I have this Quad CD 63 hooked up to an Affordable Valve Company High End KT88 integrated amplifier with silver plated audio interconnects from Vann Damme with Epic speaker cable from Chord,,,,,,The speakers are single wired Linn Kelidah's

They say there is no bass from this CD player and the Linn Kelidahs are a difficult load for a valve amp....I have never heard in all my years 30 odd a system that is as simply musical...The depth of Bass is excellent and very organic and believable...Female vocals in fact any vocals male or female are precise but carry a lovely relaxed and real tone....

The decay of instrumentation is so obvious and the music pulls you in....The Quad cd player is simply the best I have ever heard.....I was going to get an off board DAC but don't see any point as I don't think it could be improved on without spending mega money.......

now i can spent 10.000 dollars on a cd player but it is hard to find a better one.
wadia 860 will do krell 300 cd is a dog

I owned this beautiful player for about 2 years before swapping it for the newer Quad 77. Each player has its own strengths and weaknesses, but if I had to pick the one I'd take to a desert island that has a running power supply (of course!), it would have to be the older model.
The Quad CD67 is beautiful in all aspects. Very well made, gorgeous finish, simple layout... and great sound. The previous reviews here pretty much capture how it sounds like. Excellent midband and treble (soft yet detailed), but not much bass to speak of.

I've spent many, many hours in a darkened room listening to the Quad 67 make music with female vocals, acoustics and chamber music. The realism is simply stunning. It is really THE player to beat for simple, atmospheric music. The sound just hangs in the air like an exquisite perfume... nothing is forced down your throat in the way that my Naim Nait 3 amp does, for instance.

Where it comes apart is with big orchestral works, electronic pop and complicated rock. When the passages get busy, the player has a tendency to get muddled and confused (!). It simply cannot keep track of the goings-on. In this respect, the Quad 77 is a little better.

If you play the right kind of music at reasonable listening levels (the sound hardens quite noticeably when played loud) the Quad CD67 is sheer magic. This really is a player for listeners with a more "mature" taste.

By comparison, the Quad 77 is nothing really special. It is beefier, no doubt, but coupled with the laid-back, "natural" sound that is traditionally Quad, the Quad 77 sounds lazy and fat (!). In fact, I'm selling it off to get the Audio Refinement Complete CD player.

I've had mine for five years now, and I must say I am very content. By that time, the CD player I figured was the closest competitor was the TEAC VRDS-10, and I compared both in my home. The choice was obvious! In my system of a passive preamplifier (McCormack's LineDrive), Tandberg's lesser poweramp (TPA 3026A - 2 x 100 W) driving a pair of Quad ESL-63s the TEAC was way too lean and uninvolving. It is probably better suited to a livelier system than mine. But the Quad truly sang! Especially vocals were very well projected and dynamic. And here lies the strength of the Quad 67 - its midrange. It is dynamic, lush, and involving. Treble is good too, but it does have traces of grain, especially noted with high, loud orchestral violins. Bass is absolutely adequate for my system, but others have noted that the extreme low bass could be better. I really don't think you can hear that on the ESL-63's though. Give them a good poweramp with a high damping factor and the Arcici stands and place them well and the bass is quite stunning down to maybe 40 Hz. And the 67 is not a weak performer here either. The weakness - if there is one - is probably only noticed further down.
So this is a very decent CD player. Buy it second-hand (you have to, since it is not made anymore), and I think its value for money is very hard to fault. You will have to pay a lot more to get better CD sound. It's built like a tank too. In this context it is therefore well worth 5 stars (or loudspeakers).

I spent 2 years hunting down this CD player. That ought to give an indication of how much I respected its performance. I finally managed to get my hands on one second-hand, but I had to buy the guy's entire system in order to get the CD player because he was unwilling to break them up!
But it was well worth the effort, because the Quad CD67 immediately rewarded me with an open and airy sound. Imaging and soundstaging is top-class - you can almost imagine where the musicians stood in the studio in relation to one another. Okay, maybe that's stretching it a little, but there's space between performers and stereo depth is so obviously there that you don't have to strain your ears to find it.

Compared to the Arcam Alpha 5 CD player, the sound is lighter yet more detailed. By contrast, the Arcam is punchier and beefier, and is likely to please rockers more. But this is not to say that the Quad 67 is not dynamic... it is, but it has a different balance compared to the Arcam's "earthier" tones. With female vocals and classical music the Quad wins hands down.

Somebody recently offered to buy the Quad 67 from me at the original retail price (it's now about 4 years old), but I wouldn't part with it. You can't get a higher recommendation than that, surely!

I used to think CD players did not make much of a difference. Couldn't havebeen more wrong. As the final link in my (latest) updgrade, this Quad CD
player, bought used at an obscenely low price ($1,700 list) has allowed my
other components to reach their potential. (DNA .5, B&K 1000, Snell D,
audioquest indigo, wireworld equinox). Doing the AB comparison with my
Pioneer PD-59, the Quad proved amazing at delivering clarity and detail
against a big, wide, black soundstage that the Pioneer couldn's touch. I've
never heard my speakers sound so open, or the music so refined. Erykah
Badu was in my lap, Elton John's remastered 1971 Honky Chateau sounded
like it was being recorded in my living room. Complaints? Maybe just a tad
light on the bass. So what.

I first got into this whole weird world of hi-fi about 9 months ago, when I startedto put together my first stereo system. Since then, the madness to put
together the perfect system has been unending. However, since I got this
cd-player, I can actually see the light at the end of the hi-fi tunnel. First, here's
the techie stuff: the Quad 67 is an "integrated"single disk cd-player; it
originally listed for about $1700.00 (I got mine 6-months new at a local hifi
shop for $600.00,now how cool is that?!!) The chassis is very simple, with only
a power button and drawer switch on the front panel; all other functions are
performed by the remote.
The unit is rather small in size, about as wide as Linn or Meridian components
but not quite as deep.
OK, now for the sound. The first time I heard this unit I was a liitle
unimpressed, but I think this was due to the room it was set up in as well as
the electronics it was matched up with. The second time I went to give it a
listen, we had the unit set up in a more isolated room with much better
electronics. What a difference! We listened to Sarah Mclachlan's Fumbling
Towards Ecstasy CD all the way through and each track gave me shivers! All
that stuff about being there and seeing into and around the music, it was all
there. The presentation was open, detailed, and smooth. Sounstaging was
excellent and there is an incredibly low noise floor, I guess the best way to
describe it is "blackness".There's not a hint of static or buzz or any other
artifacts.It is a laid back player so you don't get that umpteenth level of low
level detail like "humingbirds farting in the studio" but I believe that, as
interesting as that would be to hear, this whole, sick quest is about getting the
music right. Isn't it? Anyway, I've listened to this player almost nonstop for 72
hours in my home system and I just cannot stop listening! Everything I play
through it sounds awesome.So excellent sound, great build quality and an
awesome transport section, what else could I do but give this player five
stars?

This is a brief review of my QUAD 67CD:
This is the second CD player which QUAD made after their QUAD 66CD. It use a Philips CDM-9 transport mechanism; if you are not happy about its internal D/A, you can use it as a transport with one of your favorite out-box D/A. The footprint of this player is small and conforms to other QUAD components before the introduction of 77 series.

Anyhow, this CD player gives you a smooth presentation. The timbre is true to the instruments being presented. The mid-range is gorgeous. If you like any kind of acoustic and vocal musics, you will not be disappointed by this CD player. It is fine for small ensemble musics, too, like string quartet, jazz quartet... and so forth. It mates well with my ARC LS-7, ARC D-90, and QUAD ESL-63. Ironically enough, I bought this for my QUAD 34 and 606, but I haven't had a chance to set them up, yet. It should go well with them by default.

If you want to have a CD player which give you excitement then look elsewhere. It seems to not have a very extended bottom end. It didn't give me the sense of impact from the bass string with guitar musics, or the weight of the bass notes from the left hand of the pianist. So, for some of you, you may feel that it is a little bit too soft and smooth. But this can be the fault of my associate equipements and/or the problem with the room acoustic. After a year of ownership of my QUAD ESL-63 I still haven't find the ultimate placement position. Well, I guess I'm too lazy to move things around. Some of you may think that ESL-63 don't have bass but set up correctly it will give you a surprise. Yes, they won't give you the bass from, say a big pair of Thiel, or the Genesis APM-1, but they will give you clean bass. Remember: the frequency response of ESL-63s should be flat down to 40Hz. Ok, so much for the this sidetrack on ESL-63.

Later on I may try the similar priced ARCAM Alpha 9 or even a NAIM CD-3.5. I want to see how it performs compare to a high-tech "24/96" CD player (ARCAM) and a CD player with very competent and well designed power supply but traditional D/A section (NAIM). I will even compare it with my Panasonic DVD-A310 (as a CD player, that is), Philips 960, and (alas!) Philips CD 304. If these all happened, I'll post the brief results (like this one) according to their product models.

To sum up, I find this player a very good CD player for acoustic musics with fair low frequency extension. Hope someone will share his/her views on this superb CD player soon.

sound

remote system

it is so mutch better than the kreel 330 cd

Similar Products Used:

krell 250 and 300 cd

I second all that has been said by the previous reviews. I have been aware of the Quad 67 for some time now, and was just lucky enough to get one second hand. Gets the balance right between soloist and accompanying instruments. Wonderful resolution of detail. Always enthralls but never in your face. Possibly a little lean in the bass but still rocks through my Opera Primas. (Well,theres rock and then ROCK, but they are sited close to where we listen) My wife and I are both professional musicians and she is among the majority of our colleagues to whom hifi means nothing. She was listeneng and said "That´s just heaven". Only drawback is that they´ve stopped making them.