Quad 606 Amplifiers

606

130 Watt Current Dumping Power Amplifier

User Reviews (13)

Showing 1-10 of 13  
jansendortmans   Audio Enthusiast [Sep 06, 2002]
Strength:

It amplifies, looks gorgeous

Weakness:

None

Purchased QUAD 606 to control Magneplanar loudspeakers - currently it's driving Kef Coda 8.2... Since I bought it, it has been mostly switched on has delivered ever since.

Similar Products Used: Mission Cyrus 2 + PSX
OVERALL
RATING
5
VALUE
RATING
5
Peter Laan   Audio Enthusiast [Apr 08, 2000]
Strength:

heavy en solid contructed

Weakness:

litle bit slow and dull

Formerly Quad was an autority in the audioworld
now its only nostalgie and a lot of cheaper amps sounds better more lifelike.

Similar Products Used: accuphase e11, denon
OVERALL
RATING
2
VALUE
RATING
2
bart honhoff   Audiophile [Jul 31, 2001]
Strength:

Same sound as 306. Not spectacular. Great Sound, Lots of Power.

Weakness:

Connectibility to HighPowered PreAmps. (Any Quad is okay)
B&W speakers are not advised.

Great Amplifier. Gives more body to ESL-63 than the 306. You forget that you own them. They provide you with Music. And for that matter also okay for Surround Sets (Together with a 306 for the back-speakers it is a RatPack)
Maybe not as trendy as other Amplifiers, but these Amp will stand for many years to come, just like the 306 and the 303.
(I have to modify my 405 still)
Bit tricky with B&W speakers: Small and Big ones don't give the stability that KEF seems to have with a QUAD combo.
I tried several B&W speakers and none was as good sounding as most KEF speakers. (Even the old 104/2!)
With the ESL-63 great combination for Classical & Jazz. Voices cannot get better.

Similar Products Used: Quad 303/405(I)/306. Hafler. Sony (several), Revox, Tandberg
OVERALL
RATING
5
VALUE
RATING
5
Jan van Gent   Audio Enthusiast [Jul 15, 2001]
Strength:

Simple, solid, excellent support

Weakness:

Not found yet

I was perfectly happy with my Power Amp (a self built amp from the Elektuur) until its temperature stability got out of control. I decided to look around for a good replacement with a solid company and service organization behind it.

I am one of those people whose dad already owned Quad equipment so I was tempted to buy one as well.

When I found my 606 for a good price I checked with the distributor for the Benelux. These people provide a superb service, they don't try to sell you the latest model but they gave me all the information I wanted and more than that. Thumbs up for Transtec in Rotterdam.

I then decided to buy it but I didn't expect the sound quality to be better than my old amp, I just though to have an similar quality amp but with less hassle.

Well was I wrong ! When I hooked it up to my Luxman pre-amp and my B&W speakers the whole set just came to life. Deep solid bass, crystal clear highs. The transparency that comes from this machine just took my whole set to a new level. Just when I thought I had to upgrade my speakers the 606 showed me that there's more in them than I knew.

Conclusion : Very good, worry-free, hi quality amplifier. Excellent distributor channel.

Similar Products Used: Luxman integrated amps, The power Amp from Elektuur
OVERALL
RATING
5
VALUE
RATING
5
Andrew Drummond   Audio Enthusiast [Nov 02, 1999]
Strength:

Relaxed, open sound

I have a Quad 707. There is nothing wrong with this amplifier unless it is used with a Quad pre-amp like the 34, 44, or even the later pre-amps, as pre-amps do not seem to be Quads strong suit. Any comments below about limited bandwidth are probably due to the pre-amps used - the power amps are great!
I run it with Rogers LS3/5as and AB/1s with a passive pre-amp and Micromega CD.

OVERALL
RATING
5
VALUE
RATING
5
Pat   an Audio Enthusiast [Apr 22, 1999]

Although I have sometimes travelled to the bigger cities such as Ottawa, Halifax, Montreal, and Chicago, in Fredericton we do not have as large a selection. However, the Magic Forest Music Store carries brands one will find in the better stores in the larger cities, speakers such as Paradigm and Mirage, and electronics Bryston, Nakamichi, Quad, and also Yamaha in more ordinary price ranges. He carries no junk. On my travels, I tried out a number other sorts of amplifiers-Forté, Classé, and so on, even the super-expensive stuff by Krell and Conrad Johnson.
My test material ranged from recordings of orchestra, chorus, band, and organ to Three Blind Mice jazz samplers. There is one brass recording which often sounds different with different amplifiers, a Nimbus recording called Gabrieli & St. Mark's with the British Wallace Collection, named after trumpeter John Wallace. They play rings around the Canadian Brass on this material. This would surely be my candidate for the World's Best Brass Recording.

About 6 years ago, I decided to upgrade my system, which still included the old Kef 104aB loudspeakers. That is a large bookshelf design over 20 years old with the T27 tweeter, the 8-inch woofer-midrange, and the oval passive radiator, plus or minus 2db from 50-20,000 Hz, with useful bass down to around 30 hz. It still is quite a good speaker, though not as robust as modern designs. They are not perfect, but for years and years, it was hard to find anything remotely reasonable which was as good, let alone significantly better for home listening. However, one consideration for a new amplifier was that it should be able to drive any speakers I might purchase later, such as the big Paradigm or my ideal, the Quad ESL-63.

Locally, the amplifier choices came down to the Rotel 980 100 watt integrated amplifier, the Bryston 3B-NRB, and the Quad 606. This is the earlier model of the Quad 606. I have not heard the 606 II, but from the reviewers, I gather the chief difference is the latter has more current capacity. We did not actually have the latter two available, but had a Bryston 4B-NRB and a borrowed Quad 306. Of course, I would listen to whatever the actual choice was when it arrived in the store, so this is not as chancy as it might seem.

For speakers, we used my ancient Kefs and also some Paradigm Studio Monitors. The Rotel 980 sounded very nice, I must say, and would be a good choice for anyone wanting to drive the old Kef 104s. Rick Bastedo listened a bit to my old Kefs, and remarked that maybe I would need the big 4B, as the Kefs are obviously not very efficient. They are quite reactive speakers, although their impedance curve does not go below about 7 ohms in the bass, so they need a good amplifier. The Rotel would have driven the old Kefs quite nicely, and it was somewhat under $1000 Canadian; I was not at all certain I would want it for the Quad electrostats.

The little Quad 306 and the Bryston 4B-NRB actually sounded very similar on a lot of music,orchestra, chorus, jazz, although the big Bryston had more current for kick in the deep bass. What tipped the scales for me was that Nimbus brass recording. With the Quad 306, I could hear every little vibration in the whole Wallace Collection, whether loud or soft, even at very low levels. I have heard much the same thing with amplifiers at several times the cost, but most amplifiers simply lose the details of the brass sound even at ordinary levels, and certainly at low levels. This is not unpleasant, of course. Fine as it was, the Bryston sounded different from the Quad, and not as detailed at extremely low levels.

These characteristics were retained when Rick got in the Quad 606, and of course, it can put out a lot more current than the 306, so the bass response is very good. We hooked them up the to Paradigm Studio Monitors. The Quad did nto sound the same as the Bryston in the deep bass, but I really do not know which sounded better. For example, with one old Karl Richter organ recording, it was quite clear in Bach's Passacaglia in C that two pipes were sounding one passage, though the Bryston is quite outstanding in the low bass. But don't get me wrong, the Brystons are great amplifiers.

Well, these small differences may not seem very important to everyone, but they tipped the scales for me. The Quad 606 will drive just about any ordinary speaker, but the Bryston would have more current capacity. The Brystons also have a 20 yeAR guarantee; not that I had any reason to doubt the reliability of the Quad. Other considerations are that I quite like the Quad preamplifiers, with their tilt control, which is really a very useful an unobtrusive type of tone contro. Their preamps are very quiet, and you can set them on top of the Quad amplifier without hearing any hum, even on phono. I do not do this, but you could. The phono preamp has many settings to adjust to the characteristics of different phono cartrides. Besides,I like the styling. I got the Quad 44, but could have done just about as well with the Quad 34, I think.

For my money, the Quad 606 amplifier is about as good as you can get for most home listening applications, though I cannot speak for the super-expensive ones. It (and the Brystons, for that matter) stands up very well compared to some famous amplifiers at several times the cost. The Quad 606 never gets more than pleasantly warm, it sounds wonderfully smooth and natural, and it has plenty of power for most conventional speakers. My system projects a nice image with good recordings, and I do not understand those who think the Quad amplifier cannot do this.

As it happens, Magic Forest had a pair of used Quad ESL-63s on sale a few years ago, and I just could not pass them up. The Quad 606 drives them very nicely, thank you very much. It is no surprise that the some use Bryston amplifiers with the FREDs with good results.

I am not one of those who finds major defects with all sorts of good products, based on ever so subtle differences in sound. For me, the Quad 606 sound somewhat better than most, and as I said, it sounds quite different from most on that Nimbus brass recording. I have heard nothing since which would lead me to change my mind, though I must say I do not have the income to be changing my system all the time. Anyway, for performance and price, the Quad 606 get a top rating for me.

OVERALL
RATING
5
VALUE
RATING
Nickolas Horton   Audio Enthusiast [Feb 02, 2001]
Strength:

Inherited a 606 made in 1988 and a FM4 made in 1985 both in mint condition. The quality of build is first class so is the sound.

Weakness:

Nextel paint


Well made, good powerfull sound and matches well with quad 34 and CD 66 player. Sound is the same as Quad 306 but with more grunt. Internal quality was dust free and like new.

Similar Products Used: Rotel 120WRMs and quad 306
OVERALL
RATING
5
VALUE
RATING
5
big brother   Audiophile [Oct 05, 2001]
Strength:

All

Weakness:

Non

I¡¦ve been hearing Quad for more then 10 years. 34+306 to 44+405 to 66+606 to 77+707. I think 707 is not only the upgraded model of 606 but also the sound and the look, it¡¦s all-different from the old quad. It¡¦s a brand new sound. The new quad solves the weakness problem of pre-amp---a little byte harsh. And the weakness of power amp----a little byte slow.
707 is more honest, powerful, detail and fast. The most important thing is 707 must marry 77. And must with quadlink unless you link with other cost 600.
77+707 is wonderful for me.

Believe your ears.

***The rating is for 707

Similar Products Used: Nad 3020i,carver,Rotel 960BX,CR,linx,audiolab,quad,etc.
OVERALL
RATING
5
VALUE
RATING
5
Joseph   an Audio Enthusiast [Dec 08, 1998]

First of all, this power amp. is pretty sensitive (0.5V input for the rated output). So if you couple it with some high gain, high votage output preamp., you have no turning space on the gain/volume control. Of course, it mate well with QUAD own 34/44/66 control unit, but I have read it somewhere on rec.audio.high-end that it has good synergy with Threshold FET-9/10 preamp. I have also heard that the a 707 (a revised 606 with the new QUAD bus connector) or a 606 Mk II sounds better than the original 606 but I have never been able to make the comparison.
This is a power amp. for a person who wants to listen to music rather than who wants to tweak with his/her equipment. It is by no mean a very high-end power amp., but boy, does it reproduce music! This is a power amp. which I always want to go back to. Connected with QUAD ESL-63 they make you forget about the equipment. They just make the music flow through your room to you smoothly and nicely IMHO. You can also pair up the 606 with any incarnation of LS 3/5As. I have tried a pair of Spendor 3/5As with good results. These combos sound their best with classical chamber musics, Jazz, any vocal musics, and instrumental musics; the power amp. sounds a little bit, shall I say, congest with big orchestral musics like the climaxes from any Bruckner symphonies. But, don't get me wrong, it won't make you feel uncomfortable with orchestral msuics. It's just that 606 is not in its best with them. The high and low are not very extend, but for some reasons, I don't find this disturbing once my favorite music is playing. I guess I always have a soft spot in my heart for QUAD stuffs (I own QUAD 33, 303, 34, FM-4, 606, ESL-63s currently. Anyone has excellent condition QUAD FM-3 and CD67 for sale? :-)). I never listen to any techno, rave, heavy metal, hard rock... etc. and I can't say if 606 would fit those music genres.

Anyhow, if you believe in audio component should only be a tool to bridge the gap between the music recordings and the listeners, and you're not very enthusiastic about playing around with equipments, this is the power amp. for you. I will give it four stars.

p.s.: I think I'm the first one who post a review on QUAD 606 here (the person who openned up this category did not post a review). Hope somebody could share their thoughts on 606 here later on.

OVERALL
RATING
4
VALUE
RATING
kctan   an Audio Enthusiast [Jan 10, 1999]

I bought a set of Quad 34/606 for my parents in 1989 (I guess?) when I was still living with them. The first good thing is the set has never broken down on us. Usage has been and is still extremely frequent as all our entertainment (i.e. TV, CD, Cassette, VCR, VCD, etc.) is channeled through it. We use a pair of KEF 105 II, which has also been trouble free for 10 years.
I have since moved out to my own place. Frankly, I was not convinced at the beginning that Quad is as good an amplifier any other. My purchase in 1989 was justified more by the reliability than the sound quality of the equipment. As a hi-fi bug, when I moved out in 1990 (from my parent's place) I went on to search for the so-called 'hi-fi nirvana' and during those times (1990/97) I have owned amplifiers such as Musical Fidelity, Audiolab, Audio Innovations, Copland and Exposure (the best of the lot). I am not saying that these equipment are not good but somehow Quad keep drawing me back with its sense of musicality and its most natural tonal balance. Yes, I have heard better systems but they cost silly money! Quad to me offer the best balance of reliability / sound / money to music lovers.

Therefore, my return to Quad in 1997 was somehow predicted. I did not want to miss the chance to buy a Quad 66/606II as I knew then that the present range is going to be phased out. The ownership change in Quad may not guarantee the same sound and I do not want to buy something that I am not familiar with. After my purchase, I have compared my 66/606II with my parent's 34/606 and found that there is no major difference between the two. As far as I can recall, the newer 66/606II offers better clarity and definition, which allow the listener to follow the line(s) of music a little bit better. As such, the imaging improves. This is as far as I can remember of the little difference between the two … by no means material given that 34/606 is close to 10 years older than my latest purchase! This goes to show that any old 606 is a good buy provided the transformer is in good working order and does not hum.

For a Quad owner, it is also good to know that Quad equipment is used in recording studios worldwide. I believe that in order to get closest to 'studio sound'; one needs to own 'studio standard' equipment. It is no use owning high-resolution equipment, which at the end of the day put 90% of your CDs/LPs into the dustbin. I have seen many hi-fi enthusiasts lost sight of the simple purpose of a hi-fi system - which is to convey as exactly as possible the original music - in their quests for the 'perfect sound'. These are the same people who take more pleasure in owning expensive equipment but not the software. It does not take a genius to know at this point that there is no 'perfect sound' in the hi-fi world as they are only recorded music. Different recording techniques/studios/equipment will yield different results playing through different systems. The permutations are aplenty and to say one system is superior to the other could be in many cases quite misleading. My believe is to keep my hi-fi system 'pure and simple' based on tested principles and this has so far enable me to enjoy a wide range of music.

My system now comprises Micromega 2.1/Duo BS, Quad 66/606II and Rogers Studio 2a (the 'washing machine' size studio monitors). The sound is devoid of sibilance; and the tonal balance is neutral and free from glare. The system is a good antidote to the CD-format which has proven to be 'harsh, clinical and bright' in many instances. I still come across CDs' that sound harsh/bright. Fortunately, the tone control of my preamp (Quad 66) has been effective in toning this down to a bearable level. This is yet another praise to Quad for coming up with such an effective tone control. Overall, I would say that I am very happy owning a Quad set and therefore, award five stars to each of the equipment (i.e. Quad 66 and 606II); more as a combination than as separates. And I am not so sure in this crazy world of hi-fi today; there is anyone out there who is happy owning the same equipment after ten years!

OVERALL
RATING
5
VALUE
RATING
Showing 1-10 of 13  

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.

audioreview.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

Other Web Sites in the ConsumerReview Network:

mtbr.com | roadbikereview.com | carreview.com | photographyreview.com | audioreview.com