or mono or enter your bad format here. Love good music in glorious quad, well cut stereo and even well EQd mono. Most important than anything is good music, good sound and quality components.... oh yeah, good hearing helps too! I have decent quad gear put away because they don't serve my needs of inputs and knobs and controls. But they are good in the right place. I even have a set of extra speakers... just in case Abbey Road really does take over the neighbours. My poor Missions!
slshearer
Member
Totally agree with you If you take any stereo amp/receiver and add another pair of speakers you still have the separation but more ambience, I have 2 Harman Kardon Citation 2 Tubed Amplifiers rated at 60 Watt RMS with 4 Large Definitive 2006 speakers with 300Watt Powered Subs in my other listening room and If only 1 HK amp working there is a lot of lost sound without the extra HK... To take it a little farther just like your equipment can only reproduce the signal it gets so if you have no separation you have no depth (mono) Obviously I prefer MultiChannel sound cause I rather be in the music than a person who listens to music from the outside looking into the music. Take Care! and setup that Quad!!!
Thank you for that detailed opinion. Very interesting and enlightening....So from an old Quad guy to the group like I said earlier, any Quad is better than Stereo, and if you think Stereo is better, you are on the wrong forum.
Stewart
Hey you,
an QRX 9001 ensures that my music room is sound, too. It is not so big but I will not be disturbed there
Now I don't have the right turntable. I like turntables in a wooden case and now my question: Is it the XR-Q 7?
I'm curious about your opinion
an QRX 9001 ensures that my music room is sound, too. It is not so big but I will not be disturbed there
Now I don't have the right turntable. I like turntables in a wooden case and now my question: Is it the XR-Q 7?
I'm curious about your opinion
slshearer
Member
Thanks for your input, I appreciate that you spent the time to read through it, took me a while to write it as I do not want to rain on anybody's beliefs, I have had excellent luck with my 900+ but I know a couple of guys with HK 150+ and 900+ who have has issues with channels blowing and they could not find the right technicians to fix them properly, Kind of like taking your carburated 1964 Elcamino to a mechanic ship to have the carb rebuilt, HUH? The whole design of these amps was a marvel of ingenuity and brains, Fasy moving, competitive market and eventually Quad was replaced with Dobly Surround 5.1 then 7.1 then 7.2 and even 9.2 and if you can believe it now 11.2?? WTF So basically Anyway have a great Sunday and take care,
Stewart
Very Nice Quad, I'm Jealous.. OK, I am over it, for now, Yoga helps a lot, anyway if you can find one I think these are a great choices: my first pick! Dual 701 DD semi-auto or the 2nd: Dual 1229 Auto, and a 3rd Harman Kardon ST8 (little harder to find & no wood) They are very collectable, Affordable Fixable, Pretty to look at and nice examples are available, If your broke and who isn't these days a Phillips 312/212 Electronic, you can find these mainly on eBay for a decent amount of no money. Plus parts are available to keep them working. All of them working properly & setup with a decent cartridge like a Denon 110 or 301 will track the best of vinyl with little to none feedback due to their superior chassis and build quality, and hey if you got lots of cash get a nice Thorns something... Stay Safe! StewartHey you,
an QRX 9001 ensures that my music room is sound, too. It is not so big but I will not be disturbed there
View attachment 54190
Now I don't have the right turntable. I like turntables in a wooden case and now my question: Is it the XR-Q 7?
I'm curious about your opinion
I guess it's like buying a car. Some people love this one, others love that one. Some would NEVER buy the car you absolutely love. 
Some cars ride terrible, but then you change the speakers...I mean tires...and it's a whole new ballgame. 
Although my favorite receiver was my Pioneer, I'm starting to really love my Sansui.
I wish I could get better speakers than my 4 bookshelf Polk, but I don't have the room and can't really play it loud like I want, so.... It is what it is.
Some cars ride terrible, but then you change the speakers...I mean tires...and it's a whole new ballgame. Although my favorite receiver was my Pioneer, I'm starting to really love my Sansui.
I wish I could get better speakers than my 4 bookshelf Polk, but I don't have the room and can't really play it loud like I want, so.... It is what it is.slshearer
Member
Get yourself a great set of headphones, Lots of good choices, I am sure there is an opinion on what are a great buy!I guess it's like buying a car. Some people love this one, others love that one. Some would NEVER buy the car you absolutely love.
Although my favorite receiver was my Pioneer, I'm starting to really love my Sansui.
Be Safe
Stewart
This almost got me to re-enlist but nope left in 75.lol
