Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimJosef
I'm really interested in the details of this quote. I've seen it referred to lots of times, with various different wordings but I can't seem to nail down exactly what Peter Walker said and when he said it. As far as I can tell (I never met him) he seems to have been rather a careful speaker. I imagine he would never claim that the three amps below all sound the same, despite the fact that each one is 'competently designed' for the job in hand (very cheap domestic reproduction, robust PA use in a factory/club/village fete, top quality hifi). I own all three amps and even I, with my old cloth ears, can tell them apart. And even at low power their measured distortion levels are very different. So I suspect that what Peter Walker actually said was a bit more qualified. Can anyone point me to the definitive version?
I'd also be interested in any references for listening tests. I already know of James Moir's article (Wireless World, Jul 78) where the three Quad amps were compared. The listening panel were anonymous but Moir describes them as "all well known and experienced listeners". However they didn't represent the entire spectrum of opinion. Moir described people who thought that transistor amplifiers always sound different from valve ones as belonging to a "cult". And he says of the listening panel "The cult members that were invited to take part in the tests accepted but subsequently withdrew ... ". So it might be argued that the people who stood the best chance of being able to distinguish between the amps (or, at least, believed that they did) had selected themselves out of the test.
|
As I recall, PJW’s original “stake our reputation” challenge was in Hi Fi News around mid-1977, July perhaps. I am not sure if I can locate a copy. It generated some interesting correspondence in Wireless World in 1978, as well. Peter Baxandall’s letter in Wireless World January 1978 reprises some of PJW’s original statement and conditions, and does refer back to the July, 1977 issue of HFN.
I have the Quad print on the Moir test outcomes, and can scan and post if you like.
Having seen PJW at some of the London audio shows in the second half of the 1970s, I’d say that he had a touch of the showman in him, but was not at all dogmatic, and not much ruffled by the goings on. Quite different to what one found at one or two other manufacturer’s stands, where the “true believer” atmosphere was palpable. (Although they were offering excellent products that would have stood on their own feet without the hype.) Around the time of the comparative tests, at one maybe two of the shows Quad was offering headphone comparisons of the Quad II, Quad 303 and Quad 405. PJW was totally unperturbed by the fact that some visitors were able to correctly identify each amplifier, and when I asked the question, the response was more-or-less the East Anglian equivalent to the Gallic shrug, with a comment to the effect that it was a relatively trivial test.
Also available was a direct vs. via the FM3 test, using a fancy signal generator (STC 1000?) to feed RF to the FM3.
There seemed to be some general antagonism at the time towards Quad (and others of the “old guard” establishment) and at one show I heard some negatives on Quad from Ken Kessler. (His epiphany must have come later.)
Also at one of the shows, I did ask PJW what was the design life or expected life of Quad equipment. His answer was not precise, but went something like – if someone had ten years of good reliable use out of an amplifier, then it had fairly done its job. My Quad 606 is now 20 years old and still in daily use, untouched since new. The Quad 405-2 is 25 years old, but needed a new power rectifier back in 1999. So maybe I’m doing better than average. My own experience of Quad reliability is about the same as most other equipment I have purchased in the last 25 years (Nakamichi, Meridian, Sony, Carver, NEC, Yamaha, Luxman, Pioneer, Panasonic, JRC, NAD, Icom, etc.). But one-off samples are hardly the basis for generalizations.
Cheers,