I have the Quad 77 Integrated and compared it to my NAD 315 BEE.
After that the NAD went to the bedroom.
A great Amplifier with superb sound, very robust.
Great soundstage, very fast, never getting aggressive.
A lot of power too.
Built quality is exceptionally good.

Very good amp, i would love to use it. Sounds great, really sweet and real like.

Bad remote idea.

Very well build amp. Sounds really sweet and analog. The case and looks are a real piece of luxury. The remote operation is a crap. Non ergonomic, non convenient, non compatible, non reliable, non reasonable (the function of a remote control must be a very simple one, volume higher or lower, source, on/off) This remote doesn't happen to easily manage this very basic and simple operations. All of the cheapest Chinese gear do it very well (even the made in Iran ones). The remote is almost half big as the amp itself :)))), heavy. The rechargeable batteries within are placed directly on the electronic plate among sensitive microelectronic components with a great acid damage risk. Repair costs are the same as buying a new and pretty good amp. A designated battery compartment within the remote unit was for Quad probably a big problem. For almost all other electronic manufacturers it is not a problem sins 50-40 years (including the most cheapest). You cant replace this remote Chernobyl because it will not work with any other universal remote (except the pronto perhaps and the price is 1000 euro).

77 sound is chunky; 66 sound is airy. Clear case of horses for courses. Very well-built. Excellent with vocals, strings and small-scale jazz/classical.

Original Nextel "skin" absorbs light (agreeable in dark rooms) but collects dust. A little bit slow compared to Quad 67 sound. Becomes a bit muddled at high volume & with big classical works.

I have the 77 integrated amp and CD player, swapped for my older Quad 67/306 pre/power and 67 CD player. I like the Quad sound - natural-sounding with vocals and strings - but given my wide musical taste wanted a "heavier" sound, hence the swap. It sounds more powerful and "darker" than the 66 system, with more weight underpinning rock and orchestral music, but also slightly slower. If you like Quad's tube amps the 66 system may be a better match sonically, but the 77 system is satisfying with a wider range of music. Drives the Harbeth HLP3 better than the 306 power amp. Great system to come home to after a hectic work day.

Similar Products Used:

Quad 66 system; Naim Nait 3 amp/Alpha 5 CD/Tannoy floorstanders.

The 77 is a well-built piece of kit; build quality is superb

The integrated version could have done with more inputs....

Open letter to Antonio Mendez ; have you replaced the batteries in the remote? These expire after a few years, depending on how long the remote has been in storage. Contact Quad or your dealer to either supply replacements which you can solder in to the remote yourself, or get Quad or its dealer to fit them for you.

Similar Products Used:

Audiolab 8000 series amp/DAC/tuner

Superb sound quality. Very reliable electronics. Rich in detail. What I sound, what a power, I love it.

Designed to produce sound as QUAD sees it. so no significant bass or treble to be adjusted. If you'll get the remote also you can use an equalizer to adjust the sound a bit. This amplifier demands a good loudspeakerbox to acompany it.

The QUAD 77 only deserves one discription: ABSFAB It's fantastic to listen to. I can recommend this one from the hearth. As a lot of people switch to surround you'll find this amplifier easy as secondhand. It's quality that will enrich your life for years to come, even if it is a secondhand model. My advise, get it now!

the sound is perfect, i can't fault the sound quality. i'll never sell it. other hi-fi sounds boomy or harsh, it's always a pleasure to come home to the quad.

mine only has two co-axial inputs which is ok for me cos i use a dac to switch between two digital sources thus eliminating the need for a third input. not enough inputs for most people's requirements though.

over five years old but at 200 pounds second hand it is totally unbeatable. they are rare as rocking horse dung but well worth the wait for one to come on the sh market. the bass is deep and tight, no matter how low frequency the recording gets. mid range natural, vocals are perfect with no bright sibilance on the top end to ruin "s"'s and "c"'s like some supposed high end amps seem to do. the top end is detailed and precise. a smooth relaxed delivery, not at all harsh. an absolute delight to own.

Similar Products Used:

none. if anyone faults this amps performance, they obviously like bottom and top end frequencies over-emphasised, not flat and natural. each to their own, but i'm not parting with this amp, ever.

More substantial and rounded sound than previous Quads.

Lost some of that Quad magic.

I own the Quad 77 integrated amplifier and CD player. This is my third Quad system, the first being the 34/306 pre/power amplifier, and then the 66/306 pre/power amps and 67 CD. Quad has always been the kind of system you'd put on at the end of a long day. It's got that relaxed, laid back quality that doesn't force you to concentrate on the music. The sound just hangs in the air naturally. I suppose you could say it's emotive in an intellectual way. The 66 system was sheer magic in this sense, and I wish I could say the same about the 77. In a way, the 77 series carried on the evolution brought about by the 606MkII power amp, which had a beefier, darker sound than previous Quad amps. But ultimately it is a compromise - you lose the airy sound of the older system (which made it suitable only for simpler types of music), but gain a more robust all-rounder. No longer in production, and not really worth hunting out. But if you come across the 67CD, 66 pre and 606/II power, GRAB THEM!

natural sound, user controlability, fancy remote

707 power amp deserve better, tacky facia, lots of integrated chips in circuit.

sounds good because it is even handed with different music. remote control is complex to learn but makes pre amp flexible to use. tone, balance, sensitivity settings on all inputs except quadlink inputs, which i found to be a real problem with bus cd player as the cd players out put is very low and i could not drive the 707 power amp to its full ability. sound stage is not as good as my 502/ 557.i would recomend it, especialy with 707 power amp. probably best for classic and light rock music. disaterous choice of facia which has been improved on 99 series, but i think its better value than 99 series because of the 2 way remote. only worth considering with quad power amp

Similar Products Used:

meridian 502/557

Natural sound and clarity

Sensitive to voltage variations. Akward remote control

These are my comments on the Quad 77 integrated amplifier. I was extremely happy about the quality of this product and its sound characteristics. Unfortunatelly a few months after purchase the ackward remote control became unoperable.
I have used it without a remote for a couple of years and I am very happy with it.

Similar Products Used:

Quad 22/II, Quad 44/405

Neutral

None

Goodies:
Quad 77 and 99 (pretty much the same, seems like the 99 is a little more detailed, but its hard to tell). I own the 99pre. Very nice tone controls, good phono stage (linn linto is probobly better, but at the price its a beast), flexible rca inputs (you can change the sensitivity for each input) and quadlink witch is preferable.

Sound:
One of yhe better transistor pre amp / price I have heard. I would like to change my mind (about the copland 301 review) Now I actually think it is better than the Copland cta301 mk2, when used with the right stuff. Very, very, very sensitive to placement and (not dirty) electricity!! It needs some really good vibration absorbers like Solid Tech - Feet Of Silence. Break in time? I say about 1 month on different volumes.

Buying a second hand Quad 77pre is a very, very good deal.

Similar Products Used:

Copland CTA 301 mk2