Planar Speaker Asylum

Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.

Planar Speaker Asylum

RE:Good luck

188.28.13.116

In Reply to: RE:Good luck posted by Satie on August 07, 2010 at 11:16:50

Thanks Satie,
I'll have to see about the outputs on the Promitheus, - and perhpas the XLR outputs don't work unless you are inputing from the XLR inputs?(and vice versa with RCA) I'll have to check it out.
I am a bit paranoid that the version with 2 RCA outputs is better for me, - perhpas it takes two separate taps from the transformers and avoids the impedance inssue? Proabbly not though, - its probably as you say and no difference from using a Y splitter on one output, - there are photos of the inside of various versions of this preamp on the internet, - will have to see if I can find one that will show me for sure how the version with 2 RCA outputs is wired up.

So if I had an impedance issue on the mid/tweeter side, - a problem going from the preamp to the power amp on that side, - could I use something like one of the tube buffers to help the issue?, - or would that add coloration etc and not be a good idea or not work well?

I am a still a bit tempted by the Anateks, despite the possible resale problems, they do look like very good amps for the money. I guess on a 3 series Maggies if I am using them for the mid and treble units only they might drive them OK. One thing I am curious about is that part of the mid/tweeter crossover (in passive state) for the 3.3R is in the external box (like look a cap and an inductor), - and then it goes onto the internal crossover. I guess that part of the external crossover cuts off some of the bass before it reaches the internal crossover?. If I am running to the internal crossover section directly and not going through this part of the external crossover first don't I need something that will mimic the same thing? (or does the cap you suggested do that?). I realise if I ran to the internal crososver of he 3.3R from the Behringer active crossover first I could easily program the Behringer to output a bass cut signal, but like you say the quality doing through the Behringer will be compromised compared to the more direct route.

Sorry again if these sound like noob questions!
Cheers again,
Colin

Follow Ups:

RE:Good luck - Satie 12:44:35 08/07/10 (54)
If you do end up with an impedance issue, one of the tube buffers would do it as would a SS buffer like the Burson.

Re High Pass filter for 3.3 mid/treble is exactly one capacitor - whether done in line level or passive. It is the same circuit just different values. You understand it correctly. Of course, the Behringer can do the job, but you do have a problem with its sound quality.

BTW there is an English maker of a major modification for the Behringer. It has two parts - one replaces all of the input and output circuits with audiophile quality parts and "disappears" some pro-audio only features. The other board redoes the power supply.
- RE:Good luck - Davy 12:53:59 08/07/10 (53)
  Thanks Satie,
  Oh I see so the high pass is just one capacitor, - cool. For the mid/treble branch from the preamp, were you suggesting to use a line level cap between preamp and power amp, or to use the cap passively after the power amp just before it hits the internal crossover?
  The English mods for the Behringer sound good, - is this a DIY job though? (I would be likely to mess it up!) Or might they install it for you for a fee? What the name of the company that does the boards?
  All the best,
  Colin
  
  Edits: 08/08/10
  - RE:Good luck - Satie 05:56:12 08/09/10 (49)
    The Audiosmile mod seems to be the best Behringer mod deal on your little island.
    
    The MF X10 buffers are very nice and are reputed to respond very well to some simple mods. They make life very much easier when you have questionable impedance matches (very often - it is by far the most common cause of system problems). For some fun, you can try an Eastern Electric BBA for a spectacularly flexible gain stage to the Prometheus.
    
    I was suspecting that the Anateks would have some drive issues, but on an SMG? So much for this minimalist concept. I guess its like the Gamut amps, you buy them for the midrange magic, not bass dynamics.
    - RE:Good luck - Satie 12:41:12 08/10/10 (44)
      The 20k input impedance should still be good for most tube pres and passives, but is obviously not as good as having 50K or more. So the Arcadia should at least be tried out.
      
      I am thinking that if you like the 606 and it appears it would last a longer time than you are used to in your 2.7 setup, and you like the tone controls so much, why not rid yourself of the NAD pre and the redundant Moth passive, and keep the 66 - the 99 appears to be the same thing with only 3 V output- though I have not investigated it - is it?. I was looking at the "new" Underwood modified 24 last year. What is your other SS pre?
      
      I would say that a buffer is likely to be useful in front of the low input impedance device when splitting the output of a tube pre or a passive. If you can ply away one of that guy's modded X10's that might help.
      - RE:Good luck - Davy 13:15:10 08/10/10 (43)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Good luck posted by Satie on August 10, 2010 at 12:41:12
        
        Cheers Satie,
        I already tried the Arcadia with the 606 and something sounds slightly wrong, - don't know what it is. It sounds a bit too thin. I've tried it too on my Nad 208 power amp many times as well and it sounds even thinner there. When the Arcadia is connected to the Art Audio Quintet valve amp it sounds great however.
        I have no idea what the output impedance of the Arcadia is it most likely the culprit coupled to the low impedance input of the SS amps. I guess the buffer would help, - I am going to look for a used MF, - it will comes in handy anyway. You are right I should contact that guy, - he is keen on selling alot of his stuff as he lost a World Cup soccer bet!, - thats why he is selling those Anateks so cheap. Though I'd feel a bit bad possibly taking advantage of someone like that.
        
        I think the Quad 99 preamp has a slightly higher output of 775mv (rather than the 500mv of the 66) which corresponds to the slightly lower sensitivity of the partnering 909 power amp (which is 0.75V for max output rather than the 0.5V of the 606). Part of the reason I am interested in the 99 is becuase I have read it probably sounds a little better than the 66, and also because it has a MC phono stage with adjustable loading and input sensitivity (the 66 just has a MM stage), and the line level inputs on the 99 have adjustable input sensitivity too. I might try to get used 99 (if I can find one) whilst I have the 66 preamp and compare the two, and keep the best sounding one. The 6 series stuff was made in the UK of course and the 9series stuff is made in China. Nothing wrong wtih that of course, a lot of companies do that to remain competitive these days but its feels good that the 66 stuff was actually made in the Quad factory where it is was designed, rather than somewhere far away to keep the costs down.
        One thing is for sure these Quad tone controls are THE business, - they are so easy to use and so effective with a dipole speaker. I would definitely miss them if I didn't have them and I've only tried them out once so far!
        
        I was thinking of selling the Moth anyway, - not really using it. It is not bad but of course but I could probably knock up a better normal passive preamp using a better volume control myself if I wanted too.
        I'd be reluctant to sell the NAD preamp, - had it from new and had it a long time. And it does actually still sound pretty good.
        
        The other SS ""preamp I have is actually an integrated with pre outs, - its an Ion Obelsik 3 amp. It sounds quite good as a preamp too.
        
        I've had a LOT of preamps come and go though, phono stages, and power amps!
        
        The other tube preamp I have is the Yaqin MS-12B. Cheap, but it has two outputs, one with tons of output level, and I think (from remembering looking at the circuit) the signal is passed through a transistor on the way out of the unit to lower the output impedance. The only thing is this preamp sounds a little too tubey, - a bit too thick/dark and sweet, but in the right system its great and was very cheap is is no doubt great value. Its also a phono stage too. With the 2.7s it would not be great I think, - too dark, but with the Proacs its fine. Maybe I should consider modding it a little.
        
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE:Good luck - Davy 16:59:50 08/10/10 (42)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Good luck posted by Davy on August 10, 2010 at 13:15:10
        
        HI Satie,
        Just played around with my system tonight, - tried out the Quad 66 Preamp and the Promitheus TVC preamp again (with 606 and 2.7s). I know now that if I keep the 2.7s longer term there is just no way I can live without the tone controls on the Quad 66! The tilt is just so effective. What I read is that in some rooms planar speakers can have a tendency to produce a gradually rising or falling frequency response. I'm not sure why this is (if you have any ideas as to the reason that would be very interesting but don't worry if you don't know or have time to explain)
        I am sure in my room the 2.7s have a falling frequency response tendency, - perhaps, producing a dullish/dark sound with a lower mid emphasis, - perhaps its a little like this frequency response plot in this Quad 99 preamp review.
        
        http://www.georgeflanagin.com/99pre.php
        
        Putting the tilt up (more upper mid/less lower mid) 1 or 2 levels works wonders with the 2.7s. I will have to reserve full judgment until I get the 3.3Rs, and see if they have the same falling tendency in my small room, - they of course probably will.
        
        Going back to the Promethius, - Ok no tone controls so different sound, there is a lot of detail, very transparent and natural sounding and its better than the traditional Moth passive preamp, but I think I am really hearing a lack of dynamics with the Promitheus compared to the active pres I've tried. The Quad 66 is not known as a very dynamic sounding preamp and actually people think it could do better in the dynamics department, but compared to the Promitheus (coupled with the 606) its miles ahead! The sound using the Promitheus does in fact remind me of the sound I heard with the Anateks and SMGas. So perhaps it was not the fault of the Anateks poor drive of the SMGas and the preamp was the culprit for lack of dynamics/weak sound?
        I've heard that the newer Promitheus reference with C-core transformers is a lot better, - perhaps I should look for one of them. But in the meantime I might sell this Promitheus reference, - I should be able to always buy another one very easily secondhand if I need to as there are a lot around, -the standard model anyway, the transformers are the same just upgraded cabling and plugs (both silver) in the old ref version I have I think.
        
        I spoke to a guy on a forum that has the standard Promitheus with an AR power amp (not sure which model) and he replaced it with a Modwright valve preamp. He said the Promitheus was very good for the money but the Modwright is far more dynamic,- with lots more crash, bang wallop if you were. He described the Modwright as a lot more gripping and "electric" sounding too so I guess the dynamics are far better with that preamp. I guess the Promitheus is polite sounding in comparison.
        
        Do you think the lack of dynamics I am hearing with the Promitheus is just because its a passive pre and that's how they sound or due to a slight issue with the 20K input impedance of the 606?, Perhaps a buffer would help with the dynamics?
        
        As for the 66 I am not sure about selling this on now, - the tilt control is just too invaluable for me. I would only sell it to get a 99. Wait!, a cheapish 99 preamp has just appeared on ebay UK!, - I might consider getting this and selling the 66! Its supposed to sound slightly better. Might the 66 though still be better for my power amp (in terms of the sensitivity matching) do you think?
        
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE:Good luck - Satie 14:10:34 08/11/10 (41)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Good luck posted by Davy on August 10, 2010 at 16:59:50
        
        Planars interact with their rooms to produce rising or falling FR. It is a combination of interactions with room boundaries, seating distance, and reflectivity of surfaces. You really don't want to get into it - tilt control and triamping are the solutions that don't require changing rooms and furniture and adding room treatments. When triamping, you have full control of the balance between the drivers.
        
        The problem with passives is always a loss of dynamics. My Melos SHA Gold has a passive out that sounds like a straight wire - i.e. the interconnect sounds the same but with the pre I have volume and balance control. The issue is that I have a DAC with variable output up to 10 V. I set it to maximum to get the line output reaching the amp sufficiently high. That said, I don't believe I would have had sufficient dynamics if the active crossover were not there with its gain. With a normal 2V output, I don't believe passive pres are appropriate without a strong gain in the power amp - which is available in the 606.
        
        With my tube phono stage feeding the pre, the output is not quite sufficient in parallel passive and active, resulting in weak deep bass and limited dynamics. There is no such problem when impedance is over 25K and only a minor problem above 10K - nearly unnoticeable.
        
        If you want to try out a SET for Preamp output stage with the prometheus, you have what you need...
        
        RE:Good luck - Satie 14:35:44 08/12/10 (39)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Good luck posted by Satie on August 11, 2010 at 14:10:34
        
        Integrated? Then the Yaquin can be used as a preamp without the TVC. They will sound very different on a high Z load like a power amp's input.
        
        Re Prometheus, the preservation of dynamics, as I said, is a matter of source output impedance and voltage, and amplifier gain. Your normal source component will have 1 to 2 V - not enough in my experience, In passive I found I needed the full 10 V capacity of my DAC to do the job.
        
        Tubes are generally more linear than their SS counterparts. Being the only person in a decade to actually have done all of the experiments in Physics lab in undergrad, I know that the I/V curves of tubes are linear, and semiconductors are not. SS devices have an S curve for their output vs input and naturally compress as volume (input signal) increases by providing a proportionally lower output. What is worse, is that in a portion of the S curve, you have - at low levels - a greater than linear expansive output vs input. This makes the compression that much more obvious. Since this compression is distortion, then feedback can reduce it, but not without introducing signal cancellation and phase smear.
        
        Naim try to minimize phase smear and dynamic compression without introducing too many phase active components (caps) that eat detail. Since cables have to be there anyway and have capacitance and inductance, the "obvious for Naim" solution, is to equalize the phase shift in the cable. Their design philosophy sets them up high on the price tree since they use their SS devices only on the linear and more than linear portions of the S curve (like Pass does, just more so) This results in very dynamic sound and the worst watt per dollar curve outside of Audio Note Ongaku etc... They also highly regulate their power supplies and then use relatively expensive power supply caps and perhaps excessive in quantity. Hence their offering of enhanced power supplies as an option.
        
        A big problem is getting higher power. You end up needing enormous quantities of transistors and caps and trannies, you might as well go into 845 tubes or 211s and operate them in Class A push pull - like the Jolida Envoy.
        
        There is no solution to the problem without spending much money or building a more efficient speaker than a Maggie (what I did with my midrange).
        
        Some Class D amps are supposed to have a more linear upper power range, but outside of the NAD Masters series all digital amps, I don't really know which they are. The key is to have the switching chip complement the output device's S curve, but B&O have not done it in their ASP boards and I don't know who did it right other than NAD - which is both expensive and has a few other nits.
        
        If you Biamp, you may be able to get away with a NAP 250 + HICAP doing the top, and a class D doing the bottom. I should point out that the Musical Fidelity Supercharger 550 is relatively cheap on the used market because of a problem in its upper midrange, that makes it an excellent candidate for bass amp.
        
        RE:Good luck - Satie 14:13:14 08/14/10 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Good luck posted by Satie on August 12, 2010 at 14:35:44
        
        Re sound with Behringer and Naim and with passive line level filters. Neither of these are likely to restrict dynamics to any noticeable extent, and definitely less so than the passive speaker level components. I can tell you that taking the crossover off my Tympani contributed a tremendous rise in dynamics that was startling. In a comparison with a Revel Studio last year, the bass on the Tympani was deeper, clearer, more detailed, more tight and downright scary.
        
        The dual NAP250 sounds like a winner for a small to medium room - but may not work quite as well in a larger setting. But you do not have a problem directly coupling the Naim amps to the speakers so long as you have compatible cabling. As I said before, the Behringer and the passive line level filters are definitely less dynamically compressed than the stock crossover components. They will complement rather than impede the Naim sound.
        Re Quads. The 99 probably had to have some cost cutting done to allow for the additional features - like selectable input sensitivity adjustment.
        
        RE:Good luck - Davy 14:44:17 08/14/10 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Good luck posted by Satie on August 14, 2010 at 14:13:14
        
        Thanks again Satie,
        Good to know!That the Naims would be OK (and possibly better) using passive line level crossover for the mid/treble rather than the usual speaker level passive firs crossover stage.
        
        I think really should try the power amps I have now using this (passive line level first stage for mid/tweeter) as it might give me the increase in dynamics I am looking for. I am a little worried with Naim amps (which are very dynamic sounding to start with), - it might become too overly dynamic using active operation/ passive line level crossovers and might be approaching the unnatural overemphasized dynamics of that horrible DBL based system!!.
        
        It was dynamic enough for me hearing my Dads MGIIIs from one single NAP250 passively!
        
        I am worried if you use Naim amps like this
        Thanks again,
        Colin
        
        RE:Good luck - Davy 16:40:53 08/12/10 (36)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Good luck posted by Satie on August 12, 2010 at 14:35:44
        
        Thanks Satie,
        Wow you really know your stuff, - thanks for the great insight into the Naim amps (don't understand it all of course!, but I can follow it and its very interesting) . I've heard people say before the cable issue with Naim amps was just so they make you buy their own cable!, but its interesting to know it has some merit (having less components in the amp). I will say for sure my Dad's 80s set up of 32.5/HICAP/NAP250 pre/power combo was never less than magic with the MGIIIs. It was a really great combination in my opinion. I later tried those MGIIIs on some cheaper NAD amps (and some other better amps too) and they never sounded anything like as good as they did with the Naim amps. I heard that system in a lot of rooms too, some big, some small, and the NAP250 (like I say rated 70 watts into 8, 120 into 4) never did seem to run out of steam, - just driving the speakers passively with the crossover box with a single NAP250. It did however sometimes get very hot and maybe after 8 hours constant use or so it did sometimes shut down for some reason! So yeah the 250 drove the MGIIIs really great despite looking on paper like it doesn't have enough grunt. I think the amount of Ampage/current that amp can supply is pretty high compared to most amps of similar power so that probably helps a lot with Maggies. I suppose it depends on how loud you like your music. For some that like REALLY loud volumes the NAP250 would no doubt come up short.
        I personally really like the mid/treble of the Naim amps, - perhaps like you say in the future I could use a Naim power amp on the mid/treble section and a class D amp on the bass in active mode, - would be ideal I guess. I think the Naim power amps are class B designs, not the more usual class AB design.
        The Naim amps did indeed have really great dynamics with the MGIIIs, - they made the speaker really come alive, but I am thinking that whilst the dynamics are not as good with the Quad amps I have, perhaps using rigid stand with my Maggies might help a lot with the dynamics. We'll see I might aim for Naim amps in the long term. It will cost so much more than the Quad amps for some used 80s chrome bumper stuff like my Dad had but it might be just about attainable for me if I sold a lot of stuff! But I would have to factor in servicing I guess if they had not had it already! And sending it back to Naim for servicing is well known to be EXPENSIVE!
        Some people say Naim amps have over the top dynamics but I think it depends on the speaker, - my Dad's Naims worked well with the Maggie in my opinion. I heard a different Naim system at a guys house last year (about �30K worth of kit, - and it was actually a 10 year old system!, - CDS2/52/supercap/NAP500, - but a lot newer than the stuff my Dad had). This guy had big Naim DBL speakers and boy the system sounded horrible to me, - very loud, harsh, hard and such a massive massive unnatural overemphasis of dynamics. Its was mainly due to the speakers I think, - I really didn't like those DBLs, - more like a PA system or something. Crash bang wallop extraordinaire but it was so obviously not like real life! There was little clarity in the treble compared to Maggies too. Just coarse and nasty!
        Maybe the newer NAP 500 power amp sounds more overly dynamic like that than the NAP250 does , or maybe it was the speaker or the combination but I really didn't like it at all!
        I've heard many times that the 80s Naim chrome bumper kit is the best sounding Naim kit as that the stuff Julian Vereker designed /voiced. Opinions do vary though and the new stuff is very popular but some people think the older stuff is better. But like I say on the used market any of the main 3 type of Naim equipment (70s 80s chrome bumper, 90s olive case and the current 2000+range) cost so much money, even here. The prices in the USA much be even higher I guess! And new the prices of the current Naim range are insane! How about a CD player for �20K?!
        Similar to Linn stuff, - just ever increasing prices every year!
        
        Yes the Yaqin is an integrated amp, - it has some line level inputs which I think (!) go through an active line stage and one other different input which they call "pure post stage" which I think bypasses the line stage but the volume control still works, and it has less input sensitivity. I think its a more direct route to the power amp but I'm not sure.
        I can't test the amp now though, - its need fixing as its got a problem hum and also it won't even work at the moment as some water got in the circuit board (I think!) and at a point on the circuit board the HT arcs when you switch the amp on (very scary clicking sound!) so it needs to be fixed. I could try to bypass the arching point on the circuit board myself with a wire and it might work (and I had a look I can see where the spark/arching is!), but I just don't want to risk going inside this amp as I am aware of how high the voltages are!
        I will get it fixed soon, - its been sitting dead for nearly a couple of years now!
        The amp sounded quite good with the Proacs but it had different problems with the two type of inputs (normal active inputs and "pure post stage"). The active inputs had the hum (Pure post stage did not), active inputs had a fuller sound (than pure post stage), but a rolled off treble (the pure post stage input is less rolled off at the top for some reason). The pure post stage input sounds thiner than the active inputs. I think you are meant to use the pure post stage input with an active preamp but I'm not sure. Its got lower input sensitivity as well.
        Here is a photo of it
        http://www.uraltone.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/yaqin-ms-300b_1.jpg
        You can see the "pure post stage" input selector is the button on the left with the box around it. The amp uses a 5U4GB rectifier, 12AT7 line tubes, 6SN7 tubes as drivers and 2 300Bs. It has 8 ohms and 4 ohms speaker taps from the output transformers. Here is the schematic, - means very little to me though!, - on a glance does it look any good? (don't worry if you don't have time to look at it though of course!).
        http://www.4tubes.com/SCHEMATICS/Hi-Fi-Brands/YAQIN/Yaqin-MS-300B.jpg
        Its a heavy amp, - 27kg or so, there seems to be a lot of weight in the transformers, (though I heard that weight there does not always equate to quality). From what I remember it has quite a pure sound but its a little clinical sounding. The guy I bought it from reckoned that just how single ended amps sound, but I have since spoken to a real pro (the guy who I am going to get to fix this amp) who suggested that its possible to make a 300B single ended amp sound any way you want, if you know how to do circuit design. This guy told me that as well as fixing it he play around with it and try to turn it into something really special (I guess by upgrading parts and possibly altering the circuit) I ask him if he could do that, but he said it would be pricey to do , - near to �1k most probably - well more than the amp cost to buy new! (have no doubt it would be worth it though if I had the money, but I will give it a miss and just get it repaired I think!)
        Sorry this message seem to be going on a long time, - of course don't worry if you don't have time to reply to these every day, - just if you have time etc!
        I tried the Quad 99 preamp tonight,- not had time at all to test it properly yet but on first listen it sounds more trebly and more modern than the 66 preamp and less laid back. I am undecided. I think its better in my system but I have not tried out all the features yet and compared properly to all my other preamps , - will do at the weekend. The 66 does have a subtle sound which is nice and musical but its definitely a bit fuller and more laid back than the 99 which is probabyl not so good for the 2.7s. Funnily enough the tilt control on the 66 does seem quite a lot better/more effective than the one on the 99 for some reason (I though the newer preamp would have a better tilt!),- similar of course but the 66s one just seems to really work very well,- perhpas it jsut suits my speakers/room better than the 99 tilt?
        So I am not sure which of these two to keep, - I suppose it will be the 99 as I think it matches my system a bit better. ITs abit more lively and modern sounding than the 66. I also need to try out its adjustable phono inputs which I have not done yet. The 99 input sensitivity can be switched between 100mV, 300mV, or 775mV (100mV is the loudest). 300mV and 775mV input sensitivity for this preamp seem to both work well with the 606 power amp (100mV is too much). Do you think I might get better dynamics drive you using the 300mV louder input sensitivity rather than the 775mV? Or is this not related to the output level of the preamp?, - is it just an input level adjuster (I don't quite understand it to tell the truth!)
        I tried the Promethius and Moth preamps again, - both do sound good in terms of the detail and purity with the 606 amp (its very useful that power amp has such high sensitivty, - ideal for these passives). A loss of dynamics compared to the active pres yes, but for music with not so much dynamic requirements the extra purity of them is really good. The promethius is more detailed t the top which is nice but the Moth is quite good too, - I might keep it, - I would only get about �90-100 selling it and it might come in handy for active operation). Promitheus I am not sure but I do like it for sure, - I will probably keep it. Its interesting what you say about the output voltage, - so I might do better using a DAC with higher output voltage than using a CD player. Do many DACs Have high output levels like the one with 10Vs you mention or it that not so common?
        I am sure the 3.3R tweeter strips are at eh post office depot here down the road, so I am now free to take the 3.3Rs home, - probabyl early next week. But I need to get a Behringer and also work out how to set everything up of course!
        
        Anyway, sorry for such a long message, - I will stop droning on now and I hope I've have not sent you to sleep reading this!,
        All the best,
        Colin
        
        Edits: 08/12/10 08/12/10
        
        RE:Good luck - Satie 13:41:13 08/13/10 (35)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Good luck posted by Davy on August 12, 2010 at 16:40:53
        
        Well, I would not go for a High Power Naim because it is only going to be a good match to speakers with compressed mid-bass. With more linear/less compressed speakers, they may sound like the circus act you described with the All Naim system. Philosophical extremes taken to their ends in a cost no object design do not always result in good performance....
        
        The Yaquin looks like an interesting integrated, less so as such but perhaps as a preamp substitute or a buffer - but only once the SET hum is taken out. My deal breaker on SETs is the very common 60 hz hum leakage. It comes from bad power supply regulation due to adherence to classic designs from the 20s. For me, with a 95 db sensitive midrange, the hum is a non issue (out of band) to power that driver which would do some 103-5 db - peak, 105-8 db for the whole speaker with something like the Yaquin. With my tiny Dynacos in ultralinear with KT 90 EH tubes, I measured peaks north of 116 db spl playing Emanuel Ax on Brahms and Leslie Howard on Liszt. See if your repair guy can take the hum out by adding a regulation stage or two - perhaps do something with the PS for the cathode/filament.
        
        Re the 66 vs 99, The 99 attempted to address the criticism of quad equipment being soft at the FR extremes. They still got the same criticism but you seem to say they lost some of their "magic" musicality. I have no idea what is different in the implementation of the tilt control between the models. I do like the adjustable gain idea. I could definitely have used it.
        
        High output DACs are not rare, but not cheap. The best way to get one on a shoestring is as part of an obsolete home theater processor/preamp from the highest product ranges - like an early Theta Casablanca, a Mark Levinson Classe or Aragon Stage. You get a very good preamp and excellent DAC. I use a Musical Fidelity HTP. I turned off the digital dts and multichannel processing and the video board, and just use it as a volume controlled DAC. I was very impressed with Ken Kesslers review in the day, and found it all to be true. I would not suggest it to you since it is not high sample rate compatible.
        
        BTW by obsolete I mean lacking in HDMI or DVI. Those that also lack component video are even cheaper.
        
        Considering that you are missing the dynamic crunch and punch of a Naim, I would say you should just plain stay away from passives. Keep the TVC if you like, but don't expect too much even with a high output DAC.
        
        RE:Good luck - Davy 16:59:00 08/13/10 (34)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Good luck posted by Satie on August 13, 2010 at 13:41:13
        
        Cheers Satie,
        Thanks for the tips on modding the Yaqin, - will tell the repair guy what you've recommended!
        
        I�ve talked to a few people before about the Naim chrome stuff, - many consider that range to be better all rounders than the later kit. My Dads Naim Chrome bumper amps had:, - Pace, timing, musicality, great Dynamics and attack (and in no way unnaturally so like the DBL system I heard), transparency, refinement, superb realistic tone with real instruments, involvment. It just had everything you could ask/wish for and never missed a beat. I don�t know how the NAP250 was able to drive the Maggie MGIIIs passively so well on its own, especially when you consider its power rating on paper (125 watts into 4 ohms, hence the NAP250 name , - (rating for both channels into 4 ohms added together)), but it really did work very well with the MGIIIs. Great stiff power supply on the NAP250 and great current delivery I guess is the reason.
        
        All this talk about the Naim stuff has really stirred my memory of how good it sounded. I am thinking now that I could sell a lot of this other kit I have accumulated, - the 606, 99, 66, Promitheus and Moth, and that would give me just about enough to attain a used Naim pre/power combo such as the 32.5/Hicap/250 Naim system the same spec as my Dads. I could possibly also sell the NAD 208 and the Art Audio valve amp too and raise more money too. The Art Audio is useless for driving the Maggies, - I am becoming less interested in hanging onto it and I could sell if for quite a lot with the Border Patrol power supply it has fitted on it.
        I could possibly even sell the Yaqin too, - maybe even for spare and repairs.
        Doing this I could possibly even get 2 NAP135 monoblocks instead of the NAP250 or maybe two NAP250s . The problem is though, - I need to drive these MG3.3Rs actively of course as I have not bought the external passive crossover box, and I am not sure using a Behringer crossover and different power amp on the bass would give me that Naim sound I really want with these MG3.3Rs. There are Naim active crossovers from that time period too which would no doubt I think have more synergy with Naim pre powers, - the Snaxo active crossover I think its called (which again you have to power with a regulated Hicap power supply), - but that Snaxo was for the for the Linn isobarik speaker and would have different crossover points. There is a newer Snaxo as well but I think that was for the Naim SBL and of course there was one for the Naim DBL as well. Perhaps it possible to modify one for use with different speakers, but I just read that Naim will not do this themselves.
        
        For active 3.3Rs I could run the Naim preamp feeding the Behringer, - and then maybe have the NAD 208 power amp comes off this to feed the bass panel, and then have a Naim NAP250 do the mid and top of the MG3.3R like you suggest, but I am not sure how well all this would blend together and I am not sure it would be a good idea using the passive line level caps and resistor in between the Naim preamp and NAP250. I suppose I could go through the Behringer instead on that side too but then the sound might be compromised. What do you think?, - could this mismatch work or might I just be better off using the Naim stuff passively (maybe 2 NAP250s in biamp config?) to get a well integrated sound? For that though I would need the external crossovers of course and I think the 3.3R crossover is like the IIIa and can�t be passively biamped easily. Perhaps a better quality crossover like a Marchard active crossover would be a better option for use with the Naim kit?
        
        I suppose I should reserve judgment on the Quads and Promitheus etc until I get the 3.3Rs � which will obviously sound much more like the MGIII I remember than the 2.7s do. Then I can decide what to do form there. The tweeter strips came today, so I will pick the speakers up once I�ve arranged transport sometime next week. But in the meantime I desperately need to find a use DCX2496 so I can get operational with the 3.3R. I might have to buy a new one.
        
        As for Quad 66 vs 99 preamp, well from what I have heard so far the Quad 66 is definitely the more musical preamp amplifier and its subtler than the 99 too. Its also softer at the frequency extremes like you say and possibly a little less dynamic too (but I need to test more). The tilt is much better on the 66, - it actually works very very well there where it sounds wrong on the 99 for some reason, - I find that strange since I would have thought it would have been improved on a newer Quad preamp. Maybe the tilt on the 66 works better with my particular room and speakers for some reason?, perhaps the filter curves etc are a bit different on the two models?
        
        The 99 is more neutral extended and more modern sounding than the 66, but the musicality is a little compromised I think, - and the 99/606 combination is still nothing like as enjoyable, dynamic sounding, and musical as the Naim amps. However like I say I�ve not tried out the 3.3Rs yet, - in some ways it a shame I don�t have the passive crossover, - If I did I�d be able to do a more direct comparison to see how these amps work on the 3.3R compared to the 2.7 and I could then gauge whether I want to go Naim or not.
        
        I need to do a lot more testing with the 66 and 99 to see which one is better, at the moment I would say the 66, - just has more magic and more musicality than the 99, but like I say any of this Quad stuff in my opinion does not touch the Naim amps for just really great all around ability in all areas.
        
        Some people love the for what they do, and the guy who�s system this was love them too, but those Naim DBL speakers are just plain horrible in my opinion, - such an unnatural overemphasis on dynamics, and about a subtle as a bull in a China shop. Maggies sound immeasurably better to my ears. I�ve heard other Naim speakers before and they are all terrible in my opinion! So yes Naim amps are good but their speakers sound terrible and their CD players are quite good but overpriced in my opinion.
        
        Now time to look for a DCX2496! If you have any ideas how I could possibly use the Naim stuff well with the 3.3Rs without having to buy the passive crossover box it would be much appreciated!.
        
        Do you think the Naim stuff is a safe technical match with the Maggies, - bearing in mind this missing Zobel network on the output stage of the power amp and the use of the speaker cable to mimic it do you think the risk of oscillation etc could be a problem?
        
        Thanks again for the help and these great chats!
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Satie 17:12:38 08/15/10 (32)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Good luck posted by Davy on August 13, 2010 at 16:59:00
        
        If you are the Naim addict you seem to be then you should do what you have to to secure your fix. But you will still benefit from a more powerful amp for bass even if you do biamp with two NAP250s. I have never looked for high power amps that would compete with a Naim for bass dynamics. So I don't have an answer there.
        
        I used a Bryston 4B NRB on my bass but my demands were too high for it. But for its useful output range it was definitely the most dynamic and extended I heard outside of class A Krell Monoblocks. My solution was to get Crown's 5002VZ pro power amp. It is overkill, and the fan noise is a little bothersome, but it has absolutely no problem driving the Tympani Bass and it is dynamic and extended as all get out. Supposedly, some of Crown's more recent Class D amps for pro audio are very dynamic and extended in the bass.
        
        Forget the SNAXO and relatives, it is designed for one box speaker, and will not complement your 3.3. Also forget the stock crossover - just does not sound as good as what you can build yourself for the same money.
        
        The Behringer, particularly when modified, does not suffer from dynamic compression (however, when modified it will have a lower voltage output - which may affect dynamics). It is s pro device and its ability to effectively drive at 0 db = 10V is more than enough to secure good dynamics in stock mode (most mods will take the final gain stage out so you may want to keep it for the bass output).
        
        I agree on the Naim speakers, I heard them only in passing and I can't even say which ones they were. But compared to the KEF 104.2 I was listening to in that store they sounded like a joke - a raucous circus version of the music.
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Satie 15:04:27 08/17/10 (28)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 15, 2010 at 17:12:38
        
        Well, so long Prometheus...
        
        I read about some pieces that use the Stevens and Bilington transformers, but as you said, they are very expensive these days. I guess they can't expand production at the initial price.
        
        Actually, I was addressing this for the bass low pass before (240 hz), for the high pass the second order crossover is also a hybrid between Bessel and Butterworth and the appropriate frequency is 330 hz. The Butterworth poles are 240 Hz and 470 Hz.
        
        The formula I gave you before for the 2nd order is with a Linkwitz Riley alignment, To get a closer approximation of the original calculate the resistances as before, but calculate the capacitors for the pole frequencies instead of the crossover frequency.
        
        The poles for Butterworth alignment are:
        For 2nd order
        HP f1 = SQRT( 2 ) * fc , f2 = fc / SQRT( 2 )
        LP f1 = fc / SQRT( 2 ) , f2 = SQRT( 2 ) * fc
        
        For 3rd order:
        Coefficients for
        HP 3/2, 4/3, 1/2
        LP 2/3, 3/4, 2
        
        Besides this, for the Behringer you will simply want to experiment because the crossover region is also the second most room dependent area in the FR curve. Once you have determined what you would prefer, then you can proceed to apply the crossover frequencies that work for you in a PLLXO.
        
        The external crossover does not affect the internal one as the mid/treble high pass is entirely in the external crossover, leaving only the crossover between the tweeter and mid.
        
        I am using an old refurbished and rewired SL1600 Mk2 a totally automatic suspended DD deck. My broken Oracle Delphi is not getting a new motor anytime soon, and my rewired and lightly modded Oracle Alexandria remains unused for over a whole year now. I think it is going to be sold soon. The Technics is simply better on all counts.
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Davy 17:02:49 08/17/10 (27)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 17, 2010 at 15:04:27
        
        Thanks again Satie,
        Your Technics sounds nice. I've not tired one myself but people really like them. I found the Garrard 401 had better dynamics than the LP12 but was a bit rough in the treble and unrefined up there and that was a real problem. The Lenco was better (I had a GL75 and GL59), - more refined than the Garrard and still good dynamics (and a lot cheaper than a Garrard too). But from what I understand the Technics direct drives are probably even more dynamic than idlers. I think you need to find a good compromise between dynamics and some refinement. Its all about matching. Perhaps a Prometheus would be OK with a Technics that has decent dynamics and the detail would come out too, but with the LP12 its hopeless!
        I will keep an eye open for a Bent Audio preamp using those TX102 units, - one went on Audiogon recently for $400 (a DIY built one), - that was very cheap when you consider how much even just the transformers cost now. Other Bent Audio TVCs usually go for around $650-750. So I might try one, - but I will immediately be listening to whether the dynamics are any good or not after the Promitheus.
        
        Thanks a lot for explaining the bass crossover stuff � I am still a bit lost (as usual) with the equations but now understand what they are for, - before you were trying to tell my how to calculate the 2nd order for the bass with linkwitz riley and this time the butterworth calcuations for 2nd and 3rd order.
        BUT I don�t need to worry about this now (for the time being at least), as I�ve just sold the Quad 66 and also found a used DCX2496 at the same time, - so that�s on its way to me. No calculations to do for it for the bass, but it might take me a while to work out how to set it up!
        I might try just hooking up the Behrginer on both amps for the time being as I am also having trouble calculating the values for the mid/treble PLLXO you gave me before!! (I will have another look, - hopeless I know!). Wanted to just ask, - when using the Behringer, as a two way active crossover, will I be able to program a 3rd order low bass for the bass the 2nd order high pass for the mid/treble output at the same time?, - or are you limited to using the same order for both (if so I can see I will need to use the mid/high PLLXO from the start).
        
        I understand that lintwitz riley, Butterworth and besel are different type of crossover filter design. So if the maggies have a hybrid type, - will I be able to program this too with the Behringer, or can I use (for example) say a Butterworth on its own with no ill effects?
        
        And so the crossover freqs I program into the Behringer will be 240 Hz for the low pass 3rd order, and 330 Hz for the high pass 2nd order?
        
        I will initially try the NAD 208 on the bass (it�s the more powerful amp) and the QUAD 606 on the mid/treble. The 606 has a lot more gain (0.5V for max vs 2V with the NAD). I suppose this extra gain might come in handy when using the PLLXO for the mid/treble if I expect 3dB insertion loss.
        If I try running both from the Behringer I could hook up the NAD using its XLR inputs (it has switchable RCA and XLR inputs). I guess there might be more gain using its XLR inputs. But I know the relative vol will be adjustable with the Behringer anyway
        
        Thanks for the insight in the dynamic softness of valve amps. Interesting, suppose it does depend on the transformers used and the speakers. I sold that Grant G100AS amp I have and am quite regretting it now, - it was 100WPC from 2 KT88s per channel, and had massive output transformers (it weighed 33kg which is partly why I got rid of it). I was told before it is a good amp to use with Maggies, - more like a 500 watt SS amp and that amp repair guy told me it has enough grunt to drive a disco! Mind you it was a bit old and in need of service. I think I will stick with SS amps for the maggies (and ones with more than 2 output transistors per channel). The Naims will most likely be my next stop. I�m trying to decide whether to decide with part with my valve pre power amps or keep them for use with the Proacs and my headphones. Won't really be able to get any Naim kit unless I sell up the valve stuff.
        
        So I will get on the case with understanding and calculating the values for the PLLXO for the mid/treble! I was a bit lost as Neo calculated it for me on the other thread and it seems to give different values form the equations you gave me, - might get back to you about it (sorry!! I am hopeless but I�m nearly there!) I just need to calculate the values for these 2 caps and resistor, order them and then I will be done with calculations for a while! Thanks lord I have the Behringer to do the bass for me now and don't need to worry about calcuating values for that!
        
        All the best,
        Colin
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Satie 22:39:15 08/18/10 (15)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Davy on August 17, 2010 at 17:02:49
        
        The Linkwitz Riley alignment is very easy to calculate and install, the difficult calculation is the Butterworth and Bessel - look it up on the Wikipedia for the basics and the fundamental math (filter transfer functions as Laplace transforms). Bessel gives you minimum group delay, Butterworth gives you the flattest pass band.
        
        The Behringer lets you do any filter with or without its phase shift component, as you can adjust phase separately. If you are doing the bass and mid/treble both with the Behringer, leave it phase neutral and just work the slopes to Butterworth alignments for 3rd low pass and 2nd high pass at 240 hz and 330 hz respectively to start. Then you can shift them to tailor the crossover to your room's acoustics.
        Once you are done, apply the analog phase of the filters, then take the new crossover frequency values to determine your passive component values. There are no online PLXXO calculators that I know of. If you find one, tell me. But there are simulators that can take PLXXO data and predict a FR and phase for the system. I have not used one in a while, as I much prefer to tune by ear and by measurement, because once you are close to the right values (like 20-30%), the rest requires tweaking for your room setup and drivers anyway.
        
        Magnepan tunes their crossovers to fit their actual speaker's limitations and strengths rather than stick to theoretical values, for example, the 20.1's ribbon tweeter's second order low pass at about 3300Hz has additional inductance on the second pole which sits at 1200 Hz (the first is at 5 KHz) which is a full octave lower than it should be for a Butterworth alignment. It looks more like a first order 3300 hz with an additional downside boost later on (lower).
        
        Tube amps, given no corner cutting on trannies - i.e. using heavy gauge wire, high quality core material and sufficient number of turns can actually provide much more than we are used to getting. That Grant fidelity sounds right. For 100W it should weigh like an anvil. The big deal is to have good output transformers and sufficient power transformers to provide the PEAK power on an RMS basis. The output transformers need to be either massive or use P cores with 50% + Nickel. The good core materials raise the typical transformer's price by a factor of 4. The idea is to not saturate the cores under any possible operating conditions. The "ideal" proportion where the metal is not a limiting factor is roughly 1 kg per channel watt, down to 1/2 kg per channel watt on high power amps over 200 watts. Most "real life" tube power amps are at 1/4 kg per channel watt. A 100 watt monoblock should be 100 kg in class A. In class AB you can cut it down to 50 kg because you do not need to distribute heat. Using high flux density materials like the upper end Audio Note transformers, you can get to 50 KG for a 100W class A amp.
        
        Hammond spec their transformer to -3db at 30 hz at full power. To Cover the full audible spectrum, the -3 db point should be well below 20 hz. To lower it by one octave you need to double the size of the transformer - i.e. use a 120 watt output tranny for a 60 watt PP amp or 30 Watt class A SE.
        
        My little dynas do wonders now that they are in Ultralinear (actually just burned one last week, need to get it to the tech). They are now as dynamic as my little switching amps, modified NuForce 8.5 by Ric Schultz of Tweakaudio/EVS - 150 W RMS, 600 W peak - the way I play them they run hot.
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Davy 04:48:16 08/19/10 (14)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 18, 2010 at 22:39:15
        
        Hi Satie,
        Many thanks again for the help.
        I see going active is not as easy as I thought it was going to be. I had a chat with Peter Gunn yesterday about the 2.7 and he say he does not like any kind of biamping, as he believes you should treat a Maggies like one full range driver. So he obviously thinks you get better integration driving them from a single amp in passive mode. I know some people think this and others think active is much better, - for sure I can see the dynamics with active will be a lot better. But obviously I will have to try both to see which I prefer (maybe with the 2.7s as I don�t have the stock crossover for the 3.3Rs).
        
        I got the Behringer today, - now just got to pick up the speakers. Good I can see from what you are saying its possible to program any 2 types of filter in the Behringer at the same time so I will have no problem starting with 3rd order low pass and 2nd order high pass at the same time. I will start with Butterworth and then!, - hmm, I�m going to have to do some serious reading up on the Behrigner instructions and crossover design in general, - will it be easy to adjust the phase on the Behringer once I�ve settled on my initial crossover points?! (I sure hope so!). And from what I am understanding when you adjust the phase the crossover points then change a bit?, - when you have the phase right then these new crossover points are what you use for to calculate the values for the PLLXO.
        
        Yeah the Grant was a good amp, - it was a heavy beast. Not the current Grant fidelity, - it was a UK manufactured Grant amp from the 1980s, from the Grant of �Grant Lumley�. Its virtually the same amp as the famous Grant Lumley G100 and very similar to the Lumley ST70. In fact I think those mega dense transformers are the same type in all those amps. I really should not have sold that but it was a little old and needed a big expensive service. I will look for a Lumley ST70, - that�s a bit newer (90s).
        I could go for an Audio research instead, - sometimes you can find them even here for reasonable price secondhand. But for sure the Grant and Lunleys have denser bigger transformers in for a used amp of the same price, - obviously the more pricey bigger ARs have bigger transformers but they are a lot more pricey.
        
        Many thanks for that the info on the transformer stuff, - very interesting, - I will bear that in mind if I ever get another valve amp. Though having said that for now I quite like transistor amps as you can get a so much more conveniently sized and weighted amp of similar power. I like the Quads, and these class D look very convenient too, and of course use very little power and are very reliable.
        
        Wanted to jsut double check, - in your post from a couple of days ago when you say
        
        "The formula I gave you before for the 2nd order is with a Linkwitz Riley alignment, To get a closer approximation of the original calculate the resistances as before, but calculate the capacitors for the pole frequencies instead of the crossover frequency."
        
        are you talking about the equation being Linkwitz riley on the other MGIIIa thread you gave me with that PLLXO 2nd order high pass diargam (2 caps and a reisitor)?
        
        All the best,
        Colin
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Satie 20:48:45 08/19/10 (13)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Davy on August 19, 2010 at 04:48:16
        
        Yes the reference is to the two caps and resistor. The calculation I gave you before is for a LR alignment. It is a better alignment to work with when trying to mate with a phase less Behringer. But it is definitely a departure from the original design. To obtain something closer to the design you can use the below (same as explained before).
        
        The Linkwitz Riley vs. Butterworth. The poles of the LR alignment are at the crossover frequency. The poles for the Butterworth filter are at 1/SQRT(2) and *SQRT(2) for second order. In the high pass, the first pole is f1= fc*SQRT(2), the second pole is f2= fc/SQRT(2) you use these pole frequencies as the input for 1/2 Pi f R to calculate the caps. The resistor value is Ramp/10 and C1 is calculated for f1. The second capacitor is calculated for f2 and Ramp. By taking 10 fold differences in resistances, we can ignore the interaction of the impedances of the poles and avoid extra hair on our maths.
        
        I entirely oppose PG's view of the crossover. I reject entirely his approach. That does not mean that it is not appropriate for the MMG and perhaps the 1.6. It is not workable on the 1.7. 2.x and definitely not the 3.x. Each "driver" has definite physical properties appropriate for its frequency range, and cautiously restricted by the crossover design to obtain safe operation without the voice coils melting the mylar, without the midrange strip or driver operating above its dispersion limits and without the bass operating above the portion of its range where driver (voice coil) mass begins to hurt detail retrieval. I also think the result of his crossover construction in the 3 way speakers is a total abomination where you have a midrange so dominant that there is only a hint of bass and a severely rolled off treble. The FR is not good for the reproduction of anything save altos and sopranos. It is the FR of a 1962 KLH table radio.
        
        THAT Grant. We all love his designs.
        
        Re trannies, have you tried to do an Audionote kit? The UK site lists very classy variants that I am sure the local DIY community has used to excess and that these occasionally show up on the used market at something like half the cost of the parts. Have you looked into that?
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Davy 07:03:17 08/20/10 (12)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 19, 2010 at 20:48:45
        
        Thanks a lot Satie. I am a little way off fully understanding the calculations you�ve given me (but I�ll get there eventually - hopefully!) but I understand what you mean now. So you reckon it easier to start with trying a LR alignment for the mid/tweet PLLXO as it might be easier to mate with a phaseless Behrginer?, - I assume you mean by this the straight butterworth 3rd order low pass for the bass?. This is obviously simpler, - but would modifying things so its more like the original crossover design be likely to give better results?
        
        Thanks for the info too on modding the mid/tweet PLLXO calculations to get something more like the original crossover. Will this only be likely to work well if I change the phase on the Behringer bass part of the crossover to in order to get something closer to the original Butterworth/Bessel 3rd order low pass alignment you described before? I mean in theory?, or is it just a case of try different things and see how it goes. I am guessing if I use the Behringer for both sections (even though the sound might not be best using it for mid/tweet in stock form) I can experiment with the phase more easily and work out what the best alignment/values to use for the mid/tweeter PLLXO will be? Would that be sound logic?
        
        Thanks for the info on the Audiosmile mods, - I�ve emailed them asking what transformers they use in the platinum upgrade. But right now I think I�ll be going for the opamp upgrade instead. I don�t trust transformers, - they are likely to be cheap I reckon!
        
        I have hit a brick wall with these Technics decks, - one guy replied to one of my wanted ads saying they are a bit rare (which confirmed what I thought) but he reckonede sometimes you can find a bargain. He also said they sound a bit better than the SL1200 which confirms what you say as well. I will bide my time. He also recommended looking for a MK2 1300, 1400 1500 as well. I think they have an arm with unadjustable VTA and an inferior motor (which is OK though as I thin kthe better motor only really counts when DJing), but you can use the arm plate on them. Do you know anything about those MK2 decks?
        
        As for the Audionote kits, - no not tried one myself, - not sure what you mean exactly by whether I looked into it, - do you mean finding a copy type DIY amp using parts of the same quality they put in Audi note amps? You do see DIY amps on Ebay sometimes, - they usually go for low money as people don�t know what they are or whats in them, - I will keep an eye out. There is a built Audionote kit 1 300B SE amp on ebay UK with now. It�s the older version I think from about 10+yeas ago but it looks like a nice amp for the money, - hard wired and paper in oil caps.
        http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Audio-note-KIT-one-/230505964075?pt=UK_AudioTVElectronics_HomeAudioHiFi_Amplifiers
        It�s the integrated version.
        
        The same kit1 is available in an updated version new with some interchangeable plates. It cost about �1400 uk price and around $2000 Us with the shipping. But then of course you have to build it.
        
        Will give that Kit 1 a miss though I think, - it might be good as a preamp but its not going to drive any Maggies!
        Will keep an eye out to see if I can find anything else using Audio Note parts for cheap (if this is what you meant?)
        Used Audio Innovations amps are quite cheap too on the used market and whilst not quite as good as Audionotes some of them used decent parts too and they do sound good. I�ve had a few of their valve amps before and been impressed. Peter Qvortrup used to own Audio Innovations before he founded Audio note. That skilled amp repair guy I told you about used to work for Peter Qvortrup at Audio Note and he is quite renowned. He now works free lance and is also the official used Audio Innovations service engineer.
        He is not that cheap but he is very good.
        He sometimes has some stuff for sale too. He�s had some very good stuff for sale at cheap prices in the past (stuff he told me about on the phone that he hadn�t advertised). He several amps when I last spoke to him a couple of years ago, - he had a serviced Michaelson and Austin TVA1 power amp (designed/made by Tim de Paravicini) which is supposed to be a very good amp and is qutie a famouns design, - it�s a little similar to the Grant, - it uses 2 KT88s per channel and even weighs 9kg more at 42kg!!. The power rating must be very high too. It has a reputation though for catching fire though if the bias drifts!, - but of course he fixed that problem. He also had several serviced Audio innovations amps for sale and also some Maggie 2.5R with new ribbon for a steal at �450, -wish I had taken them at the time, - contacted him recently and he sold them to someone else ages ago!
        Anyway, - that�s a good idea, - I will ask him what he has right now. It very good buying amps from him as they will have always had a recap service (which would usually cost �300+, - the Audio innovations series 500 amp I bought from him sounded amazing, - it had upgraded caps in it. I only paid �500 for it.
        I would really be quite attracted to buying the serviced TVA1 for use with the Maggies, but after my experience with the Grant, - which weighed 33kg as opposed to 42 kg for the TVA1, I just can�t accommodate an amp of that weight, - its just too inconvenient to move around unfortunately. 25kg is about my absolute max limit! That�s partly why I really like the Quad 606, - it so physically small and only weighs 12kg. I am prone to having a bad back! (it ok at the moment now, - touch wood!)
        
        I nearly also bought a pair of Audio Innovations 2nd Audio moboblock power amps from this guy a couple of year ago, - that particular pair were 15 watts PP from 4 6B4Gs (similar to 2A3s) per channel, zero feedback. They are very well regarded. I would be interested in them if the Proacs were still my main speakers but they are not for the Maggies. They are however perhaps OK for the tweeter though if you triamp, as they have a 2 ohm transformer tap, - in fact the guy that bought those Apogees stages from me was going to his pair of 2nd Audios on the ribbon section for active operation, and a DIY built copy of a Pass Labs Class A 100 WPC monoblock amps for the bass panel. He is still building the SS amps, - I will email him sometime soon and ask him how they sound when he�s gone fully active. Hmmm, maybe I should have kept those speakers��. Seeing now how easy it is to go active with the Behringer or PLLXO, - I could have found a suitable valve amp for the tweeter and going active would have solved the stock passive crossover problems without having to buy that North Creek crossover kit for �1000. Oh well��. I am fully committed to the Maggies for the time being.
        
        Anyway better stop droning on!
        
        All the best,
        Colin
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Satie 13:45:54 08/20/10 (11)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Davy on August 20, 2010 at 07:03:17
        
        Contrary to PG, I do think that Magnepan are very careful to work out crossover slopes and frequencies. None of their crossovers are done right out of the book into a canned alignment. They are like Thiel and Vandersteen in their care. They do minimum phase, very flat responses rather than try for either one or the other. So there is everything to be gained by following their lead.
        
        That said, I would start the work with the Behringer with the bessel alignments and stock crossover frequency values and then try out Butterworth both with and without the phase behaviors applied. Note what you like about each, then we can try the stock alignment. I can help you to determine actual slopes from the stock values - i.e. pole frequencies of the actual speakers rather than those of the theoretical alignments.
        
        Re suspended Technics - the powerful motor is what makes the dynamics. Do not forgo that nor the VTA adjustment, get only the quartz controlled MkII. Just bide your time. They were higher level turntables but not marketed through the high end stores, so they got hit badly when CD came around. 1981 marked the end - they were in production for only 2-3 years. When they were going for $300-400, the 1200mkII was going for $250.
        
        I had my back injured in an auto accident so I understand your reluctance with heavy equipment. But I figured out how maneuver stuff without injury. My stereo amps are 30 to 40kg (SS). The little Dynacos are 15 kg each.
        
        Anyway, outside of trying to build Audio Note kits, I was referring to getting hold of used DIY projects made with key AudioNote parts in order to put your hands on high quality Audio Note parts well below their retail cost - that in order to build your own projects. I remember Audio Innovations from the British Hi Fi Press. Never actually saw one with my own eyes.
        
        The Nuforce amps, when modified by the Upgrade company or the earlier ones modded by Tweakaudio/EVS, and the Wyred 4 Sound ICE based amps seem to have tackled some of the problems with JFET input stages.
        
        Yes, you can use a 25 watt class A amp on the tweeter if it has a 2 ohm tap (a real one , not a "pretend" one).
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Satie 23:18:32 08/21/10 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 20, 2010 at 13:45:54
        
        For best performance and least trouble among the suspended Technics decks go for the 1800 manual or 1700 semi auto. The 1600 is fully automatic and prone to broken guide wheels in the mechanism. It is easy for a pro to fix the auto mechanisms, he would, of course, charge for it - not at all easy for an inexperienced DIYer.
        
        I have not gone through the Behringer manual recently, at least 6 months. I don't remember how to put in custom crossover alignments and I think you need to download the PC control software for it. If you like, I will go over it again to take a look when time allows.
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Davy 15:29:50 08/20/10 (9)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 20, 2010 at 13:45:54
        
        Hi Satie,
        
        Thanks a lot for the info on the Technics decks, From what I have seen so far looking they are quite rare here for sure, - I have not even seen one anywhere yet and I am looking hard, - only that MK1 1600. I see there are quite a few on Ebay USA so I think its possible more of them were sold abroad and not many in the UK. Having said that I hope I�m able to find one soon. I really want one, - it clearly a much better choice for me than the more common SL1200/SL210 if I can find a 1600MK2 or similar that works well.
        
        So as for using the Behringer when you say the stuff at the start of your last message, are you talking about using the Behringer on both the bass and mid/treble? , or using it on the bass and using the PLLXO? I think you mean the former but just want to make sure.
        
        Ah so you recommended using Bessel with the Behringer first, - do you mean on both the 3rd order low pass and 2nd order high pass? And then I�ll do as you say and try Butterworth on the Behrginer and use the phase as well. Is LR not worth trying?
        If I could try this and then try the original stock values (calculated with your kind help) that would be great. If you could help me calculate the slopes of the actual speakers with the original passive crossover it would be really appreciated. I am a bit lost with the maths to tell the truth! So when I have the slopes for this Butterworth/Besel alignement or whatever it was you called the stock design, will I be able to program that into the Behringer? ,or will be needing to use the PLLXO for the mid/treble 2nd order high pass first stage to duplicate it properly?
        
        It�s a good idea to get hold of a used DIY amp, - Like I say there are some that crop up on Ebay. I will keep an eye out.
        
        I�m sure the Audio Innovations 2nd Audio monoblocks use proper 2 ohms taps. They have 4 and 8 as well. They are quite renowned amps, - cheaper alternatives to similar ones like Audio Notes but they are very well regarded. The 1st Audio is jus as good if not better sounding as well but its only 7.5 watts a channel (two 2A3s in PP mode per channel), so that amp is only any good for horns etc really. The higher 15 Watt power of the 2nd Audios means they can be used with more types of speakers, and therefor a lot of people aspire to them.
        Like I say one day I will try one of them for sure, just not got around to it yet. They are hard wired unlike other Audio Innovations amps (which all use circuit boards) and they use good parts like paper in oil caps that the cheaper ones don�t. At the used prices they go for they are a bargain for whats inside them. From what the repair guy told me the output transformers in them are very good too.
        
        I had an Audio Innovations P2 MM valve phono stage at one time, - that was a serious piece of kit, - massively overengineerd and very sought after, I should not have sold it�. I tried the Art Audio Vinyl One afterwards and other phono stages but none of them were as involving soudning as the P2. It used a valve based SRPP regulation system (using three valves) for the power supply that give it a very, tight dynamic sound. Did not sound the usual soft, fat valve like phono stage sound at all. It used valve rectification too � in fact it used 8 valves in total!. � quite a lot for a valve phono stage!
        
        When you say about the Nuforce and Wyred 4 sound amps being good as they tackle some of the problems of JFET input stages, err... what do you mean?! Sorry am a bit lost again! What�s the advantage of those amps?
        
        Very sorry to hear about your Auto accident. Hope you recovered from it OK. And sorry to hear you have a bad back from it, but it good you managed to figure out how to move them without too much trouble, - and you do have heavy amps there, - 30-40kg is what I would personally start to call very heavy. How do you manage to move them around if you don't mind me asking?!!
        
        cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Satie 20:40:56 08/20/10 (8)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Davy on August 20, 2010 at 15:29:50
        
        Yes, I am referring to the use of the Behringer for both upper and lower passbands - at least till you reach the limits of its adjustments and identified what works best. I suggest you start with Bessel, move on to Butterworth, finally try stock "hybrid" alignment then repeat with phase behavior - at least for the top - to simulate the PLXXO. The Behringer should allow you to program the individual poles in a custom alignment, but I have not looked at the manual for over 6 months.
        
        If you have it modded, you will probably be less inclined to put the time and effort into a PLXXO so let me tell you at this point that it is still worth it.
        
        Re Class D amps. the popular B&O ICE modules don't have the best input stage and it is a low impedance one. Using a discrete JFet input stage Wyred4Sound solves one of the weaknesses of the modules. The Nuforce amps are switching amps too but use a different technology and approach, that said, they have serious deficiencies in the high frequencies when used stock. Schultz at Tweakaudio and Schulte at the Upgrade company have found fixes that make the Nuforces sing - and they are not telling what they did. After the Tweakaudio (aka EVS) mods, the Nuforce I use is actually smoother than the Dynacos in Ultralinear - though not quite as smooth as they are in triode. The Nuforce does sound better with a little inductance in the output feedback loop.
        
        Well - how do you maneuver such heavy stuff? 1 you always plan all the maneuvers before you start moving anything. 2 you operate with boxes or tables at 2-3 height points. 3. You start lifting by sitting on the floor and maneuvering the weight onto your lap. 4 you lift the weight onto a box or chair at about shoulder height. 5 then you move to stand on your knees, and lift the amp to table height. 6. from table height plan your lifting move, it will be by bending your knees, getting a firm grip on the amp with your fore arms perpendicular to your body, lean back slightly and start lifting by bracing your arms and pushing up with your legs to straighten your knees. Awkward and not that quick but effective.
        
        The rest of the moving is done by sliding and controlled "tumbling".
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Satie 20:04:08 08/22/10 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 20, 2010 at 20:40:56
        
        I would be happy to help, but the alignment and particular desired crossover frequency depends on what you choose for the Behringer's part, since they have to mesh together. Either orthogonal in phase or additive - in phase or inverted phase and inverted polarity. Whichever turns out best.
        
        So when the time comes, drop me an email and I'll calculate it for you then.
        
        I would suggest Relcap polystyrene foil caps that should go for under 10 pounds each and Holco or Caddock metal film resistors which should be a pound or two. If you can afford them the Vishay bulk metal resistors are about as good as it gets. If you need a little more "spacious" sound then use a good carbon resistor. 1/2 watt and up is fine. 50 V and up is fine for the caps, most film caps are designed for tube equipment and are spec's at 400 V or more.
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Davy 13:07:59 08/21/10 (6)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 20, 2010 at 20:40:56
        
        Cheers Saie,
        I found a few Technics SL1600 MK2 decks in Europe (one in Germany and 2 in France). 2 of them with broken automatic mechanisms but I undertand its easy to fix.
        Hope one of them will ship to the UK! I think they are very rare in the UK unfortunately based on the response to my wanted ads and searching for old UK sales of them on google. I desperately want to get one after the experience've descriebd with yours.
        
        Thanks for the info on the Behringer. Thats great - I'll do what you say then and do Bessel, then Butterworth, then, stock "hybrid" Bessel/Butterworth, and repeat with phase behaviour.
        Just a question,- when simulating the Magnepan Stock "hybrid" Butterworth/Bessel curves. How do I do this on the Behringer when there is no specific setting for this ? (you can choose out of either Butteworth, Bessel, LR and another I think?)
        
        Thanks for the lifitng info! Will keep that for future reference!
        All the best,
        Colin
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Satie 10:02:18 08/22/10 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Davy on August 21, 2010 at 13:07:59
        
        Missplace the post
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Satie 23:18:32 08/21/10 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 20, 2010 at 13:45:54
        
        For best performance and least trouble among the suspended Technics decks go for the 1800 manual or 1700 semi auto. The 1600 is fully automatic and prone to broken guide wheels in the mechanism. It is easy for a pro to fix the auto mechanisms, he would, of course, charge for it - not at all easy for an inexperienced DIYer.
        
        I have not gone through the Behringer manual recently, at least 6 months. I don't remember how to put in custom crossover alignments and I think you need to download the PC control software for it. If you like, I will go over it again to take a look when time allows.
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Davy 11:00:42 08/22/10 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 22, 2010 at 10:02:18
        
        Thanks a lot Satie,
        I'll have a look myself at customs crossover alginement for the Behringer and see what I can find. It seems you can't do a Butterworth/Bessel Hybrid and the only 3rd order filter is straight Butterworth, but various options for 1st, 2nd and 4th order.
        If I can't find anything I might get back to you if thats OK and you have time to have a look.
        I am picking up the 3.3Rs tomorrow, -so look forward to that. In the meantime I am setting up the Behringer for the 3.3R so I am ready to hook up. I've tried listening to the Behrginer plugged into my headphone setup and tried it in and out of the circuit (with all the filters on the Behrginer bypassed). I can for sure hear the degradation in sound it has in the mid/treble, - its doesn't keep the refinement and smoothness of the source giving a harder/slightly coarser sound with it switched in. It is not terrible by any means but I can hear it (using several pair of good headphones). So I think I really want to try your part active/part passive line level crossover approach until I get the Behrginer upgraded. I will have to look at getting started trying to figure out how to calculate some values to try. I know I could try to use the behrginer (when I work out how to program custom crossovers in) to make an optimised passive version for the high pass suited for my room but I suppose in the meantime the straight stock alignement for the high pass 2nd order crossover would be a good place to start. Is there any chance you could help me calculate the values for those two caps and resistors for the line level version of the stock 2nd order HP crossover if you have a minute at all?! Don't worry though if you are too busy. I'll put up with the Behrginer in the meantime.
        When trying the PLLXO to start off I won't buy super expensive caps and resistors when trying the first values in case they need to be changed. Do you know roughly what wattage resistors to get? I would guess 1/2 watts to 2 watt? And is it better getting carbon or metal film?
        
        And as for the caps. I guess polypropylene are the ones to get?, - And do you know what voltage rating should the caps be?
        Any help (if you have time) would be really appreciated!
        All the best,
        Colin
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Satie 20:47:25 08/22/10 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Davy on August 22, 2010 at 11:00:42
        
        Missplaced again
        
        Posted by Satie (A) on August 22, 2010 at 20:04:08
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 20, 2010 at 20:40:56
        
        I would be happy to help, but the alignment and particular desired crossover frequency depends on what you choose for the Behringer's part, since they have to mesh together. Either orthogonal in phase or additive - in phase or inverted phase and inverted polarity. Whichever turns out best.
        
        So when the time comes, drop me an email and I'll calculate it for you then.
        
        I would suggest Relcap polystyrene foil caps that should go for under 10 pounds each and Holco or Caddock metal film resistors which should be a pound or two. If you can afford them the Vishay bulk metal resistors are about as good as it gets. If you need a little more "spacious" sound then use a good carbon resistor. 1/2 watt and up is fine. 50 V and up is fine for the caps, most film caps are designed for tube equipment and are spec's at 400 V or more.
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Davy 10:48:55 08/23/10 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 22, 2010 at 20:47:25
        
        Hi Satie,
        Thanks for the help.
        I've got the 3.3Rs in my place now. They work OK but there are a few problems. The first is I didn't notice they both have some banana peel on both ends!!. So it looks like I will have to try a delam repair at some point soon, - it is not too bad but I guess it will progress. Hmmmm....
        The ribbons survived the trip, but there is a slight issue in that one of the ribbons them seems a little more sensitive than the other, - which creates a slight left/right imbalance, - I can compensate for this by shorting the tweeter attenuator on the speaker with the less sensitive tweeter and putting a 1 ohm resistor in the other speaker with the more sensitive tweeter, which kind of makes it balanced. The result seems fine but obviously I am slightly worried one tweeter is more sensitive than the other. Is the one thats less sensitive likely to be dodgy?
        
        I am running the Behringer on Butterworth LP 3rd order at about 240Hz for the bass and Butterworth 2nd order HP 340Hz for the mid/treble. It sounds OK. I tried changing the phase on the bass gradually on the Behringer and it does change the sound but I am not sure which setting is best, its is very hard to tell.
        
        There is a major problem with using the stock Behringer with the Quad 606 unfortunately. The stock Behringer becuase of the high gain has some hiss and that coupled with the high input sensitivity of the 606 (0.5V for max) means the driver section used from the 606 is too hissy. So I really do need to make a PLLXO for the mid/treble soon and use the Quad for this section to avoid any hiss. I tried using the Moth passive preamp in between the Behringer and the Quad but the sound is too thin using that, - does not seem to work well, - due to impedance matching I guess.
        
        The hiss from the Behrginer is not so much of a problem with the NAD 208 power amp as it has normal 2V sensitivity for max output, - you can hear it a little hiss if you put you ear right up to the speaker but its acceptable in my opinion.
        So either I need to the PLXXO for the Quad or buy another power amp to use that has normal input sensitivity (which I would obviously rather avoid doing)
        As for setting up the crossover, - I am a bit lost (surprise surprise!) when you say this: -
        "Either orthogonal in phase or additive - in phase or inverted phase and inverted polarity". Is there any chance you could tell me what these are in more detail and how I might implement each of them with the Behrginer to test to see which is best for my room?!
        
        I really would not mind just using a direct copy of the stock crossover for the 2nd or HP section transposed to PLLXO values, just to get rid of the hiss with the Quad/Behringer combo for the time being. And adjust the bass setting on the Behrginer to best blend with this, - would this be an OK idea for the time being?
        
        I read something the other day about changing something on the connections of the XLR adapter pins to get less gain and avoid this hiss issue with the Behringer , - am going to look into that again.
        
        So plenty of problems, and speakers with some banana peel on the bass, but hey at least they work, and they do have the better treble extension over the 2.7QRs which is what I was looking for...
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Satie 13:59:42 08/23/10 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Davy on August 23, 2010 at 10:48:55
        
        OK
        
        The Quad 606 has a 20K input impedance, what do you use for preamp? Tube or solid state? If Tube, how much gain and what output voltage do you get?
        
        Do you have a local online source you could use for obtaining parts so that I can calculate values you can actually obtain?
        
        The differences are probably not in sensitivity but in resistance. Either because of a repair for a blown tweeter - the newer tweeters have a lower resistance and will thus get more current and output more volume, or a modification to insert an attenuation resistor on one but not the other tweeter. You should add the resistor to the higher "sensitivity" tweeter.
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Davy 14:55:18 08/23/10 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 23, 2010 at 13:59:42
        
        HI Satie,
        Thanks for the help.
        I am starting to think these speakers might be quite a lot of work, - there is about 4-5 inches of banana peel on each end of both of them on the bass panel (mid is OK) . I am going to have to find out how to repair this, - do you know if its a hard/easy reapir (don't worry if you don't know I'll ask in another thread the best way to go about it).
        
        Having an active crossover is quite nice but I am a bit of a fiddler to say the least, - its one thing I can endlessly try to adjust and test listen and not be psychologically atisfied and keep trying to tune it (if you see what I mean). At least with the stock crossover you are stuck with it (Thats good as well as bad for me!). Then I could use the Quad tilt only which is easier to adjust. But I suppose I'll persevere with the active crossover.
        
        I read that if you snip the short between female XLR pins 1 and 3 on the Behringer OUTPUTS (so that pin 3 is connected to nothing) is you are using an XLR to RCA lead it attenuates the output signal by 6dB reducing hiss. However I tried this and it did not do anything, - I think it might be the XLR to RCA adaptors I am using making it not work, something about the way they are wired. The outer part of the RCA connects to the XLR adapter body and then to pin 1. Do I need to omit the connection to the XLR body too and make the connection of the outer RCA metal to pin 1 directly, ommitting it being connected to the XLR body and pin 3? Don't worry if you don't know!
        
        So yeah until at least I get the Behringer upgraded to lower the output stage on it and decrease this hiss (or if I can get the XLR 6dB attenuation fix to work) it would be very useful in the meantim to build a HP PLLXO based on the stock crossover point and slope. (330Hz, Butterworth/Bessel, 2nd order HP ,if that's what it is). This way I would avoid hiss using the Quad 606 if I used it on that section and hopefully it would eliminate some of the roughness of souud produced by the Behringer when using it on the mid/treble. I would be using the Quad 99 SS preamp (775mV normal output, 3.3 V peak/max). Output impedance of the Quad 99 is 100 ohms. The input impedance on the Quad 606 is 20K like you say. I am going to order some of the Audioquest brass adapters you mentioned for doing this.
        
        If you could possibly calculate me the values for me to help me with this mess it would be really appreciated. As for local places there are a couple but they don't do high end parts. I could order better parts from an online UK place but if I could get something basic from a local shop in the meantime to get me started that would be great. The two places are Cricklewood electronics
        http://www.cricklewoodelectronics.com/Cricklewood/home.php?cat=111
        and Maplin
        http://www.maplin.co.uk/Family.aspx?Menu=1697&worldid=-2&C=Maplin&U=MainMenu&utm_source=Maplin&utm_medium=MainMenu&utm_content=Components-Capacitors&utm_campaign=MainMenu
        
        but I think Cricklewood electronics is better.
        
        I can't find anywhere online in the UK that sells the RELCAP capacitors you mentioned. Maybe on Ebay - will have a look. There is a online UK shop where they sell upmarket audio parts, - theses are the only caps they have that might be suitable (I think).
        http://www.hificollective.co.uk/components/silver_mica.html
        The other caps they have are bigger ones.
        
        As for the tweeter, - will get back to that in another post later! (too much in this one)
        Just one final question about the Behringer (using it for both sections!)
        Today I was using Butterworth 18dB LP and Butterworth 12dB HP on the Behringer. Bearing in mind the stock crossover is a Butterworth/Bessel Hybrid in both of these two cases (and you reckonend the stock crossover points were 240Hz and 330Hz) should I space them a bit further apart (say 220Hz and 350Hz) if I am using straight Butterworth for both? Or is that wrong?!
        
        Sorry (again) for all the questions!
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Satie 08:33:01 08/18/10 (10)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Davy on August 17, 2010 at 17:02:49
        
        I'll respond with more later, but for now, if Neo did the calculations outright, then use his values. I only gave you the equations and rule of thumb value selection guidelines.
        
        So you would want to use the calculated values rather than equations and generalized rules for design. Particularly so if he actually ran a simulation using them.
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Davy 08:48:29 08/18/10 (9)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 18, 2010 at 08:33:01
        
        Thanks Satie,
        Sorry to take up so much of your time with so many questions!! Really appreciate your help. Don't worry if you haven't time at the moment to reply to the stuff in my last post, - when/if you have time of course.
        I'll look at the calcs more closely. I used to be quite good at maths, - don't quite know whats happened recently! Hopefully I'll be able to understand it enough if I go through it all carefully. Don't want to buy the wrong values.
        
        Wanted to ask, - do you use the stock arm with your Technics? or something better? I think my next turntable stop might be a SL1200 MK2 or SL1210 MK2 kitted out with a Rega or Origin Live arm. I want a turntable with better dynamic than the LP12!
        Talking of dynamics (or lack of them), - I just sold the Promitheus!, - that was fast!, - So long....!
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Satie 14:18:39 08/18/10 (8)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Davy on August 18, 2010 at 08:48:29
        
        I use the stock arm and rewire it externally and use the cable to dampen it and to substitute for the spring loaded antiskate.
        
        I made a cable from silver on copper in teflon 33 gauge or 30 gauge stranded wire, twisted into pairs and laid in parallel at one side 1/4" apart on a 1" wide strip of double sided tape with Al foil on one side. I glue the wire and tape onto the arm till just before the bearings and snip the tape halfway through there, and fold it into a sealed cable through to the end - where the RCA plugs are. I bend the cable into an upside down U, and fix it to the back of the plinth, then I snip a little bit of the tape about 3 inches above the bearings to lower the torque on it and provide the right anti skate force. The cable damps the horizontal axis and the arm tube itself. I crimped on the cartridge clips to avoid soldering, and used light RCA plugs to minimize solder heating times. WBT silver solder.
        
        There is a posting with pics in the vinyl asylum.
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Davy 15:54:31 08/18/10 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 18, 2010 at 14:18:39
        
        Ahh I see the SL1600MK2 has an arm with adjustable VTA and the SL1600 MK1 does not (and the mk2 has quartz lock too). looks like I'd better hold out for a 1600MK2.
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Davy 15:45:31 08/18/10 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 18, 2010 at 14:18:39
        
        (sorry others, - this is a bti offtopic, - will be going back on topic soon!)
        Hi again Satie,
        I see the SL1600 is a good deck to get, - do you know if the SL1700 is a slightly cut down version thats semi auto not fully auto, or is that not as good? And the SL1800? It hink from what I have read the 1600 is the better one though.
        
        Was wondering as well if you by any chance new the difference between SL1600 MK1 or MK2? (apart from age) I see the MK2 is 1.5kg heavier. Wonder why that is? Is the arm the same? I need adjustable VTA.
        Don't worry if you don't know, - just was asking in case you might have done some research into the various models before you bought yours. I've seen a SL1600 MK1 (with a faulty automatic mechnaism, but working otherwise) I could get to try out, but am not sure whether to hold out for a MK2 instead.
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Davy 15:01:39 08/18/10 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 18, 2010 at 14:18:39
        
        Hey Satie,
        Now this is interesting. I found your post, - I maybe am not sure how to make the telfon/silver cable but it does not look too hard to do the external rewire/damping on the arm, - who cares about the looks?! Did you remove the stock internal arm cable or leave it in?
        I am interested now in the Technics SL1600/SL1700/SL1800 as I see they have have suspension! The 1200/1210 does not. Do you think the SL1600 is a better buy coming from a suspended belt drive deck?, - possibly a bit like a suspended belt drive but with better dynamics. I guess this is why you chose it over the usual SL1200/1210 most people get.
        
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Satie 23:35:06 08/18/10 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Davy on August 18, 2010 at 15:01:39
        
        The Technics MkII series is the thing to use, the 1200 is simply tank like in build. The suspended decks used to cost a fortune in their day. Those are the 1600 full auto the 1700 semi auto, and the 1800 manual.
        
        Having gone from a Lenco to a Rega 3 - that was not that fun despite the cool arm - totally lacking in bass dynamics. I decided to try the better suspended decks and got an Oracle Delphi that quickly lost its motor in a smelly puff of smoke. A while before I found an Alexandria really cheap because of a minor problem that I fixed, it was cheaper to keep the Alexandria than getting a motor for the Delphi, and started researching DC motors for it. Having come across some discussions of Technics DDs and Lencos, I went and got a suspended deck to get a "lighter" tone like the Delphi and Alexandria. The tone is balanced rather than "light" and in direct comparison to a KAB modified 1200 the 1600 setup lacked for nothing when feeding the same system, though the Lyra on the 1200 is nothing like the Garrott FGS MM on my deck. The 1200 modification include stiffening its power supply and it should have had a deeper more powerful bass, which it didn't.
        
        I had the 1600 totally taken apart by the tech repaired and lubed but left the stock wire inside. I was not going to put money into it since the internal rewire would have left me with multiple contacts on the way to the phono pre - clips to head-shell plug, to arm jack to internal wire to RCA jack to plug and then to the phono jack with two solders. instead I got one contact to the clips, and one to the rca plugs with two solders/crimps.
        
        I do have the inconvenience of having to unhook the cartridge clip by clip rather than just unhook that awfully convenient headshell. But I think that is what makes the difference between the decks (1200 above and mine) resolution capacity, as the Lyra Lydian is more resolving than my Garrott so the fact that I got better resolution is all attributable to the differences in my hack damping and rewiring vs the Cardas rewire kit and the suspended vs solid decks.
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Davy 05:01:35 08/19/10 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 18, 2010 at 23:35:06
        
        Thanks a lot Satie,
        
        Right thats it!, I've got to get a Technics. I don't want a 1200 as it DOES have a slightly dark sound I don't like, - other people have said this too. These suspended decks are EXACTLY what I am looking for, - I didn't reaslise they exisited until you mentioned them, - I thought all these Technics DD decks were non suspended but I'm glad to see I was wrong. So if the suspended decks have a ligther sound and resolving power than the SL1200 they will be perfect for me.
        
        Its a deep shame the MK1 SL1600 SL1700 and SL1800 don't have adjustable VTA on the amp, - do you know at all is the arm can be removed on these MK1 decks and another arm like a Rega installed using the arm plate? or is that only possible on the MK2 decks?
        
        The MK2 SL1600, 1700 and 1800 all have the same arm with highly useful adjustable VTA and from what it looks like they are really just the same deck with different modes of operaion (autio, semi and manual) - is that right? I see the 1800 was quite a bit cheaper, perhpas the parts in it are not as good as the other two?
        Really gonna have to keep an eye out for one of these, - will put up some wanted adverts.
        
        Its been a long time since I've used a MM cartridge. Only used MCs for the past 13 years. Did that KAB 1200 with the Lyra Lydian (nice cartridge) use a modified stock Technics arm or something else?
        
        All the best,
        Colin
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Satie 13:11:58 08/19/10 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Davy on August 19, 2010 at 05:01:35
        
        You do not want a Mk I deck at all. The DD motors are not tuned right and do the servo cog thing and all but lose their lock. It is not a horrible problem, but it is easily noticeable.
        
        The Mk II have had that fixed and are very good.
        
        Re 1800 Mk II, it is cheaper because there is no automation at all = lower cost - no mechanics is also no secondary motor means no power supply for it too.
        
        Origin Live make a mounting plate for Rega and their own arms, that allows great sound as the middle weight Technics arm is not a good fit for the general modern high end cartridges. Particularly when damped a la KAB. But I have had no problem with the Garrott - which is an undamped very high compliance cartridge. And there are many reports of the extra stiff Dennon MC DL103 cartridges doing well.
        
        The KAB mods to the arm: it is damped with a silicone trough and paddle, and rewired with a Cardas rewire kit. The arm's other mechanical properties outside of damping and wiring are actually much better than most modern tonearms used in the high end. Check it out on KABusa.com.
        
        I did not find the modified Technics to be dark in any way. It was very nicely balanced. I liked it and attribute what I found as relative benefits with my deck to the minimized number of connections between cartridge and RCA jacks more so than to its suspension. But I think the main problem with the perception of the SL1200/1210 as dark has to do with not tuning the support - the softish feet are only good for DJs, we need to replace those with more appropriate feet/supports.
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Davy 15:01:05 08/19/10 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 19, 2010 at 13:11:58
        
        Hi Satie,
        Many thanks for the invaluable advice. I will definitely not go for a MK1 though. Thanks for that!, - I nearly bought that 1600 MK1 yesterday! Very glad I did not now!
        
        I am starting to think these MK2 Technics decks are a little rare, - I put wanted ads on a lot of forums and have had no replies at all! And I can�t find any for sale in the UK on Ebay or anywhere else right now. Loads of SL1200/1210s of course.
        I guess the KAB modified SL1200 sounds very good, - the arm modification (the damping, + rewire etc) must help the darkness of the stock deck. I remember looking into it once. They are quite pricey I think, compared to buying a used Technics.
        I am sure I will too see the opportunity to pick up a 1600/1700/1800 MK2 at a very cheap price, - as the SL1200/1210 is so much more well known. I suppose I�ll bide my time and wait for something to turn up and in the meantime and put up with the lack of dynamics from the LP12
        
        I got the Behringer, - so that�s great. Its in perfect condition which is great too. Not even been used by the previous owner and has not been carted half way across Britain like many usedones have.
        I�ve been reading the manual, - I don�t think the setup looks too hard (the manual is not the best written manual though I would say!). I am very attracted to the convenience of using the Behringer for both biamping sections as there is less signal loss etc. I must of course try the PLLXO on the mid/high as well, to see how much difference there is. But I might well also get the Behrginer upgraded by Audiosmile. The price is reasonable, - out of the two mods, (gold or Platinum) which would you go for
        http://www.behringermods.com/what-we-do.html
        
        I see the platinum mod uses transformers in the output stage and I am a bit wary of them after the Promitheus episode!!! I do not know anything about the op amp used in the other mod, but perhaps you might, - which mod do you reckon would be best? I think with the platinum they put fit some single ended sockets RCA on it too.
        
        Did you have any ideas about the phase on the Behrginer and my question on the equation on my other post (don�t worry if you are busy though).
        
        I am not far off trying the 3.3Rs now. Just got to get them home, - probably early next week.
        
        Thanks for sterring me towards the Technics too, - its exactly what I'm looking for, - I need more dynamics from my LPs!
        All the best,
        Colin
        
        RE:Naim addiction - Satie 23:17:59 08/19/10 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Davy on August 19, 2010 at 15:01:05
        
        I believe the transformer concept works if you use good transformers, like the upper Lundahls.
        
        LME49860 or LM4562, sound like LME49720 and LM49740 users describe it as clean if somewhat cool sounding, vs a popular upgrade - OPA627 that sounds more "hot" and warmer - some call it dark - well known for a wide soundstage. Many swear on the LM4562. The LM 49740 is a quad op amp if I remember right.
        
        RE: (Serious!) Naim addiction - Davy 18:29:29 08/15/10 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 15, 2010 at 17:12:38
        
        Hi Satie,
        Cheers for the reply. Like I said in the other thread, - thanks for drilling it into me so many times about the stock external XO boxes, - that's a complete waste of money and time, am scrapping that idea completely now. I've got it for sure now!
        Yes I am planning already how to buy a Naim pre power combo!. I think Naims amps make a great combo with Maggies.
        I'm think I've going to sell my valve power amp and preamp, - if they sell (things are a bit slow now though!) it will easily give me enough cash for a used Naim pre/power combo, 32.5//HICAP/NAP250 setup or something similar, - maybe a 72 or 102 preamp instead of a 32.5. I could sell the Quad gear too and that would give me enough to buy another NAP250 so I would have then have two NAP250s but I guess you might be right, - the NAP250 might not cut in the bass, - especially if I move to a bigger room. I guess yes class D is a possible option for a bass amp or maybe a used Bryston (but they are more pricey here than in the USA). I guess the only power amp which is more for sure beefy than the NAP250 for sure and has even better bass dynamics (by a considerable margain) too is the Naim NAP500 (250 watts into 4 ohms), but that's so pricey. Its now �15000 new (just checked!), - maybe around �6000 if I could find a used one, but that obviously still far away out of my price range. I mean a used NAP250 is about �600-750 depending on age and if its had a recent service, so the price difference is huge!
        There is the NAP300 as well but thats very pricey too and its only 150watts into 4 ohms, - not that much higher than the NAP250s 125 watts. It more dynamic for sure as it has it own off board power supply and is a much newer design (copy of the NAP500 but less powerful) but I think that ones if too much money as well!
        So yeah I did some more testing today, - in the current Quad setup the 66 preamp will go and the 99 preamp will stay, - the 99 is quite good and worth keeping for the time being.
        Today I tried both the Moth passive and the Promitheus TVC Ref with the Quad 606 again. Its weird I think the Moth has better dynamics when used with the 606 than the Promitheus does, - certainly I only have to turn the vol knob a little bit on the Moth preamp to get a good sound level with the 606, but with the Promitheus it has to be near half way. The Promitheus is a but more detailed but at the moment I'm not sure its worth keeping, - nice pure sound but the lack of dynamics compared to the Quad 99 active preamp and even the Moth passive are a bit disturbing!.
        So that's very interesting about the Behringer, - if I am using it on the bass panel only (and PLLXO on mid/high) it might be beneficial just leaving it as stock with the pro standard high gain output stage. The question is (hard to tell I know as neither of us has heard it obviously) , what would give me better sound in general?, - Option 1 of using the stock Behrginer on the bass and the PLLXO for the mid/tweeter, or Option 2 of using an upgraded Behringer for actively biamping both sections (no PLLXOs)? Would the integration of the sound be better with the later? And possibly bass dynamics better with the former?
        In the meantime, (like I said in the other thread) until I can afford to buy a Behringer (when the 66 sells) I was thinking of building/using 2 PLLXOs, but I have no idea how to calculate the values for the 3rd order low pass PLLXO. I have extra active preamps I could use to counteract insertion loss from the PLLXOs. Do you think this idea is a reasonable stop gap until I can get a Behringer? Or should I just wait?
        
        Thanks again you have the patience of a saint!
        As for Naim speakers, - they are horrendous!, - Would rather listen to an old pair of Wharfdales!
        Its a shame as Naim had originally intended to build electrostatic speakers instead of dynamic. Julian Vereker was an admirer of original Quad ESL and owned some right up to his death. I found this on the net concerning their electrostatic speaker.
        "Naim Audio also wanted to manufacture a special electrostatic speaker , following the design of the Quad ESL-57, but using better materials and a rigid frame. Unfortunately their French designer, Mr. Guy Lamotte, left the company without finalizing the ESL, and so the managers decide to build mediocre dynamic loudspeakers instead - what a shame ! "
        Shame Mr Lamotte left the company I say!
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        Edits: 08/15/10
        
        RE: (Serious!) Naim addiction - Satie 02:17:01 08/17/10 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: (Serious!) Naim addiction posted by Davy on August 15, 2010 at 18:29:29
        
        Re TVC vs Moth passive: You have just discovered the problem of ferrite cores. That is why tube amps have a bit of a rep for being less dynamic. There is a higher grade of the TVC that uses better ferrite. There is a modern super amorphous ferrite material that is very expensive and has less hysteresis but few companies use it so obtaining a transformer (T in TVC) with higher grade metal and wire is very costly particularly in small sizes. It is really remarkable that the dynamics are compressed yet detail is preserved - its like the belt drive effect on turntables. Whereas idler drives like the Lencos and Garrards give you both detail and dynamic impact, as do the better direct drives, the belt drive tables are liked for their emphasis of detail - which is the mere disappearance of the big dynamic swings.
        
        I still don't have a new option to add for Naim substitutes with high power. But it would be an intriguing investigation to conduct when time is available.
        
        As to configurations of the Behringer/PLXXO, the Behringer will generally have better dynamics in the bass than the passive variant, that said, it will not be so if the source or preamp are particularly powerful and dynamic (my modified Audible Illusions Dual Mono pre can swing 40 volts). When I run the bass crossover passively from it, without the active Marchand or Ashley crossovers, the bass dynamics are slightly better. On a Naim preamp I don't know which would be better without checking how much output voltage I get relative to the Behringer. But with the quad pre it would most definitely be the Behringer with the stock gain stage. The PLXXO on top is not going to diminish dynamics much because it is only second order, and insertion loss should not be that bad (calculates as 3 db without the extra impedance resistor).
        
        Re PLXXO for bass and for mid/treble.
        
        The 3rd order crossover would need to be split into a second order and a first order crossover with one before the extra gain stage and the other after.
        
        But here's a thought. Since you are not afraid of the soldering iron, why not try first a first order midrange high pass (just a cap) and a second order bass low pass as was done in the 2.7 and cross about 20-30 hz higher than stock (to protect the midrange)? If it works it might cut out the extra gain stage.
        
        In any case, I think I have the pole frequencies for the 3.3 bass low pass, which appears to be 240 Hz.
        120 Hz, 180 Hz, and 390 Hz - which is close to a Bessel alignment at the beginning and like a Butterworth at the end. Butterworth poles would be 160,180,480
        Plug these numbers into 1/ 2 Pi R f formula, Use R2 = 10 R1 and a similar R1 value for the third pole. R1 should be big enough to produce capacitor values you can obtain, while being small enough to be small relative to the input impedance of both the gain stage and the power amp.
        
        I have not run any simulations. I would use the first two poles before the gain stage and the last after the gain.
        
        RE: (Serious!) Naim addiction - Davy 06:09:12 08/17/10 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: (Serious!) Naim addiction posted by Satie on August 17, 2010 at 02:17:01
        
        HI Satie,
        Yes the lack of dynamics is quite obvious when you listen to the Promitheus, - it�s for sure the same thing I heard with when it ws hooked up to those Anatek amps. So I am sure it was not the fault of the Anatek amps, - more likely was the Promitheus. I bet the normal passive preamp for the Anatek would sound a lot better with it.
        
        The detail is nice with the TVC but I don�t like the lack of dynamics, -it does also not mate that well using an 80s LP12 belt drive turntable as my source as that turntable does not have earth shattering dynamics!
        I had a Lenco and Garrard idler drive decks before, - you are right they are more dynamic than a belt drive. In fact the Lenco GL59 I had was a nice turntable and its also a bit rare, - I do regret selling that!. In comparison I did not like Garrard 401 as much as the Lenco but from what I�ve read the older Garrard 301 does sound better than the 401, - that�s one deck I would like to try really but they are so pricey, - even an oil bearing one. So yeah I would like an idler drive or direct drive deck to get better dynamics from LP. A lot of people here are buying Technics SL1210 direct drive decks and modding them, - a friend of mine has one with a Rega arm and Timestep power supply. He used to have an Linn LP12, - he says they are both good and different sounding but he prefer the Technics and would not go back to an LP12. Perhaps I should give one a try?. Like you say belt drive turntables with good dynamics cost a lot of money. If you want dynamics for reasonable money its better to look at a idler or direct drive I reckon and try to get one still sounds reasonable refined and detailed if possible (might not be up to a belt drive in those departments but I reckon you can get a nice compromise) .
        
        So anyway back to the Promitheus, - the detail is nice but that has got to go because of the dynamics issue. The Moth passive is quite bit more dynamic with the Quad 606 MK2 and works pretty well with it in my opinion. No the detail is not as good as the Promitheus but it�s a better compromise as it�s essential to have some dynamics. The dynamics with the Moth/606 combo are not too far off the active preamps. The Moth is a little rolled off at the top in comparison but a bit less coloured and purer sounding than the actives so its worth keeping for sure.
        
        I think if I ever go for another TVC it would have to be an expensive one with a better core. Apparently the Promitheus with the T-Core is much better (a lot more pricey), and also the Music Firsts are good, but very pricey. It�s a shame Stevens and Billington put up the prices of that TX102 transformer so much (they are 6 times the price they were 4 years ago!). Sometimes you can get one of the Bent Audio TVC passive using the TX102 for quite cheap, - that might be worth looking at, - the TX102 is a much bigger transformer than the standard Prometheus transformer, - do you think it would have better dynamics or would even an more pricey TVC not have dynamics as good as a normal passive? Apparently Stevens and Billington �borrowed� the transformer designs for the TX102 and TX103 MC step up transformer from Audionote, so that�s why it�s a good device!
        
        Shame a bout the Anateks, - the guy STILL has them for sale, - suppose I better not though�!
        
        Thanks very much for explaining the PLLXO and the diagram for 3rd order low bass. I am really lost with this pole frequency stuff, - what does that all mean?! I understand how to plug those frequencies you gave me into that formula you gave me but which frequency am I plugging in to get which cap values where?! And this is for the 3rd order PLLXO only, right?
        
        I can seem what you are saying� yes its also a good idea to try a 2nd order low pass and 1st order high pass (as per 2.7) with the 3.3R as that would produce less insertion loss. However like I say I can put one of these NAD preamps in between the parts of the 3rd order crossover (in between 2nd and 1st order like you say) if necessary. So I would really like to try both options actually and see which is better. If you opt for using the first order instead of second for the higher part (as per 2.7) does it affect the way the internal crossover works later on? Or does it not matter that you are initially using 1st order and not the stock second order?
        
        With either of the passive schemes I reckon I can quite easily buy the right value caps and resistors and make cables up with these parts soldered in. That�s not a problem. My main stumbling block at the moment is actually calculating the values!
        
        Also if I ever wanted to use an active crossover in the future I would need to know the crossover frequencies of the 3rd order low pass and 2nd order high pass first stages of the stock crossover (the bit in the passive crossover external boxes) to program into the active crossover.
        I have been looking at crossover calculators on the net and am having trouble calculating these crossover frequencies. The reason for this is I am unsure what value for the impedance values to put into the calculations! Have you any ideas?! If I use 4 ohms for the impedance the values don�t seem right. I am guessing right now 200-250Hz for the 3rd order low pass and 300-350Hz for the 2nd order high pass. But I�d rather calculate them if possible rather than guessing!
        
        Sorry to keep asking you questions!
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE:Good luck - Davy 07:06:11 08/14/10 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Good luck posted by Davy on August 13, 2010 at 16:59:00
        
        Hi Satie,
        Just wanted to add I thought of an area where the 80s Naim amps are not so good (and others have noted this too), - the soundstage is quite small and compact/closed in comparison to most other amps, and is noticeable for sure. I don't mind this though as they do so many other things well and make real music so it does not matter to me. And using a large line source pair of speakers like the 3 series Maggies helps a lot to compensate for this. Indeed in a smaller room the Maggies might have a ridiculously big soundstage so perhpas thse older Naim combos can be a blessing in that situation, balancing things and bringing the speakers into better focus. Apparently the newer Naim gear addressed the small soundstage issue.
        
        Also this 80s Naim gear I'm sure is bandwidth limited in the output from the preamp, - I am not sure the exact details but I know there is something inside the preamp circuitary that cuts off the output at 20Khz or just above over quite sharply, and a simialr thing is employed in the bass too (not sure which frequency it is there though). This is so the Naim power amp receives only the frequencies it is optimised to work well with. In pratice its not a problem at all when listening- from what I remember you don't hear any lack of extension at both ends and if it makes the power amp work better its a good idea I reckon. But I am pretty sure with the current range is not like this and is full bandwidth.
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE:Good luck - Davy 16:56:59 08/11/10 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Good luck posted by Satie on August 11, 2010 at 14:10:34
        
        Thanks a lot for the info Satie,
        Like say the Yaqin 300B integrated amp needs looking at and I don't think its sounds that great either really. I am going to get the hum fixed soon by an expert here, - will try it out then.
        I am really in two minds as to whether to hang onto the Promitheus or not. I need to test it out more, - it does have a very pure and detailed sound and its much better than the Moth passive in my system. Its clearer and more detailed for sure. Its just the dynamics like I say, - nothing close to the active pres I have tried. I need to test it out with the Art Audio Quintet valve amp too (30Watts) with my headphones and also with the Proacs 3.5s when I get them set up again (the Art Audio works well with those big Proacs, - in fact even the 9W 300B amp works OK with them in my smallish room as long as the volume is not pumped up too high!)
        So a lot of testing still to do.
        And the Equipment churning continues, - there has been a flurry of Quad 99 preamps today ( I think they are replacing the 99 range soon so a lot of people have just started selling!). I am picking up one tomorrow locally. So I will be comparing it with the 66 tomorrow night!, - I THINK it will sound better and be the one to keep but I'll know for sure when I hear it. Can hang onto both though, will have to sell one on. Do you reckon the 99 will still be good with the 606 despite it having slightly higher 775mV output level (I should think so as the Nad is higher and that works fine with the 606)
        One thing I have noticed about the Quad pre/power 66/606 combo on the 2.7s is that whilst it is good in general and the 606 is obviously driving the speakers well, it is nothing like as attacky sounding/grabbing and dynamic sounding the Naim Audio Pre/power combination (32.5 pre amp with Hicap power supply and NAP250 power amp) my Dad used with his MGIIIs. But the Naim amps are well known for their pace etc and dynamics probably being ahead of many amps in that department. The Quad combo is sort of more subtle and smoother sounding,- still good but it doesn�t have the same sort of dynamics and attack. Of course I am not using the same speakers as my Dad was but my hunch is the difference is the amps. I will test more when I get the 3.3Rs but that will not be comparable to my Dads set up really as I will be driving them active of course. My Dads setup of the MGIIIs and Naim amps really was fantastic, - it had everything, - dynamics, detail extension at both ends and subtlety. From reading around it seems some people prefer Naim amps and othera Quad, - some people find Quad ampa too smooth and polite (those that prefer Naim) and others prefer Quad amps, finding Naims a bit over the top. I would say I probably prefer the Naim sound myself but the advantage of the used Quad gear is its vastly cheaper!
        
        If I had the money I would love to get a full Naim pre/power setup but they are so pricey even used, - and the NAP250, whilst a fantastic classic power amp (which has been in production for 35 years now!) is only 70 watts into 8 ohms and about 120 into 4 ohms, though it is however quite capable of high amp delivery. So the Quad 606 is definitely probably better on paper for the Maggies (140 in 8, 240 into 4), and the current dumping circuit it uses is very similar to the Threshold amps (designed by Nelson Pass), but in a smaller/lighter package.
        There is of course the bigger NAP500 Naim power amps which will drive any speaker really but that�s too pricey by far (�10000+). Even though my Dad used a Naim NAP250 I am not sure any Naim power amp is the best choice to use with a Maggies as Naim amps don't have Zobel networks on the output stage, in fact you should only use Naim NACA5 speaker cable with a Naim amp as that cable has the right inductance/capacitance and actually acts as the Zobel network. If you use a different speaker cable you can get oscillation, which I would have thought would be bad with a Maggie! Do you reckon a Naim amp power amp with Naim speaker cable would be OK with a Maggie or not?
        I have spoke to some people about mixing a Naim preamp with a Quad power amp and vice versa, in order to try to get some more dynamics to my Quad amp setup. The cheapest option would be to try a Naim preamp such as the NAC72. You might have to use attenuator to use it with the Quad 606 though (due to that high 0.5V for max output sensitivity it has). But it could be an option to try. No tilt control though on the Naim preamps of course, but I wouldn't mind trying one anyway. But I'm going to see first how the 3.3R sounds actively driven. IF I want a more attacking/pacey/dynamic sound I might consider getting a Naim preamp to try which might well help.
        All the best,
        Colin
        
        Edits: 08/11/10
    - RE:Good luck - Davy 07:06:46 08/09/10 (3)
      Cheers Satie,
      There seem to be qutie a few MF X10s here. I can alwways picked up a used one if I think I need it
      The guy I met yesterday had two of them, - they looked like this one.
      http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MUSICAL-FIDELITY-X10-D-BUFFER-STAGE-/120603998745?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item1c148efa19
      Pretty sure thats the original verison, - there are newer ones too. He had got a guy to do mods on them, - well I am not sure if it was mods but it looked liked all the electrolytic caps had been replaced, - I guess for better quality ones, - I think the new ones were Nichions. I could do this myself no doubt, - I am Ok at doing straight swaps for better components of the same ratings, - just nothing more advneturous as I don't really know what I'm doing!! I could go for the Eastern Electric model instead, - that looks nice, - but a used MF is going to be an awful lot cheaper, - especially here. It will be very easy to find used here for cheap.
      Yeah in my opinion the dynamics of the Anatek/SMGa combo was lacking, -the sound was just a bit too weak. Sweet but weak. I was thinking it could instead possibly be due to the passive Promethius not blending well with the Anateks but as we known the Anateks have 100 ohm input impedance so they should be fine with any passive, even more traditional non TVC ones (which indeed is the type of preamp Anatek made for the amps). So I am not going to risk buying them in case they don't work well with the mid/tweeter sections of the 3.3R or 2.7QR. If they were more well known I would buy them no doubt as its less of a risk if you want to resell. I doubt if I bought them now I would lose any money reselling them (as the price I would have bought them for would be very cheap), but I could be waiting a long time to shift them!!
      Going to try the Promitehus Ref TVC and the Quad 66 preamp tonight with the 606 MK2 power amp and 2.7QRs. Will let you know how I get on comparing those two preamps to the NAD 1155 preamp that is currently in the setup and works well in my opinion despite being old and not high end. It can output a quite healthy 12V max from its preamp outputs which sounds pretty healthy to me and I think I can hear the positive results coupled the high 34dB gain (0.5V for max output) of the Quad 606. This combo works well with insenstivie speakers like Maggies in my opinion.
      The Quad 66 preamp can only do about 1.5V output max, - I am worried it was a bad buy. Have no idea how it sounds yet though so will reserve judgement until I hear it. Its easy to resell on for the same price I bought it if it does not. Am looking forward to tryout out the tilt control though of course! If the 66 is quite good but something I could do without for the time being I can sell it on and always rebuy another one later, - there are load of them around, as a lot of them were made (as with the 606).
      By the way you were dead right about the Promethius pre outs (this one has one RCA set and one XLR set of outputs). I looked inside and the RCA output is just tapped off the XLR output in series. Though there is of course the extra ground/shield wire connected to the XLR from the transformer that is obviously not carried through to the RCA outputs. So if this preamp is worth keeping I can easily use it for biamping, - and might as well use the XLR outputs straight into the Behringer I guess.
      All the best,
      Colin
      
      Edits: 08/09/10
      - RE:Good luck - Satie 12:55:20 08/09/10 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Good luck posted by Davy on August 09, 2010 at 07:06:46
        
        Yep, the eX10s seem to have had their power supplies upgraded to lower ESR electrolytics from Nichicon. Should be very nice.
        
        The 66 at unity gain and the 606 at a very high 34 db come together to produce a reasonable combo at 35 db gain - as the normal 10 volt preamp output is +10 db gain and the standard amp is 26-28 db gain, for a 36-38 db total. The 606 should be a good match to passives too.
        
        We await your observations.
        
        RE:Good luck - Davy 13:09:57 08/09/10 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Good luck posted by Satie on August 09, 2010 at 12:55:20
        
        Cheers Satie,
        About to try out the amps in a hour or so.
        Yes you are dead on right, - I did not mention this before but I already tiried the 606 with a cheap Moth passive preamp I have (a normal passive not a TVC. I would say gain wise the 606 and a passive is spot on (even with a less sensitive speaker like the 2.7). The high gain of the 606 is really useful here. Its just in terms of the sound quality its a bit rolled off at the top end and a bit thin in the bass compared to any of the active preamps I have, I guess this is becuase of the 606s low 20K input impedance.
        The NAD active preamp is the best combo I have tried so far for tonailty with the 606 and 2.7. The Nad is bad with the Proacs though for example, - its too bright there, but seems to work wonders on the darker sounding 2.7s.
        
        What I am hoping of course is the Promitheus will have the same great volume range with the 606 as the Moth passive did but as its a TVC the sound will be better as it will work better with the low input impedance of the 606.
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE:Good luck - Davy 17:00:30 08/09/10 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Good luck posted by Davy on August 09, 2010 at 13:09:57
        
        Hi Satie,
        Rather stupidly I left my test CDs at the office (had them there to test a CD player) so I couldn't test out the preamps in full with familiar material but I will do more testing tomorrow night.
        The Promitheus is good, - I like it, - it works very well with the Quad 606, - just the same gain wise obviously as the 606 works with the Moth passive, but the treble sounds less congested and clearer/more transparent than it does with the Moth, and I think the sound is a bit more dynamic too. It hasn't quite got the dynamics of the active preamps I have but its worth keeping I think for sure, and the detail there is great with this preamp.
        As for the Quad 66 preamp, - we'll on first listen thats a nice sounding active preamp too, - it has a tone a bit similar to the NAD but is a bit more refined and pretty clear sounding. Wow though the tilt and bass cut controls are really fantastic, - tilting up by one step (raising side above 1K and lowering below 1K) really helps with the 2.7s in my room, - removing a lot of the heaviness/dullness. Or having the tilt bypassed/flat and using the bass cut by one step makes an big improvement too with these speakers in this room. I am very impressed, - this is an invaluable tool for anyone using Dipole speakers, - I've sure never heard tone controls this effective before! Everyone that tries the Quad tone controls say they are better than any other tone controls and know I can see why!
        Also the large remote of the 66 preamp is fantastic,- so easy to use. The big volume knob is great.
        I will still probably however resell the 66 preamp right now as I could do with the cash for other projects, - I can always very easily buy another one at a later date no problem as they are so common. I very glad to have tried it out. I will probably aim for the newer Quad 99 preamp next time due to all the adjustable input sensitivities for both line level inputs and MC/MM Phono, - that's a nice feature. And of course it still has these great tone controls too.
        My only complaint of the tilt and bass cut/treble cut controls on the 66 preamp is I wish the steps were a bit more subtle, - there are 6 steps/settings on the tilt for example, - I wish there were 12 for the same range if you see what I mean so you could fine tune a little more. Maybe on the 99 preamp they are more subtle, - will have to see see when I get one to try. The 99 preamp also has something extra in the tone controls in that it has bass boost and treble boost too which the 66 doesn't have (which work in a similar way to the bass cut and treble cut) .
        So anyway If I get a 99 and don't think it sounds as good as the 66 preamp I'll resell it of course and buy another 66 but from what I have heard it sounds a bit better than the 66 so I want to try it out. Apparently the 77 preamp probably does not sound as quite good as the other two, as they tried to make that one a bit more valve like sounding and it can sound a bit too dark and slower.
        So I will compare all the 4 preamps I have again more tomorrow (using the 606 and 2.7QRs) using CDs I am more familiar with, - will get back to you with more impressions then. Wish I could include the highly thought of SJS Electroacoustics Arcadia valve preamp with the test but I don't think it works that well with the Quad 606, - the 606's input impedance being too low for a valve preamp that does not use transformers. (though hey!, perhaps the Arcadia would work Ok with the 606 via a buffer?!!)
        All the best,
        Colin
        
        Edits: 08/09/10 08/09/10 08/10/10
  - RE:Good luck - Satie 06:37:38 08/08/10 (2)
    Line level cap, the value is very low and cap is far cheaper, and you can use a top quality foil cap. All amplifiers sound better driving non-reactive speaker loads (without capacitance or inductance) with the exception of some class D amps. Thus moving the crossover to line level is always a source of substantial improvement.
    
    http://www.behringermods.com/what-we-do.html
    Formerly under the Audiosmile UK name.
    They install their custom boards. I don't see the power supply mods anymore.
    - RE:Good luck - Davy 07:35:19 08/08/10 (1)
      Hi Satie,
      Sounds very cool, - these mods are not that pricey. I need to get this Behringer ASAP and try the various options for driving the speakers Mid/treble from theBehringer and also using the Behringer Bypass approach method you are recommending)- I will try it on both 3.3R and 2.7 (after getting inside the 2.7R to make the right connections obviously, - don't need to do that with the 3.3R). Can't wait. Will then no dounbt go for these upgrades.
      
      The line level cap sounds very easy, - can't wait to try that.
      
      I am (most likely) going to buy this Promeitheus Reference later today (thats if it is a Reference, - as if not I have some contacts for standard modeal anyway for a lot cheaper), - wil be hearing the Anateks driving the SMGa. Will let yoy knwo how the stuff sounds.
      
      Cheers,
      Colin
      - RE:Good luck - Davy 16:24:37 08/08/10 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE:Good luck posted by Davy on August 08, 2010 at 07:35:19
        
        Hi Satie,
        I bought the Promitheus, not sure eactly which version but I think its an older reference version. Will test it on with the Quad 606 and 2.7s tomorrow.
        The Anateks were hooked up to the SMGa's. We didn't push the volume too much because of the guys neighbours, and the sound was sweet but my impression was the Anateks probably weren't gripping the speakers that well, - the sound was fine but not authoritative really. Sweet and clear but I think there was a driving issue. the SMGa are sensitive so I guess its their 4 ohm nominal load, - the Anateks probably can't supply enough current to drive them that well.
        Shame I could have bought them and I still could to drive the Proacs, but ehy are not that well known like I say. Might be hard on shift on if I want to in the future. They might be OK for the 3.3R mid/tweeters but I suppose I better play it safe and give them a miss.
        This guy had a few cheap used Musical fidelity x10 tube buffers he used with the Promitheus (not sure which model they were), - he said he liked what they did to the sound. I might get something like this to try out too. They are pretty cheap used, - worth trying.
        All the best,
        Colin
        
        Edits: 08/08/10

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable