Improving a new Quad 909
One of our French customers, who is working in professional audio, bought a new Quad 909 to drive his Tannoy studio-monitors.
We measured a Total Harmonic Distortion of 0,8854% (!) and a Signal-to-Noise Ratio of 81,4dB at full power with 8 Ohm load. The total power before clipping was 120W RMS. Very bad figures for a high-end amplifier... And much worse than the "classical" 606 the 909 is based on.- The power-supply
- The amplifier-boards
- The input-board for the Quadlink
The power-supply board is the "classical" board known from the 606-II and the 707 with a Toroïdal transformer and 4x 15000µF capacitors in a dual-mono design. Only, the original BHC Aerovox capacitors have been replaced by Chinese CapXon capacitors.
We took them out to test them with the Hameg LCR meter.
The BHC Aerovox was the ALP22A 63Volt, the CapXon has no type-indication, it is a plug-in two pin 80Volt 105° type.
We measured the capacitance at 100Hz, 1KHz, 10KHz and 25KHz with a 1V DC bias voltage. Both were within specifications (15mF or more) up to 1KHz. At higher frequencies the BHC scores better with 3x higher capacitance, for example 1100µF at 10KHz instead of 300µF for the CapXon.
The measured internal resistance is about the same and around 10mR at 1KHz.
This leads us to the conclusion that both capacitors are very comparable with a slight advantage for the BHC specifically in the higher frequencies. Of course this test doesn't say anything about the ageing of the capacitors after several hours of usage. The BHC has an excellent reputation for ageing. We decide to replace the 4 CapXon in the power-supply with BHC Aerovox.
Then we take a look at the amplifier boards. We replace the low-cost capacitors as usual, the electrolytes with Nichicon, the range between 1nF and 1µF with Wima MKS and the range below 1nF with Silvered Mica.
- The 4 Power-supply capacitors on the central board are replaced with BHC Aerovox 15000µF 63V ALP22A or ALC10C.
- (2x) R29 (in the bridge) is replaced with 10R 1/2W 1% Metalfilm
- (2x) R30 (in the bridge) is replaced with 47R 1/2W 1% Metalfilm
- (2x) C1, C4 and C6 (6 in total) are replaced with 330pF Silvered Mica
- (2x) C7 is replaced with 100µF 63V Nichicon
- (2x) C9 and C11 (4 in total) are replaced with 470µF 63V Nichicon
This way we have replaced all electrolyte capacitors with the best quality and we have adapted the bridge to the optimum value.

17 Comments:
Shame on Quad!No wonder people find their way back to DIY!If you can't buy good stuff for good money,the only way is to do it yourself.
But anyway,could you publish a little more on the test setup?I just can't imagine one can do such measurements with a standard PC audio input/output and a piece of software!
Hello Peter,
There will be an article about the test setup. In the end the setup was not so standard, but a high quality (pro) balanced soundcard, a custom breakout box to set the levels, and to conect al the equipment and running it on a 64 bit operating system.
Regards
Joost Plugge
DaDa Electronics
I dont suppose theres a serial number cutoff point where you can identify if you have a 'cheap' 909 or original spec one? sadly.
Hello Shaun,
We don't know when Quad started to use other capacitors than the BHC ones.
Joost
Hi can you publish the full measurments you made for the quad 909, ie at what fequencies you measure the distortion levels and signal to noise ratio vales. I have a quad 909 and am wondering if it actually performs as per the specification, there is little buzz coming out of both speaker at very low lvel when you put your ear to them so the may not be performing per specification, quad manual give the following specs,
Total Harmonic Distortion 0.02% (100W into 8Ohms; 20Hz - 20kHz), Signal to Noise ratio (70W) 108dB (20Hz to 20kHz).
Did the amp perform as the above specification. I would like the know if not how did it perform.
Hello,
We don't have the measurements any more from that particular Amp. But first take care of that buzz. Check if its the 909 or a source connected to it. Remove the input from the 909, check if the humm is still dare. We had reports about 909's with internal hum caused by low qulity coils. Within a few day's I will measure my own 606. I will publish those figures. I currently don't have a 909 on the workbench or on the shelve.
Regards,
Joost Plugge
Hi you said that you recalculated the bridge resistors r29=10 and r30=47 to give a total resistance of 47+10 = 57 as opposed to 22 + 22 = 44 in the original circuit design, i assume you measured the value of L4 and found it to be 1.5u Henrys, i mention this because i have a quad 306 which gives the exact same values for the bridge components in the circuit diagram as in the quad 909 circuit diagram, but the vale for L4 = 1.5u henrys is incorrect, i removed the inductor in my 306 and it measured to be 1.15 u henrys which is the correct value for balance. So did you measure all the values in the bridge and what were they.
Hello,
We checked the value, and it was correct. But you are right, when de value is lower than the 1.5uH the original resistor's will give the best result. Because not every body has a acurate inductance meter, we are planning to remove those components from our kits and trust Quad that they did the right thing.
Joost Plugge
DaDa Electronics
Hi Stefaan,
so are you saying that the resistor values that u recommended to replace r29=10 and r30=47 are wrong?
Is there any cause for me to worry? As I've already replaced all parts recommended by you in my 909.
Hello Ryan,
Ass long we are not certain about the value of the L Quad used, we do not advise to change the resistors in the bridge. Sorry about this.
Regards Joost Plugge
DaDa Electronics
Hi stefaan i thought you were going to post the measured performance distortion figures of your quad 606.
Hello Heathpw,
I will publice the results on short notice, sorry for the delay.
Kind Regards,
Joost Plugge
Are those distorton figures at 20KHZ, you have said, and the IM distortion seem very high, a poor result. I will test my own Quad 306 and 909 amplifier and post the results for comparison.
Hello Heathpw,
I measured at 1Khz. Quad never published IM (Din) distorsion results for the 606 family. So I don't now of this is a "poor" result. We waite for your measurements.
Kind Regards,
Joost Plugge
DaDa Electronics
Hi Stefaan
I just came across your site; an interesting read although I won't have time to go through your archives. Your results on testing the Quad 909 are quite shocking. When I designed this product I introduced new components throughout with great care and the sound and measured performance were greatly superior to the earlier but almost identical 606. To most listeners it was a different amplifier. Many of the components as specified had to be imported from Europe; inconvenient but necessary.
It seems that the factory no longer bothers and fits generic components. With factories everywhere, not just China, the designer has to keep monitoring the production because the factory will substitute components for convenience; to save money or even to fit a "better" part with the best of intentions.
I adopted the same philosophy as with Rotel; Cambridge Audio and many other companies I designed for where there is no one component or circuit feature that is vital but the overall combination works very well. Change one thing and the balance is lost.
With best wishes to you
Stan Curtis
What about making an AmpBus cable that only has the pin that shuts the 909 on and off connected?
So I have removed the Quad link board, connected the led with a 10k resistor is series to the spare DC connection on the pcb.
The 2 amp inputs are now connected direct to the phono sockets.
Put back together fired up and sound great. Thanks for the tips.
Post a Comment
<< Home