quad 303 or 405 ? quality matters more to me

[quadklipsh]

Folks,
i want to know from YOU experts out there on Quad amps .
i have a quad 303 and its 33 pre amp and absolutely love the sound for all genre of music that i listen ...
the query here is whether going from quad 303/33 combination to a quad 405 /34 a wise decision????
i paid $180 for the 303 about 4 years ago .
the 405 / 34 costs $426
is it worth goin for the extra watts ...
my speakers are 98 db klipsch RF3s
and i have a room with average acoustics and size is 13w x14Lx 10h
i love cranking up my music but not often and i listen mostly to europian instrumentals
, yanni , and various other artists.
please help me out on this
i know the ideal would be to audition 405 myself and see what suits me but hey thay are both quad
so the sonic signature is most probably be the same
and im going the extra mile for 55 more watts only , do you think its worth it????
im waiting for any comments.
thanks ...

 

[Vinylcalle]

Here is my thoughts.

I wouldn´t get a 405 if I wasn´t planning on modify it or use it with some old Quad ESL´s. I would get the 405-2 (had one).

The 34 on the other hand should be better than the 33 in every way. But it still is not as refined as especially the japanese competitors of that age.

It´s hard to say what you will like. But the 34 is much more hifi than a 33 at least.

 

[quadklipsh]

is the 34 compatible with 303 ?
i may just trade the 33

 

[Zulu95]

I had (still do) a 34/405 II system I bought new in 1986 and loved the sound. I moved 4 years ago and my new listening room was twice as large so i needed to up my power a little. After a few false starts I ended up with a Quad 99/909 setup as it was the only thing that got close to my old 34/405.
I'm really torn now on what to do with the old system as I would like to see it in a good home.

 

[Brian]

I vote for keeping both; 1 as a main system and the other as the 2nd. The 303 is very musical while the 405 I found more analytical. As for the 33 vs the 34, I found the 34 to be more of a headache maintenace wise as it has more complex topography and the plug in boards needed frequent cleaning; about once per year. Also, if you have the literature, you may want to check the specks. From memory most of the specs were the same but where different, the 33 had the advantage. A tradeoff of flexibility vs sound that is very common in many lineups.

The 34 though is such a neat preamp unless very critical would be on my shortlist.

QUAD is a great lineup but I'd not go with the 99/909 that was made when the employees owned the company and QC sank faster than a lead weight. Even the US QUAD rep at the time while promoting the line suggested that he'd been buying Tylenol by the case because of the DOAs and dramatic failures during warranty. I'd guess if the pair works today, the issues were probably corrected. I also was not a lover of their looks.

I owned a pair of QUAD IIs, the 22 and matching fm and am tuners. My first component system and had I known then what I know now, I'd most likely never have bought another piece of electronics.

 

[Ruxman]

Hi,

You said you have 98dB speakers.

You do not need more power.

It's not possible to use more than maybe 20 watts with those speakers, without them blowing up. Probably a lot less.

 

[quadklipsh]

yeah rux,
klipsch are 98db and i play em easily to much loud levels than anticipated . My other speakers are kenwood LS 707M 88 db and they deliver more deep bass but i donot like their sound somehow , they are too laid back than RF3s.
Quad cannot play these kenwoods to loud levels .heck i have other amps for these boomy speakers .
Over last few years quad has tamed my klipsch as well as any other speakers i tried .
Quad is a wonderful machine , i was just wondering if i should move on to a bigger quad or not .
Sometimes a bigger amp and more watts under the hood does seem like an proudy thing to have