- Posted by Davy (A) on August 24, 2010 at 06:38:58
In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs posted by RickeyM on August 24, 2010 at 06:36:03
Thanks Rickey,
Of course thats a bit silly of me not to think of that, - I will do that, - I see there are instructions on tweeter replacement in the 3 series manuals, - will study them carfeully first. Do you need the protection strip in all the time when taking them off and putting them back on?
Cheers,
Colin
Follow Ups:
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 11:17:10 08/24/10
(107)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs posted by Davy on August 24, 2010 at 06:38:58
First, use the tweeter protector strips whenever you are working on the mid/tweet panel or the tweeter. They are fragile, and you should not take chances to save a modicum of work.
The test of the tweeter is the playback of Cymbals - played in mono. see which sounds more extended. The one that sounds better extended is the one you should treat as reference at look at the one that sounds off.
The tweeters were obviously not replaced, as they have consecutive numbers. But one of them may have been repaired with a repair kit. Since later tweeters have a lower resistance and were installed with a series resistor (not the attenuation resistor), the louder one may be the one that had possibly been repaired and the resistor not put in place.
This is wrong:
In any case, you should measure the DC resistance of the mid/tweeter on both sides with your simple multimeter. If one of them reads about 4 ohms, then you have a disconnected tweeter there, if they are 1/2-2/3 ohms apart, then there has probably been a repair with a lower resistance foil and the 1 ohm resistor not put in.
Because: the tweeter is in series with a capacitor which is a disconnect for DC.
There can also be other issues, like the parallel inductor on the louder tweeter having broken one of its solder joints. Another possibility is the midrange low pass parallel cap having lost its solder joint on the louder one. Since you are going to take the socks off anyway, you will be able to see this by eye.Re PLLXO high pass. I calculated out the components for your high pass filter at line level, I chose good quality components that should give you the best bang for the buck. The selection seemed better at Crickelwoods so I picked values there. The values are as follows:
C1 150 nF CPW150N Ansar Metalized polyprop
R1 2200 Ohms M2K2 metal film resistor
C2 40-44 nF composed of two (wire them in parallel to each other) 22 nF foil and film caps. CPP22N
These values correspond to poles at 470 Hz and 200 Hz which is sort of a spread out Bessel very close to the stock alignment.
Edits: 08/25/10
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 12:52:02 08/24/10
(106)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 24, 2010 at 11:17:10
Hey guys,
Many thanks all of you for your help. Thanks Satie and Sailor for the tip on measuring the DC resistance.
Hager thanks for mentioning I would need a Hot gun to remove the tweeter and install it in the other speaker + vice versa, - sounds a bit tricky!, - yes I’d rather avoid that if possible if I can trouble shoot some other way.
So Satie am I right in thinking you mean I can tell by just measuring the DC resistance of the whole mid/tweeter network including the internal crossover (just putting the probes in the mid/tweeter terminals on the speaker? This is obviously a lot easier than measuring the resistance of the tweeter in isolation after getting inside an unsoldering a ribbon connector.
Like you say if there are other issues like bad connections on the crossover parts it will be hard to tell without measuring the tweeter in isolation and/or inspecting the internal crossover.
Seems measuring the DC resistance of the whole thing on each speaker to see if the readings are apart is a good place to start, then I’ll be opening up the speakers soon anyway like you say to do the delam repair. So I will double check all the connections in the crossover of both speakers then. I suppose it would not do any harm to carefully redo all the solder joints then anyway just in case any are cold.
Just a bit confused Satie as you initially say in your post the tweeter with more extension/brightness is the tweeter that I should consider reference ( and the other one should be considered sounding off). Then you say the brighter one is likely to be the one that is misbehaving?? by possibly being one that’s had a repair job and not had the 1ohms series resistor installed.
From listening, my own hunch is for some reason that the brighter tweeter is the good one and that’s the one that sounds right, and the other one is too dark/dull for some reason. I know logic would say this is less likely to be the case and it would be the other way around (based on the 1 ohms issue you mention) but remembering how my Dads MGIIIs sounded, - the balance of the sound is better with the brighter tweeter on these speakers in my opinion.
Anyway, thanks for the help guys, - I will get to the bottom of it somehow!
Wanted to ask, - when I take the sock off (never done this before),will the sock come off OK with the tweeter still installed.
Satie many thanks for helping me with those calcs for the HP PLLXO and even looking up available components for me, really appreciated. Sorry to have taken up your time. I will get exactly what you have written. I will double check by ringing first that they are all in stock before cycling there! Hopefully I can return the favor to you somehow one day, - for example perhaps if there is ever anything at all in the UK you ever need I would be happy to help you out.
Cheers,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 13:48:36 08/24/10
(105)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 24, 2010 at 12:52:02
The idea of this diagnostic is this:
A tweeter can be off, in which case it would be less extended or just less loud on the last octave. The one that sounds more extended should be the good one. (brighter)
If you can't tell a difference on this count, both tweeters may be fine just that they differ or the problem is somewhere else.
If there is a low impedance tweeter, my choice would be to match them up with a resistor. In which case you would lower the output of the louder one.
The loose solder joints on either of the parallel components would simply extend the crossover overlap region and cause a prominence at and just above the crossover region or at and just below the crossover depending on which component is out.
Jeez, my bad, the DC resistance would only be that of the midrange, since the tweeter is in series with a capacitor. so you can't determine anything that way about the tweeters. Sorry
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 14:01:07 08/24/10
(104)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 24, 2010 at 13:48:36
Thanks Satie,
Well I listened to each tweeter in isolation last night (taking midrange fuses out). One of them definitely sounds more extended to my ears in the last octave than the other one. I think one of them sounds "off", - thats my hunch.
Ahh so you reckon I can’t determine anything by measuring the DC resistance of the mid/tweeter circuit. Shame. So as for testing each tweeter resistance, am I limited to opening up each and unsoldering one connector and measuring the DC across the tweeter? And if I want to swap the tweeters from speaker to speaker to see if the problem is mirroed do I 100% need a hot gum?! Never used one before, - would not be sure what I was doing! Is there any other way.
At least if I test the tweeters resistance it would tell me if it’s the tweeter that’s the problem or something in the crossover of one speaker. I see what you say one tweeter can be brighter with a cold solder joint on the parallel components. Is there any way something wrong in the crossover could make one tweeters duller ?(i.e. the opposite).
I guess the best bet is to check the tweeters DC now. Just go to figure the best way of going about this.
Cheers,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 19:56:05 08/24/10
(103)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 24, 2010 at 14:01:07
I have not been on the inside of a 3 series, so I can't tell you how its put together. And the glue gun thing is news to me. I keep thinking of my Tympani, but I gutted the internal crossover so my drivers are connected directly to the terminals and I keep forgetting that people have crossover components between the terminals and the drivers.
The crossover on the tweeter has a parallel inductor, so you would be measuring DC on the inductor wire - essentially a short. So to measure the tweeter you need to disconnect it on one side.
The differences in top octave extension would indicate that the ribbon on one of them has been replaced with "something else" internally - perhaps a DIY "fix". someone once posted a repair for the ribbon with a conductive tape, was not satisfied with the results. Another replaced it with DIY pleated aluminum foil and they didn't quite match. And another replaced the ribbon with an unwound metalized polypropylene capacitor. Though all of these would be a potential fit, there is not particular reason they would have the same tonal structure as an original tweeter so would only be practical if done on both tweeters.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 03:25:15 08/25/10
(102)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 24, 2010 at 19:56:05
Thanks Satie,
Sorry for the slight delay in replying, - time difference!
So to measure the tweeters you reckon I would need to disconnect one connection only? Andy reckoned to do both? He had not heard of the hot gun thing though which is encouraging, - he reckons you only need a soldering iron.
There is something funny going on with these speakers as the tweeters work when nothing at all is inserted in the tweeter attenuation slot (see my post above), so I'm going to open up the connections panels tonight and see if they've been tampered with by a modder (must have been for sure for the tweeters to behave like that).
I have a strong feeling its the duller tweeter thats the culprit. Like you say it might have had a repair or something. The problem I see is that measuring the DC resistances of both tweeters might not tell me much (if they are the same), - the idea of swapping tweeters from speaker to speaker does seem like a better way to tell if its a bad tweeter for sure.
But I agree its a bit impractical and I'd like to avoid it if possible.
Could I test with the tweeters still installed in the speaker, by unsodering the connections, and connecting them up to a power amp (such as my low powered tube amp?, 15WPC), possibly with a cap in series to stop any oscailliation, and send a +2 KHz or so HP signal from the Behrginer to the power amp? Unfortuantely my art audio valve amp has 8 ohm tap only, - but might it work just to test if I am careful? My SS amps I think are too high powered, the smallest one I have is a 35WPC Creek 4040 S3.
Cheers,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 09:33:15 08/25/10
(101)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 25, 2010 at 03:25:15
The issue is not the maximum power of the amp. It is its capacity to drive a 2 ohm load - i.e. stability, and then the max power should be high not low, since what will bur your tweeters is clipping. So use a 100+ W/ch A/AB or 50+ w/ch class A amp you have that is specified into 2 ohms..
You are not going to be driving 100 db spl signals. so first of all get a test CD or a download of test tracks, use the test signals that fit in the tweeter's pass band (over 1.5 khz. Don't play them at too high a volume. Also, you can cross over with the Behringer into the tweeter's amp at say LR4 alignment at 2 Khz, feed that to an amp without hum.
If you have access to the tweeter's connectors, go get the females of the connectors on the tweeters (they are male if I remember right) to make a set of hookup cables to hook to your power amps. You need to hook BOTH tabs to make a circuit (you obviously know this, but it seems that outside of last night you have not been sleeping).
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 09:50:54 08/25/10
(100)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 25, 2010 at 09:33:15
Hi Satie,
Thanks again!
Glad you noticed my sleeping habits!, - I stay up late here I know! (up to 4am some nights), - when I do that I've usually had a quick sleep at work in the day! (its that kind of job!) But I am a bit sleep deprived in general, - probably why I ask so many dumb questions and forgot most of the maths I used to know!Ahh in thats case I thinik the best amp to test the tweeter with is my NAD 208 THX SS power amp, - it is class AB though (not class A) with a class G switching rail circuit.
Here is a pic of it
http://avforum.no/forum/attachments/generelt-audio-hifi/21064d1183899134-obduserte-hifi-produkter-nad_208_open.jpgAnd here is a review
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_3_2/v3n2h.html
If you look at the second paragraph it explains its specs, - according to that it can deliver 900 watts into 2 ohms on transient peaks using the rail (and using 14 mosefts per channel in total during the peaks).Here are the specs (second page)
http://nadelectronics.com/content/100421093938-NAD208.pdfDo you think this will be OK? I think this amp is very unlikely to clip.
Might I need to use a cap as well?
I could use the Quad but this NAD amp has a lot more power/current capability. The NAD does not sound quite as good as the Quad but its for testing puproses obviously.All the best,
Colin
Edits: 08/25/10
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 12:09:15 08/25/10
(99)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 25, 2010 at 09:50:54
The NAD 208 looks grand. No problem, just make sure that it does not have a significant turn on thump. If you have a worry over that issue, stick a fat cap on it, something over 50uF.
Re sleep - insomnia is a very common problem, here too...
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 14:31:00 08/25/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 25, 2010 at 12:09:15
Sorry to bug you again Satie,
Just wanted to check with you.
I am pretty sure it is, - but can you confirm if this is the Audioquest brass splitter you were talking about
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Audioquest-1-x-RCA-MALE-2-x-RCA-FEMALE-Splitter-/230515113302?pt=UK_Computing_CablesConnectors_RL
There is another Audioquest one which is cable based and more pricey
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/AudioQuest-Flexible-Y-Cable-Splitter-RCA-F-2-RCA-M-/120613446991?pt=UK_Computing_CablesConnectors_RL
This is obviously a bit more convenient.
Which do you think is the best bet? (sound wise), I'm guessing its the brass splitter but just wanted to make sure. The brass splitter will just about fit on the back of my preamp but there is not that much room for all the cables in that small place.
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 14:24:50 08/25/10
(97)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 25, 2010 at 12:09:15
Hi Satie,
Well just caught up on a bit of sleep,- time for a late night loooking at these what horrors I'm going to find in these speakers.
The Quad 606 DOES have a thump when you turn it on, however the NAD 208 (very usefully) uses delay relays of about 3 seconds, - I've never heard a thump turning it on in all the time I've been using it. So I guess I can use it without a cap. Like I say it operates in Class AB most of the time, I seriously doubt I've ever even had it switch to the Class G mode when I've used it, - it has so much power in Class AB mode anyway the rail can;t have been used in my small room. Some modders disable the rail switching apparently as the amp is supposed to sound slightly better without it and you still have a lot of power, but I guess with the rail in place and ready for use there is precious little chance the amp will clip under any circumstances.
Will Class AB be OK in terms of oscaillation for that tweeter? I guess thats why Slass A is really recommened for a riiibon? Should I use a cap as well just in case bearing this in mind, or will it not matter?
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 16:28:09 08/25/10
(96)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 25, 2010 at 14:24:50
The brass one is the one I like I find it as nearly perfectly transparent as anything I ever put between components, but if it is too much for your space, their wire splitter is OK.
With the auto delay you should be just fine without the cap if the NAD is stable into 2 ohms then it is. I would not take the trouble. I use a DR-9 on the tweeter with the fuse, but no cap in line. It has pretty much been on through brownouts, tripups on the power cord and subsequent thoughtless plug in... Tweeters still intact.
Actually, I just made a new interconnect for the tweeter amp with much lighter RCAs than I normally use with an eye to Mapleshade's "less metal and less dielectric is more more music" philosophy. As a first test I used a Blue Jeans 75 ohm digital cable which has a light crimp on connector instead of my JPS Superconductors with WBTs. It definitely made a difference here (I cross over the tweeter at 10KHz) the Blue Jeans was significantly more extended. But the shielded stranded silver on copper in teflon twisted pair twinax grounded at the source with the light P3 RCAs was amazing right off the workbench. It actually sounded louder!!! not only more extended. The oddest thing is how it made the bass sound tighter and more extended too. So far I tested it with Liszt/Howard the disc with Les Preludes and the Caprices with La Leggierezza.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 17:08:39 08/25/10
(95)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 25, 2010 at 16:28:09
Thanks Satie,
Will get the brass splitters.
Not looked inside the connection panels but will do later, - and will try the NAD on the tweeter at the weekend most probably.
If the QUAD 606 has a thump on startup should I avoid using that on the mid/tweeter section, though the interal crossover, or is it likely to be more dodgy connected to the bass panel directly?
When I tested the other day the NAD actualyl sounded pretty good on the mid/top to my surprise (with the Quad on the bass panel), - better than the other way around. I had to do it thbe fromer way to avoid hiss (Quad was too hissy used on the top) but then again I still had some noise from the bass panel using the high gain QUAD. I've made a different XLR to RCA cable that might give me that 6dB output attenuation on the Behrginer. And I've also just knocked up the PLLXO. I went to Maplin, - was in the area so it was convenient. Parts are not quite as good as Crickleweood but its a test. C1 is a big popypropylene so should be OK. They only had the right value C2 in polyester caps, - should I try to get something better?
Will probably be trying this all at the weekend, - will let you know how I get on. Many thanks for the help with the PLLXO.
Cheers,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 21:32:43 08/25/10
(94)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 25, 2010 at 17:08:39
Well, the 208 looks like a serious amp from NAD. Definitely not what I was expecting. I looked at the specs and the manual and it is like the answer to "how would NAD build a Bryston style amp". The bridging option and other features are very nice. I need to look at some more reviews but it looks like a real sleeper that we all had missed.
When the tweeter's high pass in the panel is engaged you would have a cap in series (i.e. a DC disconnect) and an inductor in parallel (i.e. a DC short) so you should be just fine, thump and all - so long as it isn't a seriously big one.
The polyester cap is rather "old fashioned" like the mylar caps that were all the rage a couple of decades ago. Lacks focus and is not well regarded relative to the non polar or weakly polar polymer dielectrics like oil and wax in paper polypropylene polystyrene and Teflon. Besides, I had picked out for you a nice foil cap and I venture that the polyester cap is metalized - which is hard to do well - i.e. cheap for a reason. So you should get the better caps later on as a tweak for your sound.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 05:32:24 08/26/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 25, 2010 at 21:32:43
Hi Satie,
Here is some correspondance I had with a Swedish guy about the NAD 208 three years ago. He decribes a mod (which I didn't undertsand!), and also decsribes a bit about how this super amp works.
As you will see, - even then I was asking silly questions!
Cheers,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 05:09:29 08/26/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 25, 2010 at 21:32:43
Hi Satie,
I uploaded the NAD 208 service manual. Here is the link if you fancy a closer look at the circuits etc in this beast!Cheers,
Colin
Edits: 08/26/10
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 03:44:40 08/26/10
(91)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 25, 2010 at 21:32:43
HI Satie,
Part of the tweeter mystery is solved!, - see above!
Yes it seems the 208 is the only serious amp NAD ever made (well the 218 is quite good too, - see below), - the 208 was made in England, and really over engineered, and I've heard many times that it should have been priced way more than they sold it for new. It was made between 1992 and 1996. So yes it is a sleeper that many people miss as its a NAD and its overlooked. I experienced it 11 years and sold that one, - used it in a home cinema setup, - it was seriously good, - very powerful but a good quality sound as well, - great compromise. I searched for another 3 years ago as I knew how good they are for the money. The good thing about it is its a very very powerful amp in a pretty light package (only 17.5kg)
I guess if you upgraded a lot of the parts in it for better quality ones and/or a few tweaks it would be a fantastic sounding amp. It does sound pertty good in stock form as well. It does have a fast treble like that review said. NAD also made the later Chinese made 218THX which uses bipolars instead of MOSFETS. It has a similar config of a reservoir of small caps, - that amp is heavier weight wise and it also does have a even more dynamic sound than the 208 and a very good bass response (see the Stereophile review of it) but from what I have read the treble is rougher sounding than the more refined MOSFET based 208. The 218 is the better choice probably for Home cinema (but the 208 is no slouch at all with Home cinema too) but I guess the 208 is the far better option for use with HI-Fi speakers like Maggies,
With the optional bridging option mode for the 208 you have an insanely powerful combo with two of these. And I would have though even bridged a pair of them would still be stable into 4 ohms and the class G switching mode STILL works in bridging mode too, - so huge transient reserve. OCCASIONALY you see them cheap, - I will look for another. I once saw one sell on Ebay for about £250!, - but that was pretty cheap, - I paid £450 used for mine from a Hifi shop. The price was £1000 new in 1992.
I conversed with a Dutch guy a couple of years ago about the 208 and he emailed me the service manual- its not on the web. It has all the schematics in it etc, - I'll dig it up and send it to you so you can have a browse, in case you might find it interesting.
I tried out the PLLXO (with headphones connected via resistors from the NAD speaker output), - sounds great!, - I compared the crossover point by listening and switing from the PLLXO to the Behringer going the HP and if we assume the Behringer is accurate in its setting I reckon the PLLXO cross over sounds to be about the same as 280Hz HP 2nd order Butterworth on the Behringer. So perhpas its a little low maybe?, - Should I just try to blend the bass with the PLLXO this way or might it be better to calculate sound values that would give me a slightly higher crossover of around 340Hz like you suggested for the 3.3R HP. Of course I;m not saying you calculated the values wrong!,.- just an observation in comparison to the Behringer. I can hear for sure this really works and all the nasty hiss I get with the Behringer is obviously eliminated. I used the NAD for testing but that has 20K input impedance like the Quad 606 does.
The Behringer really is very hissy when used in my system (with RCA to XLR connectors and HIfi, not pro level). I need to get it upgraded, - its pretty much unusable for the mid/treble section even with the lower gain NAD as you can still make out the hiss. I am going to carefully listen to it when using the NAD on the bass panel and the PLLXO on the mid/high (with the QUAD) to see if any hiss is still audible through the bass panel.
If I go for the mods I might go for the transformer based output stage from Audiosmile rather than the transistor based output stage, - the Transformer based one might be a good idea if I am minimum hiss.
I know part of the problem with the Behringer output stage is because its balanced and is higher output and this contributes to all this hiss. I am going to have to have a look myself on the DIY audio forum and see if its possible to reduce the output level myself. I made up a cable excluding that 1-3 XLR short and it DOES work, - the sound of the music is 6dB lower, but the hiss is EXACTLY the same level as it is with those pins shorted!!, - so its even worse S/N ratio, - so I will be using the shorted 6dB louder connection for now.
I am kind of tempted too to try your idea of using the PLLXO for the bass LP in 2nd order and 1st order on the high HP, - but obviously to do this I really need to experiment with the Behringer first using 2nd order LP and 1st order HP in order to get good sounding crossover points, then calculate I know the HP on the original MGIII is about 800Hz first order rather lower 350 ish Hz of the IIIa and 3.3r. The bass LP is still 3rd order on the original MGIII at 300Hz, 300Hz on the IIIa as well and 240 on the 3.3R. Bearing this is mind I understand the mid/tweeter internal crossover have different values on all these speakers as well.
I need to experiment to see if its viable to use these order of one lower for each branch with the 3.3R but if it is I might give the full PLLXO a build.
You are right about the polyester caps, - not great, - I will get the Cricklewood stuff soon, - I need to go there to get some more lead based solder anyway (no where else). I think the popypropylene caps I got for C1 from Maplin might be OK, they were pricey at about £2.50 each and are big!, - sort of rectangular shape. Probably not as good as the Ansar audio grade ones from Cricklewood though. At least I can see with this test how this really works, - I have some RCA splitter but they are cheap, - I need to get the Audioquest ones.
Anyway making progress on the tweeter issue!
Gonna test out the PLLXO at the weekend, - can’t wait!
Cheers,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 06:58:06 08/26/10
(90)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 26, 2010 at 03:44:40
Yes, I saw the Neo discussion, he's doing you good, so I figured I shouldn't confuse things.
Re 208 looks great, I think a simple mod to upgrade caps would be enough to raise performance to a high level. Bypasses on the big electrolytics or replacement with blackgates (if you can get them) I would send something like that to the upgrade co or underwood or modwright. But it looks like a very good amp at a rather cheap price.
The crossover is calculated to match the stock, so it would be more of a Bessel than a Butterworth, but its not even that steep. It is more like a first order with a "safety" first order down a couple of octaves to protect from deep bass going into the mid. Swap the polyester cap out when you have the chance. I suggest that you just match the bass crossover on the Behringer to the PLLXO high pass. That should give you the best tuning.
I don't know why your Behringer is so noisy, it is not a common problem. Could the noise be coming from upstream? Can you raise the input level into the Behringer? That should help. Using an SRC2496 to do the digitizing A/D should help with this hiss too.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 08:00:33 08/26/10
(89)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 26, 2010 at 06:58:06
Thanks Satie,
Yes my Behringer is very noisy. I did read around on the internet and some people do seem to say it’s a problem running it in stock form with RCA equipment. So I don’t think its faulty, - it is a real problem with some high gain power amps. And apparently the main culript is the output stage being too noisy when you are using single ended connections.
I am 100% sure the hiss is not coming upstream, - have tested with headphones carefully, - its defo all coming from the Behringer. You are right, - increasing the input gain level on the Behringer a bit and decreasing the output gain does help with the hiss a bit but this crossover is really unusable with an amp of high input sensitivity like the Quad.
The NAD has normal sensitivity so its better with the Behringer but the hiss is still there (but nothing like as bad as with the Quad)
The NAD 208 does also have balanced inputs (and a input selector switch on it), - I have not tried using these with these XLR inputs yet, - am going to try this, - there might be more or less hiss. Maybe less I think? Will see.
I am sure the Audiosmile upgrade would sort this problem so I might well get that done, - even with the price the upgrades taken into account this crossover is cheap and very flexible, - the hiss is a minor drawback for me right now, , - it jsut means I can;t use it with the Quad 606 or on the HP section, but for the bass and with the NAD (along with PLLXO) its going to be fine I am sure and I can still do the delay and phase etc on the bass.
Thanks for the info on your HP PLLXO, - when i tested it last night with headphone it really did sound good and worked very well. Even using headphone I can clearly hear it sounds much better than the Behringer doing the HP and of course has ziltch hiss.
I am quite attracted to a PLLXO LP crossover, - but yes to get the stock 3rd order I'd have to get a custom one made for my amp with the right inductors in it. I guess that a 2nd order PLLXO LP consisting of caps and resistors only will probably not sound right if the stock LP is 3rd order?
I will do what you say and swap the polyester caps (I got two 0.022uF ones and paralled them like you suggested, - they had 0.047uf but this was just outside the range of 0.04 to 0.044uF you specified so I played it safe). I will get the better quality foil film ones from Cricklewood soon when I get the chance.
And in the meantime I will try to blend the Behringer doing the LP (with the NAD) with this PLLXO HP and see how it sounds. I am sure it will sound very good. With the Behringer I will try the stock (ish) 3rd order LP Butterworth and will try 2nd order too to see if I can get that to work or not. Really look forward to testing it out, - might try tonight if I have time, - if not the weekend.
Wanted to ask as you mentioend it before, - it is possible to custom program the Behringer to do a different 3rd order crossover other than Butterworth?, - I couldn't find any info on this myself on the internet
As for the NAD - it’s a great amp but mine really needs a service, the electrolytic have never been replaced so thats not great for an amp of this age. I might send it to the Audio Innovations guy to do, but if the main bulk of it is changing that 100,000uF reservoir of caps in the middle of the amp with new and better quality electrolytics like Black Gates, I might be able to go that myself! (could be dodgy though!)
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 15:13:40 08/26/10
(88)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 26, 2010 at 08:00:33
The stock 3rd order crossover is close enough to a Butterworth that you would be unlikely to get close with a second order. But you can try for a second order by lowering the crossover frequency and use a sharper alignment like LR. Try it and see if you can find a second order alignment that works with the PLLXO.
You have a parametric EQ that you can program as a crossover whichever way you like. I think there are enough filters available to do most crossovers.
If you don't mind some work, you can make a set of Lpads on the output from the behringer and raise the input volume. Which should improve your S/N. Do a significant Lpad - like 12 db since the hiss is beyond just noticeable.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 17:12:54 08/26/10
(87)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 26, 2010 at 15:13:40
Hi Satie,
Some good progress with the tweeter issue, - see above!
I tried out the PLLXO, - this is great, - even with my cheap y connector cables from Cricklewood (I will buy the AQ ones soon) and the polyester capd the sound is very good, - its much better than using the Behringer for the mid/treble. I am using the QUAD 606 with the PLLXO, - there is absolutely ZERO hiss, so in that respect I'm very happy.
As for blending the bass from the Behringer (powered with the NAD) its still work in progress but I am getting there, - I thinkt it will be not hard to just match up the bass section to match this great PLLXO you did for me!.
I can sort of get 3rd order Butterworth LP on the Behringer to work, but its sounds a little heavy. Also strangely 2nd order Bessel sounds quite good too with a lower crossover freq and more gain. Trying L/R 2nd order is a good idea as well - did not think of that,- will try it. Butterworth 2nd order is too high gain/steep near the crossover point. Too heavy sounding
OF COURSE, - the Behringer has the parametric EQ, - so i can use a 3rd order Butterworth and then tweak the curve to try to make it less steep and more like a Butterworth/Bessel like the stock, - this would be ideal. Gonna have to try to work out how to try to do this with the EQ.
As for the hiss, - well with the lower gain NAD on the bass panel going through the Behrginer, its a lot better but there is still some audible hiss, - its not too bad, but its there. Yes I've read some posts on DIY audio about using pads on the output stage of the Behringer. that seems like good option, - not sure if I could build them myself though!, - Are these the sort of things that you can buy pre made? I guess you are right about -12dB L pad would be ideal. Then I could raise the gain on the input of the Behringer by 12dB, - easily done, - as the signal is single ended its at a very low level on 0dB anwyway, - its unlikely to be near clipping at +12dB input gain.
So L pads are not the same sort of principle as a passive preamp like the MOTH are they? The impedance level of the signal is preserved with a L-Pad isn't it?
Thanks again , - PLLXO is great and you were right, - its definitely the way to go.
Cheers,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 21:05:30 08/26/10
(86)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 26, 2010 at 17:12:54
Good that the PLLXO works for you. I am pleased for you.
The matching for the Bass will take a little effort - but understand that it needs to fit your room, not Magnepan's test facilities, however homey they are, they are not your room. So go on hacking at it, and get it right for your setup. Understand too that what you come up with now would not necessarily be ideal for your next room or even for just a different positioning.
You can look for Harrison labs FMod attenuators. or just make your own using this formula http://www.diyaudioandvideo.com/Calculator/LPad/Help.aspx
you can safely assume that the load Z of the power amp input (the equivalent of the driver) is purely resistive and is the input impedance. you can build them inline in a cable or build them into a little box with RCA or XLR input and output jacks, or replace the output jack with a short cable with a plug at the end.
Your Moth passive IS an Lpad with one resistor being variable.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 07:48:02 08/27/10
(85)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 26, 2010 at 21:05:30
Hi Satie,
Many thanks, - I really like the PLLXO.
I mean I had actually been thinking about buying the stock crossover recently as I was getting fed up with all the adjustments on the Behringer, but having the PLLXO for the HP fixed like this is much better for me, - so I only have to worry about adjusting the bass and not both the bass and the HP section. I had also been a bit dissapoitned with the sound of the Behringer (not jsut the hiss which was a problem too, but the SQ as well), - so you were right about it not being great stock.
Another bonus of the PLLXO is that the sound is MASSIVELY better than using the Behringer for the HP section, - so you were dead on right. I am not sure there is much point in getting the Behringer upgraded, - the only benefit would really be less hiss without using L pads and better sound quality when testing new crossover regimes, but its obviously pretty unlikely an upgraded Behringer would have better sound than the part active/part PLLXO setup anyway.
I can sort of adjust the parametric EQ a bit to make my 3rd order LP Butterworth slope less steep, but I'm not doing it in a very scientific way, - do you know if there is a way I can set the setting on the parametric EQ to get more accuately what I want? (i.e trying to get near stock), - the options on the parametic EQ on the DCX are: -6 or -12dB curve. LP, HP , or the middle type EQ. Q setting (range it works on) and frequency setting. If you have no ideas don't worry.
The only reservation I have about using an adjustable active crossover for the bass in my situation is still that I really am a fiddler, - I know its better to use a crossover like this and get it optimised for you room well, but I am likely to be adjusting it for different recording and spend more time doing that than just sitting down and enjoying music. So having something fixed really is better for me in some ways in this regard. I did see a set of stock crossovers for the 3.3R sell on Ebay earlier this year for only $85 dollars, - that would have been ideal for me, - shame that was obviously a one off, - it would be near to $450 for me to get them from Magnepan so its out of the question really. I suppose once I get a nice 3rd order LP setup worked out using the Behringer I could get somone to build a fixed PLLXO version with inductors etc. But like I say the 2nd order Bessel LP sounded quite good as well, and I haven't tried the 2nd order L-R yet which is liekly to blend even better with the PLLXO. I know a 2nd order LP blended with the 2nd order HP PLLXO is not assymetric like the stock crossover but it seems to work fine and from testing so far it actually seems a bit easier to blend and sounds better than using hte 3rd order Butterworth LP. But my problem with that is its a bit heavy sounding, - using Parametric EQ to make it behave more like the stock Butterworth/Bessel is quite likely to make it work a lot better I think. Will try it at the weekend.
Wanted to ask, - is biamping better in theory when you are using two identical power amps?, - so the phase etc and other characteristics are near to the same than they would be if you were using different amps? I need to look for another NAD 208, - the Quad 606 worked well with the 2.7 but the 208 sounds better with the 3.3R in my opinion for some reason, - especially when used on the mid/treble section, - its sounds a lot more transparent than the Quad on there.
Thans very much for the info on the L-pads, - so I guess the drawback on something like the Moth that only has one variable resistor is that you can't optimise both resistors?, and its less liekly to work well with a lower impedance power amp?
I tried the Moth before to attenuate the Quad from the Behringer, but the sound was poor in my opinion, - if I use this forumla am I likely to be able to caluclate some resistors that might work better than the Moth?
I guess the Promitheus might have been good for this, - shame I don't still have it to try.
UPDATE.., - just went to Maplin to get some resistors after doing a load of calculations, - and Oh dear!, - I misread your instructions!, - I calculated the values using 4 ohms for Z (thinking you meant the driver impedance) but reading again I see you say use the input impedance of the amp! (20K) for Z. So that was a waste of £5! oh well!
I will go back at the weekend. If I get the resistors from Maplin one problem I have is that there are very few values in 2W metal film resistors, - but plenty on 0.6W metal film (the small ones), - are these OK or should I be using a higher watt resistor? I might be able to find the right values in 3W wirewounds but with them the tolerance is not as good (5% vs 1% for the metal films). Cricklewood have 2W film resistor but from memory they are not metal film, they are cabon film and have 5% tolerance too.
One good thing about me going to Maplin today is I went to another branch where they have those 0.022uF caps in popypropylene caps in stock (unlike the place I went to the other day), - so I got 4 of them to use for the PLLXO to replace the polyesters. These popypropylenes are the same type of cap as the 0.22uF cap I am using in the other position, - these ones: -
http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=98162
The 0.22uf ones were £2.80 each and the 0.022uF ones were about 80p each so they are qutie a bit more pricey than the other caps. Do you think I'll be OK using these for a while or should I seek out the Ansars from Cricklewood or some even better Audio caps for my PLLXO? I am willing to put a bit of money into the PLLXO now knowing it works well for relatively very little money. And I need to get those AQ splitter too.
Any thanks a lot Satie, - am finally making good progress. Just got to attenuate the Behringer effectively to get rid of the hiss and I'll be then be a great positiong to do some good tuning, - will eveutally no doubt get into going EQ and delay/phase settings for the LP section.
Cheers,
Colin
PS Message for Steve
(Steve not sure if you are reading this. I know you have an upgraded Behringer but if you get some time perhpas you should try this too, - you could calculate some values and knock up a High pass PLLXO yourself based on settings you like. Even though your Behringer has the upgraded output stage etc I think using a HP PLLXO is still likely to have an edge in sound quality over using the Behrginer for the HP section. Its a great idea of Satie's using this PLLXO for the HP seciton and an highly adjustable active crossover for the bass section. )
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 10:04:10 08/28/10
(77)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 27, 2010 at 07:48:02
Try it in 3rd order butterworth with -90 degrees for orthogonal, -180 for constructive interference (allows you to set the crossover at a lower crossover point). And if it sounds like you are getting cancellation, then reverse the polarity to +90 and +180. These are approximate numbers and you will have to do some fine tuning up or down a few clicks. Read some on phase issues in crossovers to get a feel for it.
Probably the second order crossovers you were trying came to provide a somewhat ripe lower mid with constructive interference at the crossover point, leading to being just orthogonal further away from fc in either direction. The Bessels are minimum phase alignments so would have the least phase shift anyway - but since you applied it without the phase alignment (0 phase) then it is simply because it is the most gently sloping FR among the alignments.
The 2.7 is perhaps a little more diffiecult to drive because Magnepan figured it would be used in smaller rooms and thus be demanding less amp power, so the second order crossover would not be that much of a burden. But for all the larger maggies, beginning with the first Tympani, if there is one thing all agreed on - it was that the bass eats up power like there is no tomorrow, and surely it was a problem before class D and cheap power came about.
The I V phase angle at the amp output is not changed by the line level filters, those occur only at the speaker level filters.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 12:29:21 08/28/10
(76)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 28, 2010 at 10:04:10
Cheers Satie,
Cool thanks a lot for the info on the crososver phase. Will do what you say and try 3rd order Butterworth with normal phase at -90º and -180º and Reverse phase with 90º and 180º. I was going to ask if the -90 º and -180 º you mentioned yesterday meant reverse phase?, - but it looks not from what you are saying now, - don’t quite understand that!
So anyway I guess normal phase at 0 degrees with 3rd order Butterworth (which is what I was using) would not really work at all, - making more sense now, - Cool. Not totally sure about the technical side of this, - I need to do some more reading, - will have a look on the net for crossover phase issues. Do you have any idea of sites/articles that come to mind that would help? (if not no probs I’ll see what I can find)
I’ve managed to get quite a few 3W wirewound and 2W metal film resistors (my shopping slave, the girlfriend, got them from Maplin today!). I went for about -12dB for use with the Quad on the bass section, and -5dB when using the NAD for the bass section, - in each case get the annoying Behringer hiss level to an acceptable level. Does using the L-pads cause any significant loss of power/ and perhaps dynamic loss in the bass section I will be using it on?
Just wanted to ask too, - am a bit lost this!, - what did you mean?!
“The I V phase angle at the amp output is not changed by the line level filters, those occur only at the speaker level filters.”
The Technics SL16000 MK2 finishes tomorrow, - have a snipe on it. Hopefully I will get it.
Cheers,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 16:48:22 08/28/10
(75)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 28, 2010 at 12:29:21
“The I V phase angle at the amp output is not changed by the line level filters, those occur only at the speaker level filters.”
"those" meaning the changed phase angle between I and V at the speaker. Or in other words, the line level filters don't change the phase angle between I and V at the amp output.
The resistors will change very little of the dynamic impact of the output from the behringer so long as they are decent quality and you did a good job soldering them. So long as the remaining voltage is enough to drive your amps you would be fine. At 22 dbu max output, the Behringer should have 10 dbu left to drive your Quad, so you have up to 10V remaining to drive it, well beyond enough. The resistors do take a while to break in though. You may have noticed the change in the character of the PLLXO high pass over the last few days.
Here are a few sources to look at
http://www.rane.com/note147.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterworth_filter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_delay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessel_filter
http://www.rane.com/note147.html
I am trying to get a near transient perfect crossover set up with the help of this last article.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 19:26:00 08/28/10
(74)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 28, 2010 at 16:48:22
Thanks Saite,
Looks like i'd better start with crossover reading from a lower level!, - those articles are bit too far for me right now!, - but many thanks I'll keep them saved for later on. Am gradually reading some more basic stuff to start off with.
Great about the resistors, - of course I forgot the Behringer has a lots of voltage, - thats great. I will knock up appropriate cables for the NAD and Quad, - might then go back to trying the Behringer on both sections as well as using the PLLXO. The Sound quality was a bit compromised with the Behringer for the mid/highs, but the main problem I had with it was the hiss (especially on the Quad side), - if I can elimainate the hiss at least I will be able to hear the SQ a lot more clearly and give a good comparison of the stock Behringer to the PLLXO (I am sure the PLLXO sounds a lot better though), and play with the flexible HP on the Behringer too.
I am still lost when you are talking about the I V phase angle?! did you write that sentance in answer to my question from a few posts ago?
"if you hook the bass amp directly up to the panel in active or PLLXO is a second order LP crossover less of a problem? "
If not don't worry, - I am just lost (AS USUAL!!)
Cheers,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 19:41:51 08/28/10
(73)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 28, 2010 at 19:26:00
OK
I'll look for something more elementary.
Re I V phase, that was indeed the question I was answering. The answer is that it is not a problem at all for the amp whatever alignment you apply at line level.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 19:29:51 08/29/10
(71)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 28, 2010 at 19:41:51
Hi Satie,
Hope all is well.
Some turntable news, - I got the Technics SL1600MK2, - for £180 so it was not too cheap. Annoyingly a Sl1700Mk2 appeared on Ebay UK just after wards
for only £85 with including shipping, so I bought that as well. So I'll see how I get on and perhaps resell one of them. Looking forward to trying these out.
As for the 3.3Rs, - well I am going through a bad patch at the moment to tell the truth, - I tried the L-Pads (made up a -8.5dB lead and a -5.5dB lead).
They don't really work very well, - the sound is changed somehow, - I could not put my finger on it connected to the speakers so listened to the power amp hooked to my headphones and swapped the attenuator cables for normal unattenauted cables, - with the attenuator cables in place the sound is heavier and thicker and sort of softer too, - it is not good really. The sound is a lot better with a normal cable.
There is some attenuation of the hiss with the attenuator cables, - not a big amount, but there is a further hiss problem as if you increase the input gain on the Behringer the hiss increases once more and you are really backto where you started. So it seems the Behringer input stage is pretty noisy as well as the output stages. So I think there is maybe not a big advantage in using the L-pad with the Behringer from what I have seen so far, - the hiss does not go away. A solution I guess would be to have it upgraded with less noisy and less high gain stages I suppose.
Anyway so for the time being I left out the attenuator cable and wired the NAD to the Behrginer to do the bass. And used the PLLXO on the Quad (but not with the new caps yet)
I tried the 3rd order butterworth LP on the Behrginer with the phase adjustaments you advised, - normal 90 and 180 degree, and inverted 90 and 180 degress. I am still finding it hard to blend the two sections.
A lot of the time the midrange seems too sucked out, - the sound is too U-shpaed. so yeah I am a bit lost now this as well, - but will try again in more depth tomorrow.
On a more positive not later on tonight I've soldered in the new polypropylene caps into the PLLXO. It got to late to test on the speakers so I again tried with heapdhones, - it sounds very good. In fact it now
sounds vastly better than the Behringer doing the HP (I wired that up too and listened with heapdhones to compare).
I am getting a bit skeptical that these two different things (the PLLXO and Behringer) are going to blend well together, - they just sound so different (one good and one not so good), - I know they will be reproducing different sections but from what I have heard on the speakers so far its very hard to blend it well.
I will confirm more firmly tomorrow when I try the upgraded PLLXO on the speakers.
Its a shame the stock 3rd order crossover is hard to build in a PLLXO because of the need for the inductors,- as I maybe its possible a LP PLLXO would have a better chance of Blending well with a HP PLLXO than the Behrginer does. When you are blending a LP and HP PLLXO like this, - do you have all these phase issues/matching to worry about like when you
use the Behrginer and PLLXO? or it that not a problem?
Might I be able to calculate values for a 3rd order LP PLLXO using only caps and resistors and use that extra preamp you suggested?
I guess one problem with that is the preamp with its own sound characteristics would no doubt be another thing that might impede the blending of the two sections.
I guess I could try to get a proper 3rd order LP PLLXO made using inductors that is based exactly on the stock passive speaker level crossover, and get it built with a level control? Is that a viable option?
I am again really quite tempted just to buy the stock external crososver for these speakers and sell the Behrginer. I am looking to get these speaker resaonbely coherent from bottom to top and the way I am trying to do it now is not working. I guess that despite its disadvantages, using the same power amp powering the whole speaker
though all passive speakr level crossovers would have a better chance of producing a coherent sound, - I could still fine tune a bit for my room using the simple Quad tilt control.
I guess it would be a bit rash to give up now on the active or PLLXO scheme, - I'll try again tomorrow. And I'll also see how I get on fixing down the voice coils with
DAP, - as if I somehow accidentaily ruin these speakers it will have been a big waste of money to have ordered the external crossover boxes in the meantime.
I would say for sure that despite the less extended treble the stock 2.7Qr driven from a single amp in passive mode is vastly more coherent than what I've heard so far from these 3.3Rs (with the problems I've had setting them up). And my Dads original passively driven MGIIIs (drive by the Naim 250) from memory, were also much more coherent as well. I really do prefer both of those by a long way from the from what I've heard so far from these 3.3Rs.
Any ideas on where I can go from here? (if not don't worry I'll probably just get the stock crossover boxes eventually and give up fiddling!)
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 10:07:31 08/30/10
(70)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 29, 2010 at 19:29:51
Colin
Congrats on the Technics purchase. I hope you really like the design. Since now you have 2.
Well, back to the 3.3 and the Behringer. It is beginning to look like you have a Lemon DCX. I bet you someone had damaged it and repaired it with cheap parts. The culprit seems to be at the input. One way to get around it, and allow a generally better interface between the pro audio 10 dbU world and 0 dbU home audio world is an SRC2496, which you can use to feed the Behringer digitally and avoid its input section.
Re Lpad. First of all, the resistors will need breakin. They normally do sound terrible out of the box, and need to be run in. Second, the degree of degradation you are describing brings up the question of the Lpad's design. Give me the values you ended up using for the series and parallel resistors and I'll check it out.
Re phase. The U shape FR you are describing is telling me that you have not managed to find the constructive interference points - these are narrow ranges, so you can not hit right on to them that easily. So start sweeping in 15 degree increments between the -90 and -180. You should find one that sounds substantially better than the rest. If not, you may have inverted phase somewhere and should repeat this in the positive numbers.
Now it sounds to me that you hit on something you like with a second order Bessel, so that may be where you should start rather than focusing on the third order crossover.
Coherence is always going to be an issue with a multiamping setup. But it is by no means insurmountable. It will try your patience, as it is doing now, but once you have the settings right you can go to PLLXO for the Bass Low pass at least to second order. Removing your noisy Behringer from the picture will help a lot in coherence. Getting a stock equivalent PLLXO from Marchand is not a problem, just expensive.
Just remember that you are repeating work that Winey and his team had done for probably months and with much better tools than you have. Surely you are not expecting that it would be over in a jiff?
But where they were designing the crossover to work optimally within their reference room and work well enough in others, you are tailoring your crossover to your room.
If you want to go to stock speaker level crossover, you need to simply build one with good components, it will cost you the same or a little more, but will do significantly better. The upside is that you don't need to design anything.
Finally, have you taken any measurements?
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 17:21:39 08/30/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 30, 2010 at 10:07:31
Hi again Satie,
OK got the value for the L pads, -
I went for around -8.5db attenuation, - using two 12K metal film 2W resistors per channel. (i.e. I calculated both R1 and R2 to be near to 12K using hte forumlua on that website you gave me)
The other lead was made for about -5.6dB attenuation, - using a 10K resistors for R1 and a 22K resistor for R2 (both 3W wirewounds). Tone got heavy, soft and wrong with both attempts. Did I calculate the values wrong?
In both cases I used 20K for Z.
By the way one thing I am very happy indeed about and I failed to mention/confirm earlier is that my tweeter imbalance problem is no more since I removed that rogue resistors and resoldered some of the connections in the panel of the speaker that had the duller sounding tweeter!! There is now zero imbalance and the tweeter that was dull now has the same brightness as the other tweeter, - so I'm very happy indeed about that and its a good job I investigated the panel as per Neo and other peoples advice. If I had bough a new tweeter it would hav ebeen a total waste of money and would not have fixed the problem of course!
I don't use any tweeter attenuation myself, - I like the bright/extended highs the ribbons have so I just short the tweeter attenuation terminal.
Now got the big task of sorting out the crossover (but it will be fun though, - I am learning all the time and its invaluable experience for when i move to my next room and have to set up again). I also have to glue these down these voice coils! (when my DAP arrives), - not looking forward to that of course though! It need to be done, - I heard very occasional buzzing at certain bass frequencies today, - so I must address it soon.
Cheers again,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 16:24:11 08/30/10
(68)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 30, 2010 at 10:07:31
HI Satie,
Thanks for the advice, - you are right on all counts.
I tried the PLLXO out today with the new caps, - a small improvement for sure so it was worth the small expense over the polyester caps so I'm glad I got them.
Just to see I tried my Arcaida tube preamp with the PLLXO/active setup, -= terrible!, - heavy, bad sound, - totally wrong, - I guess you need that extra resistor with the tube preamp!! So I used the flexible Quad 99 most of the time but also at one point tried the Moth passive as the preamp, - which actually sounded pretty good. Not quite got the dynamics of the Quad but the treble was purer, more natural, and less grainy sounding. So I will use that as well as the Quad when playing CDs in the future.
I had better luck today playing around, - I am still finding it hard to get 3rd order LP Butterworth on the Behringer to work well with the PLLXO. 90 and 180 degree normal phase sound too sucked out whereas 0 is too heavy. On reverse phase 0 is too sucked out but 90 and 180 have some potential
But yes it seems I still am finding 2nd order Bessel or Butterworth (but Bessel in particular) blends better with the PLLXO. For the LP, Normal phase 0 is OK, 90 and 180 are too sucked out. and on Reverse phase 180 seems the only one that sounds good. 90 and 0 are not good. For this 2nd order setup I've settled on 180 degree reverse phase for the time being and am playing around with volume levels/crossover freq and trying Bessel and Butterworth, and a sort of in between trying to use the EQ.
3rd order Butterworth really needs work, - I will do what you say and try 15 degree increments in between the two best points I have found so far, which are 90 and 180 reverse phase.
The Bessel 2nd order LP setup seems to get rid of the problem I have with my room (that I had with the 2.7s) of falling FR with frequency. My only complaint is there seems a bit of lack of bass extension and I still don't quite have the mids right.
I know now this will take a lot of tuning. What I think is actually quite likely is that I will also buy the stock crossover boxes (despite the expense), - not necessarily to use them permanently, but to use them as a reference to fine tune my biamping setup with and to try to get my biamping setup sounding as close as possible to to passive drive with one speaker amp in terms of coherency. Or possibly like you suggest I could build my own stock crossover boxes with slightly better components using the same values. But I need to work out the cost difference etc. I also need to double check with Magnepan the crossover schematic of the 3.3Rs, - not that I'm saying the one on the MUG site is wrong, - just want to double check.
The coherence of the sound is very important to me, probably the most important thing, - I am not sure if its going to be possible to beat a single power amp driving the speakers at passive speaker level in terms of coherence. It really will be a challenge to get a biamping setup to sound as good in this regard. I can see the advantages of driving your speakers actively, - each amp is only dealing with one frequency range so you hence get better definition etc and better dynamics too, more headroom etc. The thing is though I am in a small room so I am no doubt not really taking advantage of some of the big advantages of active drive. I will see how it pans out in the end but if single amp drive ends up giving me a more coherent result I might just stick with that, - but I intend to give both types of operation a full chance and see how I end up. Or maybe use both and swap from time to time.
The problem with the stock Behringer driving both sections is two fold - the sound quality is too compromised for me, - you lose too much refinement and I find it it pretty obvious. But worse there is the hiss issue which is really totally unacceptable for me. Possibly in my case as I am in a smaller room and sit closer to the speaker than most people do the hiss is more noticeable? And the L-pads (from my tests so far) are no good at all as they change the sound characteristics a lot (from my first tests anyway) and make blending of the bass setting with the PLLXO even more difficult. There might well be something wrong with the values I've calculated, - it really does change the sound a lot and is not usable at all, - will get the values later and post.
I don't actually think my Behringer is faulty or anything (hiss wise), - I've read on the internet of many people having this hiss problem with them and many of them tried other DCXs too in case theirs were faulty, but to no avail.
To improve the coherence of active or passive line level baimping I think the first thing I will have to do aim to minimise difference between the two sections. There are other things I can do.
One of them is I think I really need to be using the same model power amp for each section to minimise differences there than could cause discrepancies in blending. It would still not be EXACTLY the same power amp driving each section and there still might also be a slight sound difference in two amps of the same model, but the idea is to minimise the differences, - using two of the same model power amps is bound to have better matching than using two entirely different power amps.
The next thing I think need to do it to is possibly avoid this part active/Part PLLXO approach for the time being (apart from for testing) and use an all active line level approach or all PLLXO approach. From listening to the HP PLLXO and its equivalent on the Behrginer through headphones in isolation, I can hear the huge difference in tone and sound quality in general between them. I know I am using the Behringer only for the bass but I am sure this will add to the blending problem.
Obviously going full active using the Behringer for both sections (though the matching is better) is not an option for me due to the hiss and compromised sound quality. So I think I possibly need to aim for going all PLLXO, - maybe starting with a 2nd order LP for the bass if I can find a setup that seems to work (it might take some tuning of course and fiddling changing values), and I need some sort of attenuator device will not degrade the sound heavily like the L-pads I tried. I am sure the blending will be better (than my current part active/part PLLXO approach) with an all PLLXO if I can get to the right LP PLLXO setup. Though obviously I still need keep the Behringer as a tool for testing out new regimes like you say.
So yeah I might buy the stock passive crossover boxes too and see how that compares to my efforts and use it as a guide as well. I know if I choose to stick with passive drive/single speaker amp I will loose the ability to fine tune the bass to my particular room/positioning with this and that could be a huge disadvantage as its a set thing with the external boxes. But I really want to see mainly how much difference in coherence there is between the two methods of drive, and if the one amp approach is indeed ahead in this department, then I can use it as a guide to help fine tune my biamping setup. On option if I make my own crossover boxes would be to put optional biamping connections in (with a swtich), - could be useful if I could alter the volume of one amp to fine tune the sound to my room. I woudl be interested to see too how passive speaker level biamping compares to single amp passive drive in terms of coherency.
As for the Technics decks, - Well I'm now quite happy I got both of them , - as that broken 1700 mk2 on Ebay Germany I saw (that didn't even spin, so no guarantee of getting it to work) just went for £120 with shipping (more if I had bit on it) so I got my working one last night very cheap for £85 all in. And I should be able to repair the 1600Mk2s auto belt with a rubber band and get that working OK.
Its good having these two decks as I will have two headshells too, - good for easy cartridge changes. I know it will not be an option if I go for your foil damping and arm cable scheme though! (which I am likely to try on one deck at least). So yes I'm pretty happy about this, - two of these decks for around £260, and despite one being a a lot cheaper than the other, - I think that's not bad considering they are both MK2s and they seem quite hard to find (in the UK at least). Just got to get cartridges now. I am an MC guy really, - I used to like the cheap Ortofons (MC15, MC10), but the current range are unfortunately too pricey. I will go for a Denon DL103 or DL110 ), - both should work well with the medium.heavy Technics arm. The lack of top end can be a bit of a problem with the 103 at times in my experience, despite its other very goo qualities such as great body and tone etc.
One of my favouite cartridges is the another Denon, - the DL304. Its highly musical yet also very transparent and has a great extended top end. But its too high complaince for the Technics arm. It works well in the Rega arms though, so I might stick a Rega or upgrade Rega arm on one of the decks and use a DL304. The Denons had their first price hikes a couple of years ago for the first time in about 25 years, but they are still pretty good value even so. The DL103 went up the least, - only about £15 or so. There is a UK company called the Expert sylus company that sell upgraded DL103s, - they put their own sapphire cantilever and paratrace diamond tip on the DL103 for a more extended top end. Got to try one of these one day.Price is about £280 I think. Could be a killer cartridge for the money if it addresses the top end problem of the 103 yet retains the other great aspects of the 103 sound.
Look forward to getting these decks, - will let you know how I get on.
Just read the last of your message, - measurements?, - errr NO!!! how do I do that? microphone, test tones and computer I guess? Not sure where to start really, - is it difficult? what setup for this do you recommended for a novice like me?!
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 14:23:34 08/31/10
(67)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 30, 2010 at 16:24:11
Your attenuation calculation seems right, so that just leaves breakin. Unfortunately the high watt resistors take their time. I have mills wirewounds used in a PLLXO bandpass that took a very long time, nearly two weeks to sound reasonable. It is frustration with that that led me to wonder if I can run my Neo8 line array without a crossover at all and then to run it that way.
The phase issue is something you will just need to fine tune till it is right. It does seem that you should be using a second order cross in your room if you find that it fills in the middle and stops the declining FR. So you are making progress in customizing for your room. That is what you are doing this for!!
Re integration:
active vs passive XO. I do believe that once you have the settings right - which you are doing with the Behringer, you should move to a PLLXO for your LP. Alternately, you can go active with a Rod Elliot type Op amp based active stage with a buffer input and a gain to have more flexibility in matching to amps. (Don't go off to spend time researching this now, it is just something you should keep in the back of your mind.)
The PLLXO on both legs will do most of the "work" in integrating the top and bottom. The difference in SQ between the top and the bottom will remain because it is in the speakers themselves. A bane of the Maggies big and small. That is one of the reasons people stack slowish tube amps on top and quick SS amps on the bottom.
I can tell you that in my triamp setup there is no significant coherence problem. I normally run a tube amp on the midrange, but there is no problem with my SS amp running the midrange either. Part of the issue of coherence is to have enough power on the bass. In my case I have 2000-2500 (RMS specs for > 20hz and > 30 hz) watts per channel. So when large transients occur I don't run out of power on the bass panel. This goes a very long way in ameliorating the slower bass's signature on the mid bass.
I think you will find that the coherence issue springs from the differences in the drivers, so you can't gain much in that regard with the stock crossover. The reviewers always complained about this aspect so you would be simply confirming a broad observation. What will gain you a lot in this is removing the Behringer - which is so much nastier than your amps and introduces a bigger difference than anything else.
The 2.7 is a much more simple setup to try out experiments for coherence, primarily because all of the drivers are of the same construction, er..at least very similar. So that would be the place to try differences between amplifier's sound on whole speaker, and half speaker to detect contributions to "incoherence".
Re cartridges for the Technics. Take note that you are adding the damping from the tape based tonearm cable/interconnect, this dynamic damping allows you much more flexibility in cartridge choices. I have run the arm with the stiff AT OC9 and with the super high compliance Garrott FGS MM and find them both very good matches. Just that the OC9 sounds downright crude compared to the Garrott. That is despite the two cartridges being way off from the "official" optimum for resonance (one cartridge way too compliant, the other too stiff). So I would not reject a Dennon 304 because you are changing the effective compliance of the cartridge/tonearm system and raised the weight of the arm. Try it if you have one within easy reach. I really liked the 110 and 160 (??) for cheap MCs, much fun.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 15:45:48 08/31/10
(66)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 31, 2010 at 14:23:34
Hi Satie,
Many thanks for the reply. (bit of a long one this!)
OK cool will try to run the resistors in and see what happens.Thanks for the tip.
Many thanks for the info on the Technics damping, - that's interesting, - I might try the Denon DL304 then, - I had two but broke both!, - a bit costly, so I'll have to get another. (actually I've also broken 2 DL110s and 3 DL103s before as well)!
I agree the DL110 and DL160 are very good for the money too, - they actually have more bass than the 304, but they are nothing like as refined or transparent.
I agree with you on the OC9,- I tried that before, - its a horrible cartridge in my opinion, -clinical sounding and just coarse and nasty. From what I have read, the AT33PTG is vastly better though so I might try that one day, - people tend to like that one a lot.
To get started with he Technics I only have one cartridge to try at the moment which is on my LP12, - a retipped Linn Troika, - not sure how it will fare on the Technics, but its medium compliance so should work quite well on the stock arm I guess.
I agree with you it would be a great idea to move my crossover to all PLLXO, - I tried the stock Behrginer again tonight on both top and the bottom, - it really is terrible sounding in my opinion, - using the Behringer on the top section degrades the sound so much, - the part Behrginer on the bass/PLLXO on the top sounds so much better it is not even funny, and its my only decent option for the time being until I go all PLLXO
UPDATE!
I’ve found out something pretty interesting, - I got the MG3.3R manual from helpful Karen at Magnepan (looks like she scanned it for me).
What did you calculate the stock crossover points to be?, - was it 240Hz for the LP and 330 for the Hz?
Well in the manual it lists the stock crossover points at end of manual and also some recommended settings for using an active crossover. They are slightly different.
MG3.3R
Stock crossover points (at end of manual)
LP= -18dB (Butterworth) @ 200 Hz
HP= -12dB @ 300Hz
Recommended setting for use with an active crossover.
LP= -18dB (Butterworth) @ 200 Hz
HP, - Either use -12dB@ 250 Hz OR -6dB @ 300Hz
This is a bit weird, - why specify different crossover points to the stock setting when using active for the 3.3R? The 3.5 manual states something similar, - and even lower points for the HP when using active. In the manuals for the MGIII and MGIIIa they recommend the same points as the stock crossover when using active.
So for the 3.3R these recommended crossover points are obviously lower than what I have been using so far. Do you think the HP PLLXO values you calculated based on that stock schematic have a crossover setting of 250Hz? Or would it be nearer to 300Hz?, I guess its likely to be more like 300Hz if you calculated it from that stock passive schematic?. I don’t understand the poles thing you were on about and all that,so maybe that explains these differences?
But anyway based on these recommend settings, - this might explain partly why I am having trouble getting things to work. And explain the slight hole in the midrange I am hearing (though I agree the phase issue is obviously very important too).
But certainly what I need to do now hiss or not is to connect up the Behringer for both LP and HP sections (and ignore the hiss!) and try these settings (200Hz -18dB Butterworth for the LP) and both -12dB 250Hz and -6dB 300 Hz for the HP. 300Hz seems pretty low setting for a 1st order HP? Anyway, I must obviously try it.
Like I say I am not sure what crossover point the HP PLLXO you gave me was but when I was using the Behrigner for testing both HP and LP sections (before I knocked up the PLLXO) I was using 230-240 and 330-350 for the crossover points which are both obviously higher and more widely spaced than Magnepan specify for use with an active crossover.
Do you think I need to calculate some values for a PLLXO corresponding to this recommended lower crossover frequency of 250Hz? For -12dB HP?
The -6dB @ 300 Hz listed as an option instead of -12dB @250Hz looks very attractive to me too, - as that just a simple capacitor, - less parts so I guess in theory it might have the potential to sound better using that as a PLLXO than a 2nd order setup in that regard. And I think too (from what I have read, that its easier to blend a 3rd order crossover with a 1st order than is it to blend a 3rd order with a 2nd order. I have read that phase is less of an issue when blending 3rd and 1st order. Is that right? Certainly for the HP PLLXO I need to try both 2nd order (possibly with adjusted values) and also 1st order to see how they fare.
So I will test first with the Behringer (if I can put up with this hiss!). Just a quick extra question for when I do this, - When you drive both sections actively is the phase situation more or less of an issue then when you are using active for LP and PLLXO for HP? Or does it just depend on the orders you are using? Sorry if this is a noob question!
FURTHER UPDATE.
Okay tested the behrginer using these points. Put up with the hiss and the poor sound quality! (which really is poor in comparison to the great sounding PLLXO). Despite these two drawbacks I think this setup works a lot better, - 200Hz for the 3dB LP (butterworth) and 250Hz 2nd order for the HP (also Butterowrth) seems to work pretty well, no mid suckout like I have been experiencing Beseel 2nd order for the HP sounds too thin, only Butterowrth works well. I also tried 1st order Butterowrth 300Hz but that did not sound as good, - something wrong there, lacking lower midrange and sort of thin sounding.
The phase does not seem to change things when using the Behringer for both top and bottom despite whatever curves you use, - is that right? only inverted or normal phase make a difference.
So what do you reckon? Do you think I should build another HP PLLXO using 250Hz as the crossover point? and if so I'm not sure what type of slope to use? the Butterowrth/Bessel hybrid like you calculated before based on the stock or just straight Butterworth which seemed to work well on the test using the Behringer? If you reckon its a good idea is there any chance you could help me calculate the cap/resitors values again for this (sorry!, - then I'll owe you two big favours!)
Its a shame 1st order HP sounded no good, - would have been easier to build a PLLXO based on that.
I've not tried using 2nd order LP crossovers on the Behringer with these lower crossover points yet. I realise if I want to go all PLLXO it will be difficult to make a 3rd order crossover work well without getting it properly built with inductors. 2nd order is my only easy option
But if I can replicate what I just tried with the PPLLXO on the top (2nd order at 250Hz crossover point) , with 3rd order Butterworth on the Behringer, and it WORKS it would be a good to use for the time being until I can decide where to go. Like I said before I couldn't get 3rd order Butterworth LP to blend well with the HP PLLXO, - I guess because the crossover points were not low enough and not closely spaced enough? The midrange was too sucked out and when I increased the LP crossover point higher to try to make up for this it did not sound right, - again I guess because it was crossing over too high!
Anyway, so more progress, - the manual came in handy, - its seems weird that in the manuals for the MG3.3R and 3.5R they specify using different crossover points for active setup compared to the stock crossover, but it does seem to work! Like I say though in the MGIII and MGIIIa manuals the same stock crossover points are recommended for active operation.
Sorry for the long meandering message!!
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 20:35:25 08/31/10
(65)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 31, 2010 at 15:45:48
Ah actual values to use, from the horse's mouth, or rather its secretary...
Well, we can use that instead. Note that they spec. no particular alignment. Yes, I back calculated the crossover points from the schematic and from driver resistance measurements posted elsewhere. I should be able to calculate values for their recommendation without a problem, I'll get to that tomorrow - I take it that you like the 2nd order better than the first order - so I will calculate that for a Butterworth alignment at 250Hz.
BTW, the -6 db point between the two crossover frequencies I back-calculated is about 280Hz.
Re phase on Behringer crossover. Since the phase is not frequency variable on the Behringer, you will not get anything like the behavior of an analog crossover. But it is still useful to determine the phase angle at which there is the desired behavior - construction - cancellation or no interaction.
I suggest you play with second order Butterworth to Bass LP to match with the 2nd order HP at 250Hz (also Butterworth). Finally, Try both HP and LP at LR 2nd order at 220 through 260 hz (same for both - no gap) and tell me what you think. These would be very easy to implement in a PLLXO. The Linkwitz Reily alignment is much sharper than the Bessel and Butterworth so may not need that spacing, nor the third order slope.
Yes, third order and 1st order normally fit very well together (what I am doing now in my setup).
Re Cartridges. Finally someone willing to criticize the OC9. I thought it was a cool cartridge after using a V15/IVMR for years. It put some life into the Rega 3 - which was very missing after I dropped my crooked Lenco. On the Oracle tables it gave some dynamic kick and energy - even sizzle. But compared to the Garrott on the Technics, it was just plain crude, and nobody would believe me.
Good luck with the Technics decks.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 03:34:03 09/01/10
(64)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 31, 2010 at 20:35:25
Thanks a lot Satie,
Really glad I got hold of this manual and tried these values, - it does seem to sound more coherent and the mid is a lot more even. I wonder why the stock crossover has different crossover points?
Really appreciate I you could calculate an HP PLLXO for me in Butterworth 2nd order at 250Hz (for use with the Behringer doing Butterworth 3rd order LP at about 200Hz).
The 1st order HP at 300Hz really did not sound anything like as good as 2nd order when I tried it on the Behrginer, - not sure why if they recommended it, - the problem was in the lower mid, - again just not full enough by a long way (and I tried lowering the freq as well to no avail), 2nd order HP Butterworth was vastly better. And like I say Bessel 2nd order sounded too thin as well.
Thanks too for the recommendation for trying LR at around 220 to 260 Hz 2nd order with no gap, - that’s great will try that on the Behringer too as I can see yes that would be very easy to implement in a PLLXO. So maybe I’ll end up with a few PLLXOs to use that will work well.
I am a bit lost with the phase thing to tell the truth, - ah I see the Behrginer’s phase is not variable so much with freq, - so that’s why you need to adjust the phase when using LP from the Behringer with a HP PLLXO. But what happens phase wise when you use both LP and HP PLLXO? (say 2nd order). If the phase varies with frequency for both sections, - is it a bit hit and miss as to whether you get constructive interference at the crossover point? Or should it work if they are both the same type of PLLXO (say both LR or both Butterworth?)
Back to the OC9, - I am not sure if there is a big manufacturing variation in samples or something, which is possible I suppose as many people love them, but mine really did sound like sandpaper, - just plain horrible to listen to , - unmusical, rough, crude, clinical, - really horrible. I couldn’t stand it, - I had to remount my Denon DL304 the same night I first tried the OC9 to get the 304’s beautiful musicality and transparency back. I could not stand the OC9. Makes me wary of trying that AT33PTG but apparently that is supposed to sound a lot more musical and less clinical, - but will give it a miss I think as the prices have increased, - they used to be really cheap direct from Japan but the prices went up.
So yeah I am a real Denon DL304 fan, - even with the recent price increase there is nothing to touch it in that price range in my opinion or even a long way above. It does have a slightly lean sound, so you need to blend the rest of your system around this a bit, but it’s superb for transparency, refinement and extension WITH musicality as well. Its very different sounding from the DL103, - the 103 sounds bloated and muted at the top in comparison (but the 103 is still very musical of course, - again you can system match to compensate for this to some extent). And of course compared to the OC9 any Denon, in fact, any other cartridge sounds nicer in my opinion!. I heard all the stuff about loading the OC9 to 20 ohms with a step up to make it sound good, - tried that, - still sounds just as rough! tried various VTA angles and various VTF too, - also no difference.
I think the DL304 is pricier in the USA than it is here. If I get another soon, - I might send it to you to try out as you’re doing me so many favours here. Its one cartridge everyone should hear in my opinion, - do you have provisions for a low output MC? If not I can send you a step up to use with it too (I have 2 very good ones, - one of them really good!, - “The Head” TX4 Step Up hand wound by Tim de Paravicini in his younger days, - it cost about £350 RRP 25 years ago! It’s so dense for its size. If you dropped it you would have a broken toe no problem. I was very lucky I picked it up recently very cheap for £120 from someone not aware of its value!, - usually they sell for £500 used!).
Not tried a Garrot, - which model do you have?, - are they a little like the older A&R 77 range of MM cartridges? I had one of these years ago, - nice laidback and pretty musical sound (and NOT harsh!)
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 14:35:20 09/01/10
(63)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 01, 2010 at 03:34:03
Gotcha some values, I looked them up on Maplin so there is probably going to be a chance to get them in the nearby store.
C1 is 220 nF - N44CN 0,22 UF
R1 is 2000 Ohm - M2K
C2 is 45 nF, 43 to 47 is ok. Since you have 44 nF caps already, you can just reuse them
The pole frequencies are 353 and 177 hz for a 2nd order Butterworth high pass at 250 hz.
Re phase variation on analog crossovers. Although the calculated values should work and you can calculate the phase at the critical crossover area where both filters are operating and both drivers have substantial contribution to the overall output, there are additional issues related to geometry and stray inductive and capacitive reactance from the power amps or preamp. So there may be a need for some tweaking - but normally, the minor phase issues can be addressed with tuning the toe in angle. If the values turned out off for some reason (wrong impedance values from the amp maker for example) then it will have to be redone, and probably more than once.
Asymmetrical slopes do not add that easily and need to be calculated carefully to have them match up appropriately. With experimentation with the Behringer, you can find the best matchup of phase and use that to guide your component selection for the analog side. When we get to the point of at least trying a LP PLLXO we will as Andy to stick the values into LSP CAD to simulate the crossover and make sure phase is a non-issue.
While I like the old Denon 103, it had always struck me as old fashioned and missing the top octave entirely. I never had a 304 but reviews and forum discussions are very positive. I would love to try it. Thanks for the offer. How long would I have to play with it?
I have a Melos 333 Gold phono stage with easily changed loadings - wonderful tube piece with great dynamics and a wide close up presentation and good gain. I have an Audible Illusions Dual Mono, rewired recapped and with new switches and pots, and a Dayton Wright SS active stepup that has a slightly noisy set of bipolar transistors - 16 per channel. Loading is adjustable via replaceable resistors, and I rigged a battery power supply for it which I never remember to turn off, has not been in use for a few years.
The Garrott is an FGS MM with a modified Shibata narrow microline. It is remarkably quiet and very dynamic. People keep being surprised by the lack of surface noise. It compares favorably with quite a few good MCs, most recently against a Lyra Lydian. I don't know the AR77, but it is far more dynamic than the Sure V15 IV MR I used to use, and is as musical if not more so. Very lively. Their "innovation" is taking out all the damping out of the cartridge, but for the cantilever mount. Sort of like the Music Maker in that regard.
I love DeParavicini's designs, his tube amps are to die for, and his little phono box is amazing considering its cost. Wow.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 18:07:36 09/01/10
(62)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 01, 2010 at 14:35:20
Hi Satie,
Thanks so much for calculating the 2nd order Butterworth HP crossover at 250Hz, - that's brilliant will get the parts and try it out very soon.
Tonight I tried out using 2nd order LP Butterworth as well as 3rd order LP Butterworth for the bass (coupled with the 2nd order Butterworth 250 Hz HP on the Behringer).
Both the 3rd and 2nd order Butterworth LPs sounded OK at about 200Hz. The 3rd order does sound a little better though, - just a bit more defined. Certainly these lower, mopre closely spaced crossover points sound far better than the higher ones I was using before, - better midrange by far.
I just realised one I should have tried and have not done yet, - I should have tried 2nd order Butterworth LP with 1st order HP (at about 300Hz). That might work better than the rather thin sounding 3rd order LP and 1st order HP I tried yesterday.
I tried 2nd order L-R on both LP and HP at 220-260Hz (with same setting for both LP and HP) like you suggested, but it sounds too thin sounding, - I tried increasing the LP volume level too but that did not help really. However I did also try Bessel 2nd order LP and HP at similar crossover points (maybe up to 20Hz apart between HP and LP) and that does work better, - but it still does not sound as full as the Butterworth ones with the new lower crossover points (I think anyway, - I'll obviously do a lot of retests with the Behringer), - so I'll probably end up with Butterworth. I must admit this is becoming fun playing around. I was a bit dismayed before due to the lack of mids I had (which was why I was thinking of buying the stock crossover) but with the new recommend lower crossover points the mids are a lot better and the sound is more coherent too. Not tried the part active/PLLXO approach yet though, - might not be as coherent as the Behrginer alone, but I guess the ultimate aim of all PLLXO will be as coherent. I can see too now why its good idea to get the Behringer upgraded, - as you can do these useful tesst without hiss or the porr mid/treble sound quality!
I was talking to a guy who sold that pair of used 3.3R crossover boxes on Ebay, - he looked inside before he sold them and reckons they had one popropylene cap, one electrolytic and the inductors all iron core (though he can't remembr exacelty). I told him the schematic and he questioned the 8.5mH inductor value saying that would be so big in an iron core it would no way fit in the boxes.
Anyway I realised I could actually build something very similar myself very cheaply and avoid the high $450 Magnepan cost, to use as a reference for my active tuning. Might well do that. It would really help though if I find another 3.3R owner that would be willing to open up one of their crososver boxes and tell me the values for certain and maybe do a photo. Shame there are not many 3.3R owners around. Anyway this guy that sold the 3.3R boxes figured it would be better selling them used even though they only sold for $88 as the parts were worth less on their own!
Will look up now what the LSP CAD thing you mentioned was. Thanks for all the info too on the phase stuff - I am still a bit lost but its becoming clearer more slowly and I have all your posts to usefully look back on as reference so many thanks again! Will keep in mind that differences in toe in can help crossover phase issues too.
Onto turntables/cartridge etc - I have four sets of MC step ups actually!, - Two of them are my main ones, - the very heavy and sought after "Head" tx4 step up I just bought which has accessible secondary ratios of 1:10, 1:15 and 1:20. So that's a good for a wide range of cartridges. I like my Linn troika on the 1:10 setting actually though in theory the 1:20 is better suited for its 0.2mV output, - the 1:10 has higher loading at 470 ohms when put into the MM stage, - and it gives more treble than the 1:20 setting (117 ohms loading) with the Troika.
I also have a very good Audio Innovations T2 step up transformers whose transformers are ultra high quality too. A guy who used to work for them (who now owns his own company, - Puresound) told me they are very good. The switchable step up ratios are quite high, - 1:22.5 and 1:45!. So I use the 1:22.5 most of the time but you can use the higher one if you have a very low output cart which can be loaded low, - the 40 ohms internal impedance of the Denon 304 is too high impedance for the higher ratio setting though (the loading on 1:45 ratio works out at 22 ohms into a 47K MM stage), - you need to use it on the other 1:22.5 setting with the DL304 (otherwise it doesn't sound right), however my Linn Troika works fine on the higher gain setting (Troika has 3 ohms impedance). Then you very high gain (about 9mv going into a MM stage using the Troika (Troika has 0.2 mV output!), - and you get really stunning dynamics!, and no noise despite the high gain as its a passive step up.
Active Headamps can be very good, - usually a bit more top end/wider bandwidth than passive step ups and a more open sound too but if you get a good bandwidth step up transformer than matches a cartridge well (which is crucial of course) it can sound very good and you get the benefit of much better dynamics, and a more solid bass. One comment I read on active MC headamps vs MC step up in a magazine always sticks in my mind. Can't remember the reviewer but he said the passive step ups do much better, and more realistic bass, - with active step ups it sounds wrong, - sort of like the drummers are drunk! He did say the Naim Audio MC phono stages were the best he had heard in the bass department though for active devices. But he said the other aspect of the sound (mid and treble) can be improved upon over the Naim phono stages with a good passive step up and good tube MM stage.
I find that how noisy a MC active headamp is does depend on the noise level of your actual MM stage as well, - some MM stages are a lot noisier than others. A common problem can be too much hiss with an active headamp in my experience. No hiss of course with a passive step up but sometime you have to site it well as otherwise it can pick up hum from other transformers.
I also have some Sowter 9580 step ups with ratio of 1:12.5 and a old Japanese coral step up with 1:20. They are both pretty good sounding as well, but not quite as good soudning as the other more expensive ones.
I've not tired the Denon DL304 with the TX4 yet, - look forward to that. But the 304 works great on the Audio Innovations T2 on the 1:22.5 "lower" gain setting (which is still quite high gain!). Of course for all of these you can use parallel resistors in between step up and MM stage to lower the loading if you wish. I also tired a zobel a few times before after it was recommened to me (cap and resistor), that can work very well too and you retain the output better than using a resistor alone.
The DL304 sounds very different from the DL103 like I say, - In my opinion the DL103 good points are it sounds very full, has a nice tone, very full and expressive midrange and is very musical. But the bad points are its a bit bloated and slow sounding, and has very little top end of course. The problem with the 103 is these flaws can be quite hard to live with, - especially the lack of top end. Using a slightly positive VTA can help a little bit though.
The DL304s good points are that its also highly musical and never harsh sounding, - but unlike the 103 its also highly transparent, very fast sounding with superb transients, and has lovely fine detail in a very refined way. It has really good microdynamics too, - much better than other cartridges I have tried. I find one of its best points though is the really good treble extension, - its very hard to listen to other cartridges afterwards as they don't have that extension. But its a magical treble extension in a musical way, - not the clinical rubbish other cartridges can have.
The 304 on the downside can sound a little lean in some systems, - but you have to match it with your system and possibly adjust slightly to the different presentation. And also use a flat or slightly negative VTA. The key with the DL304 is that its such a musical cartridge as well and never coarse or harsh sounding like the OC9. I seriously took the OC9 off my Ittok on the very first night I tried it out and put it up for sale the next day, and I immediately put the 304 back, - after the sandpaper sound of the OC9 putting the magical sounding 304 back was SUCH a big relief!
Apparently the even pricier Denon DL-S1 is very similar to the Dl-304 but has better bass and a fuller sound, so it could be a real killer. It used to be reasonable money from Japan (and I nearly got one to try out, - wish I had) but the prices went up of course. Its a bit too pricey now. The thing with the 304 is that for some odd reason in the UK it was the same price for about 22 years from 1986 to 2008!, - only about £170!!, - whilst at most of the same time it was $699 retail in the USA! I don't know how Denon were able to sell it so cheap for so long here. At the time the prices of all other cartridges went up regularly of course, leaving the 304 to be a huge bargain at that price. The price of the 304 went up here a year of two ago here though, - the cheapest now is about £300 but its still a bargain in my opinion. I just put up a wanted ad for a used one, - will see what comes my way but it might be better to buy another new one, - will see. So yeah as soon as I got another and try it out with my Technics I will send it off to you to try, and I'll send you some of the step ups to try too, - they are the best option really for a valve MM stage. Though your headamp looks like no slouch, but it will be good for you to compare with the Step ups. Will be very interested to see how you get on, - just borrow the stuff for a long as you like.
I could send you my Linn Troika to try too, - it has a fuller sound than the DL304 and is still pretty musical. But it does not quite have the top end extension of the DL304 which i really like. My Troika is retipped with a paratrace tip by the Expert stylus company, - it does actually have a lot more extension than the stock Troika did (that has an elliptical tip). I would say that the Troika has a balance sort of in between the Denon 304 and 103, - fulllish sounding like the 103 but it has more extension than the 103 in the treble, but like I say its not quite as transparent or as extended an the 304. Its a pretty good compromise though. I think its a little more dynamic sounding than the Denons too, - I will try the Troika and the Denon (when i get it) on the Technics, - on my 80s LP12 any cartridge lacks dynamics really, - I look forward to getting into the world of more dynamic sounding turntables. I might get a 1210/1200 as well, - there are so many around, - sometimes I've seen them sell for very good deals.
The Garrot sounds very nice, - I can see that's quite a pricey cartridge and it does look like an A&R P77 cartridge. So in that regard it looks like its indeed pretty similar to the Cartridge mans music maker cartridges, - when they start with a cartridge body and fine tune it carefully by hand changing parts etc. Got to try one of these pricier MMs one day, - its been a long time since I heard an MM. A friend told me the more expensive clearaudio cartridges are very good, - there is one with a wood body at about £600 he preferred to anything else(can remember the name), - he compared it to some much more expensive MCs and preferred it.
Not tried any Lyras myself, but I have a friend who has a very expensive Lyra Skala on his Michel Orbe (with SME V arm), - pricey kit. I brought my LP12 over with the Ittok and Denon Dl304 on it once to compare. The Orbe/SME/Skala had a much bigger and more dynamic sound. The LP12 was smaller scale but it was definitely more musical in my opinion, - and I actually preferred the top end of the DL304 to the Skala, - both have a lot of top end, but in my opinion the DL304 has the edge and does it in a very musical and refined way, - crazy I know to be comparing a cartridge that cost £2000 to one that cost £170, but there we are!
Anyway PHEW! sorry again about the long message, - was babbling on again off topic! Hope I didn't send you to sleep too quickly!!!
Cheers,
Colin
- MGIII crossover setting - MaggiesAndCats 13:14:18 09/02/10
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 01, 2010 at 18:07:36
Colin,
I figured you weren't looking at the other "sub-thread" so I am posting my response here. Sorry for the long delay in answering your question on the MGIII crossover settings I am using with my Behringer. I am using the stock factory settings, per the manual:
Low-Pass (Bass): -18dB Butterworth at 300 Hz
High-Pass (midrange/tweeter): -6dB at 800 Hz
I'll check for more detail on the Behringer when I get a chance - too busy having end-of-summer fun right now! I believe I can save the settings as a file so I might try to e-mail it to you so you can load it in your Behringer.
As for my project MGIII's, I haven't desocked them so I'm not sure what they look like naked. Red or green discoloration, white "rust", broken wires, delam, blue lace panties... OOPS!! Concentrate! I hooked them up in my biamp system to determine what is working and what isn't. If I remember correctly, the bass panel works in one speaker and the mid in the other, with no tweets operational.
Sounds like you are enjoying playing with the Behringer in spite of the hiss issues. I demo'ed my system for an audiophile friend the other day and he was was most impressed with the vocals in the midrange. He commented that I need a trap in one corner to get more detail. I have a bookshelf with vinyl albums behind one speaker and nothing but a corner behind the other. I'll probably get another bookshelf and fill it with $1 albums from the thrift store. BTW, I've gotten some great classical albums for $1 at the thrift store. On the other hand I don't want so much detail that my system sounds analytical. I like a live, natural sound and don't necessarily want to pull every last detail out of the recording, but that's another thread for another day!
Regards,
Steve
- RE: MGIII crossover setting - Davy 19:09:10 09/02/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: MGIII crossover setting posted by MaggiesAndCats on September 02, 2010 at 13:14:18
Hi Steve,
Nice to hear from you.
Yes you are right!, I'm was not looking at the other sub thread, - I'm lost, -posts are so all over the place!, - which thread were you referring to?!
Thanks very much for your Behringer setting, - that makes sense,- thats what it says in the MGIII manual. I tired those particular crossover settings already with my 3.3Rs but it doesn't work well, - must be because the internal crossover on my 3.3Rs is different form the MGIIIs I guess. For the HP I have to use a 2nd order crossover at 250Hz unlike your 1st order at 800Hz.
I will get my Behringer upgraded eventually I think, - it an invaluable device for setting up your speaker in different room, - in my opinion the only drawback (for me anyway) is the hiss and mediocre SQ in stock form, - with those improved it will be a killer.
Your other speakers sound like they need a lot of work!, - you are very brave taking on all that, - I am worried about just a delam repair with mine! Really look forward to hearing how you get on. I bet you will be very proud of the job when you eventually have them finished.
I hear what you say about great classical albums for cheap at thrift stores, - the same is true here. If you guys ever are on the look out for anything in particular you can't find there, - just let me know. I can have a look the the record stores here for you no probs.
Cheers,
Colin
- RE: MGIII crossover setting - Davy 19:09:10 09/02/10
(0)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 11:16:33 09/02/10
(59)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 01, 2010 at 18:07:36
Sorry not to have picked up on the high crossover values, I did not find the right info so had to back calculate obviously not precise enough.
By the way, did you check if both amps are in phase? normally they would be non-inverting, but you need to know with certainty, if one inverts phase, you will need to flip the polarity. I find it odd that the near and symmetrical crossovers are sounding thin. That would normally indicate a phase issue, but the Behringer is supposed to be operating without phase. I think I need to go back to the manual again and take a look, its just been too long. The LR2 should be in inverse phases between the top and bottom drivers. http://www.linkwitzlab.com/filters.htm#2 so there is the question of whether the Behringer inverts or not - if it does, that would be the probable cause for the thinness.
It is a good thing that you are finally getting some satisfaction from trying out the Behringer's adjustments. you should feel more free to experiment. E.g. I actually tried out the Tympani as a two way among other things. You should not be so confined to playing so closely to the stock values and recommended active configuration. The less fun part that is still missing is measurement.
The easiest thing to do is to get an SPL meter and a test CD with a 1/3 octave warble tones - I use mostly these because I can hear anomalies rather than watch the FR sweep on the computer and the sweep being so quick, you have no idea what the peaks and valleys sound like. I write it up on paper and stick it in the spreadsheet. You need to obtain a calibration curve for your meter or measurement mic.
Re stepups. I really like the high gain Melos. And the Dayton Wright, despite being quite ancient, is phenomenal in detail and bass impact. While I agree that there is a bit of "wild drummer" effect, I don't think it is coming from the stepup, but from the recordings. Outside of classic Jazz, they are mostly transistor recordings and that is what it sounds like when you amplify the mic feed from the drum kit with a transistor mic preamp - particularly the older ones. The transformers always have the same problem they drop off on the bass, particularly by truncating peaks. So it might seem more natural, but I would rather do it by processing selected recordings than build it into the fixed setup. Nevertheless, I would be happy to try it out. Always happy to be proven wrong and improve sound in a way I did not expect.
As I was telling you, Magnepan uses really suspect components in the crossover in order to keep prices down. It is really inexcusable to use an iron core inductor and an electrolytic cap in a $6000 (today's equivalent) speaker. If you want the functionality, just build your own. The schematics are available, the best components are known, as are the best "values" to do it at high quality at a reasonable cost.
BTW, have the Lpads improved any yet?
Re cartridges
I think I understand what you are saying about the 304. It was probably the next generation broadcast standard cartridge - like the 103 was for decades. Therefore, the tooling was made to last and sales were expected to be rather constant for years. So pricing remained constant for decades till the Yen went out of whack during the crash in 08-9 and stayed up since. So now you are still not paying for the ancient tooling. I was going for a Clearaudio MC when the Garrott went on sale for about the same price and I jumped on it. It is competitive with any MC up to $2000, including Garrott's own. It is in a way in a similar market position as the Soundsmith cartridges. A very good microline on a high compliance cantilever and relatively light high flux magnet sitting in a big coil. It is not as light as a few wisps of copper wire on an MC, but then it does not require a multiplicity of gain stages that cost quite a bit to build well.With the Garrott the Melos phono stage delivers over 10 volts of output. I had actually swapped the output tubes with 7dj8 to lower output. I actually saturated the inputs of the Musical Fidelity HTP when I was using it for pre duties for a while - even with the 7dj8. Since the Melos SHA Gold pre is being used with the tube active out driving the mids and the passive output connected to the active crossover for bass and treble, the input impedance seen by the phono stage had fallen to something like 8 k ohms, which is a little low, so I swapped the tubes back to Mullard/National 6922 for fuller voltage output and the little bass curtailment disappeared. I think the output with a normal low output MC would be in the single volt range. Quite useful.
You are being very generous, you will be sending out your MG3.3 for me to try if we go on like this. Thank you very much, but lets keep this within reason, I am across the Atlantic after all, I should not be borrowing your main components...
I never had a Troika in my system, and I thought it sounded rolled off on top when I had an opportunity to listen to it on a then new Wharfdale monitor based system at a friendly dealer's who also did Linn and Quad if I remember right. They had set up the speakers the prior day and had just let a disgusted customer out the door. I offered to help diagnose the problem after giving the system a short listen, and having listened carefully, I realized there was no high treble output at all. The source was Linn LP12/arm (Ittok?)/Cartridge (Troika?). I went and looked at the source, integrated and followed the wires to the speakers, where I discovered that the biwire jumpers were not put in place so the tweeters had no feed. Their guys fixed it up and I listened again, still not much going on in the treble. Suggested they use something else for a source. They put on a CD player that I don't recall, probably a Rotel and there was treble...ugly treble - but it was there.
I can say that I never liked the LP12, it always seemed steeply priced and oddly voiced. Never got the point. My own Lenco, while alive, was so much more fun, My friend's Garrard 401 was so much better, and while I appreciated the Rega's strengths (I bought one), I did feel that it was a step down from the Lenco - but for the lower motor noise and bass feedback. The Rega sounded a lot more like the LP12 though not quite as much a collection of monotones pulled out of the music.
I have to say that your comparison with the Orb/SME has me wanting to hear the Orb-SME with a 304 rather than a Skala. I am rather disappointed with the Lyra cartridges. They are all very good, but lack some excitement and leave me disappointed when I see the price tag. Its like the Crown Jewel, when it was marketed as a high end cartridges, lent out for reviews etc. it was well received and sold slowly at $2k. A few years later, a guerilla movement around the same cartridge selling at $500 and change as the Shelter 501 had tons of them sold direct and outside the dealer network. Then they got incorporated into the dealer network, came out with 4 more models, and doubled the price. No longer as great a value. So when you compare an excelent production cartridge selling at high volumes to a hand crafted one, you should not be surprised that the sound quality at the price is very much a better value on something like the 304.
Edits: 09/03/10
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 19:27:58 09/02/10
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 02, 2010 at 11:16:33
Sorry Saite,
Wrote this too, - forgot to post with the other message!
Back to turntables..!
Which Lenco did you have?
I had a Gl75 I ran for a while,using Linn Ittok and Basik arms, - that was pretty good. But the GL59 I had (which was rarer) that did sound quite a bit better, - it had its own 10" pivoted arm (unlike the unipivots the 75 series had). The headshel however did not allow for different cartridge use and I didn't want to modify it. I sold it in the end for a big profit, but I kind of wish i had kept it, - that was a nice turntable.
The Linn is a temperamental turntable, - as I'm sure you know, - setup is really important, - particularly the suspension adjustment and siting. A badly adjusted Linn sounds bad, and they can drift quite quickly too. Its a real pain, - and is pretty expensive to have a pro set it your deck up every year or so.
I think the Linn's main charm (when set up well) is its musicality and the emotional involvement you get with the music, - it does seem to have that more than many other turntables. The post 1988 upgrades of Ekos, Lingo and then Cirkus do make the deck sound more dynamic and more neutral, but I tried all these upgrades and a lot of the charm is progressively lost with them in my opinion. System matching is key with the Linn as well of course and putting it with soft, undynamic sounding phono stages and amps is not a great idea, - I find it does not like valve phono stages that well as they are too soft and not tight enough sounding (apart from the Audio innovations P2 I had which I regretfully also sold!). Naim equipment is a great partner with the LP12 in my opinion, - the dynamics and pace of the Naim phono stages and amps really balance out the LP12s softer, less dynamic characteristics, - my Dads 80s LP12 sounded fantastic with his Naim amp setup on the Maggie MGIIIs. He used the Linn Karma cartridge, - which sounded very similar to the Troika (in fact virtually the same apart from the third bolt on the Troika).
Those Supex based Linn cartridges (Asak, Karma, Troika) all have the Ogura elliptical stylus tip, - which I have been told by the guys at Expert sylus co, has a full frontal radius, - very similar to a spherical stylus, - so that's really does partly explain the lack of top end you heard!, - slightly similar situation to the Denon DL103. To be fair though I did have an Toika with the original tip a couple of years ago and it does sound quite sweet, and in my opinion it has has more extension than the Dl103. Compared to the DL304 though it miles of the pace in terms of treble extension. The ESC retipped Troika I have with the paratrace tip (a very fine tip I believe) has much better extension. It has a slightly more analytical sound than the original Toika, but that perhaps a good thing anyway and a good compromise to get some top end. Like I say its sort of half way between a Denon DL103 and DL304 in my opinion in terms of balance. It has a lot of bass and good dyanmics. From what you have told me so far I think you will like the DL304 best though, - extension is one of its best characteristics and its got a pretty neutral sound, along with it too, as well as the musicality etc I told you about. A guy replied to my wanted ad, - he is sending me a used Dl304. He says its had about 150 hours. I'll see how it sounds, - if I think its not good enough to send to you (wouldn't want you hearing rubbish) I'll sell it and buy a new one!)
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 04:42:22 09/04/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 02, 2010 at 19:27:58
I think that my very limited experience with the LP12 is for the most part in circumstances that can't be characterized as ultimately favorable. I get the idea that by distributing resonances rather than damping them all or weighting them down you can highlight portions of the frequency band and amplitude scale that have more impact on perception of detail and emotional involvement. I know that these are important and must be there from my own work on the Tympani mods. I remember too that review from Fremer of the Vandersteen Quattro where the great speakers were citicized for being a little too perfect in that they created a plasticky sense to the music. It didn't give a sense of texture as he expects. It only gave what was on the recordings, since in technical terms it was one of the best measuring large systems reviewed.
I also came across Yamamoto (sp?) speakers and the blog dedicated to music as played by spruce and paper, un-tarnished or varnished with modern plastics and coatings. The idea is that some materials emphasize naturally particular frequencies and harmonic patterns that we respond to emotionally. These are materials used in making classic instruments, and they are chosen for exactly those qualities. My point is that a decent recording and playback system should be able to reproduce that - and that defects in the chain should be compensated for when necessary by using euphonic processing rather than having everything processed that way by in-built features.
Its like the KLH speaker with the rotted surround that finally gave out. My cousin picked up this relic from his father's old teaching studio where it was forgotten, and hoped to get a stereo out of it. The music was so captivating through it that he had to show it to everyone with an interest in music. It gave voices and instruments a terrific communication though everything was very obviously distorted and volume was limited. To an extent it made voices and instruments more like you would wish they were. Eventually it was found to make everything sound the same and became boring for him.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 04:42:22 09/04/10
(0)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 19:21:35 09/02/10
(56)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 02, 2010 at 11:16:33
Its funny you should mention that, - I'm just packing up the 3.3R and the 2.7QRs to send off to you! Jokes aside, - I really appreciate you help with this crossover stuff, - the least I can do is send you a few cartridges and steup ups to try out, you've not tired in you system before
Thanks so much for your help with calulating the values, - I've not got the parts yet, - I am not sure whether to keep the earlier HP PLLXO as it is but I guess there is no huge point if the crossover point is too high, - I'll buy the 0.2uF cap and resistor and reuse the other caps. I see the resistor you chose was a 2K 0.6W metal film one. the small type, - not the 2W type I used the first time. I guess this is because there was not a 2K available at Maplin in a 2W? I it OK using the 0.6W or should I seek out a 2W?, - I'm sure I can find some somewhere else.
I might not test it out for a whiel as my DAP cement came, so my next task really is to do the delam repair!, - hmmm not really looking forward to this!
As for the phase, - I am pretty sure the amps are in phase and the Behringer inverts both LR but I could be wrong. When I tested out the configs yestedray I did try inverting phase each time, on the better normal setting the LR with the same crossover points on both LP and HP was still too thin for some reason. bessel with similar crossover points was better but Butterworth with 50Hz spaced points was even better as per the manuals recommendations.
I will build the recommenced 250Hz HP PLLXO in Butterworth 2nd order as per your cals, but I can see how useful too the Behrginer is, - but like I keep saying the hiss and SQ are not great in my opinion in stock form. If upgrading cures these issues to a large extent it would be a really great device for me. I think with the Audiosmile platinum mods (the transformer in and outs mod) they also fit single ended in and outs on it too, - so no need to use the XLR adaptors etc. might go for that mod, - the guy I bought the DCX from had a SCR modified with the platinum transformer mods and he said that sounded amazing. BTW I am 99% sure he had not fiddled with the unit, - it was in perfect condition and he said he hadn't even use it, - not a scratch anywhere. He said he bough it for a project a couple of years ago that did not take off.
I have a SPL meter, - great, - so how do you do the calibration curve?. I guess you just put the meter at the listening position? and where do I get the warble tones from?!
Your Dayton wright headamp up sounds very nice, - I understand its quite old but that was quite a pricey unit wasn't it? I think you will like my good step ups too though, -I will send you the best one, - "the head" , - its such a heavy beast. What I've heard before is really I guess the same adivce as with other trnasformer based devices, - I was told that you can't ecomomise with step up transforersm, - get the best, - by that meaning a big audionote or one using the Stevens and Billingotn TX103s (which I understand is very suspiciously similar to the Audionote design, an has similarly big, dense transformers)
I regret not getting a TX103 based unit when they were cheaper but form what I have read this "head" stepup I have got now is very well regarded and is supposed to be one of the best despite its age, - not sure how it compares to the audionotes etc, those are a bit out of my price range. There is a shop I know here that does the Music First steup ups using the TX103 units, - they do home demos, - I might trial one and compare.
You Melos sounds great too, - very interesting. I am not sure these two MCs I am intending to send you (Troika and Denon DL304) would have enough output though, - they are both 0.2mV. so on the lowish side, - you need the step up really and it will of course also help get the loading right too. My hunch is you will like both of the cartridges but I think if the 304 works well on the Technics deck/arm and blends well with your system I think it will be the ticket, - it can sound thin on some arms though, - I tried it on a Naim Aro unipivot (that I had on another LP12 I sold) and it sounded far too thin on that despite being quite a good technical match compliance/mass wise, - its sounded far better/fuller on the Ittok (which is not such as good technical match as its heavier than the Aro).
You Garrot sounds like a very serious cartridge, - I am going to be very interested to hear how you think the MCs (amplified with my steup or you Dayton) compare to the Garrot on the Technics, and which of the 3 you ultimately prefer.
I hear what you say about the Shelter cartridges, - its a shame they went up in price so quickly too, - I would have liked to have got one to try, but the thing is there is not that much point in spending loads on money on a cartridge when you can have the Denon DL304 for only £300. Not sure if you have head of a guy called Tom Evans, - who is a designer here, - he designed the original Michel Iso phono stage, and some of the Trichord stuff, - he has his own phono stages too, - Groove+ and microgroove etc. Not sure how well regarded his designs are in the grand scheme of things but he obviously is into his vinyl, -well apparently the Denon DL304 is his favourite cartridge regardless of price, so unless he has cloth ears it must say something for the Denons capabilities.
As for the Orbe/SME demo, - I too would have liked to have heard the 304 on the Orbe. But we didn't get around to it, - I think this chap was a little embarrassed that a cartridge so much cheaper than his could sound so good, - they were comparable in sound, and like I say I preferred the Denon, - more musical/less clinical sounding (but mind you it was on a different turntable so its hard to say for sure the differences).
The first Technics has come!, - 1700 MK2, - looks in great shape, - not wired it up yet. It has a Shure M73HE cartridge on it, - I understand its a bit similar to the V15 but not quite as good. Looks forward to trying this deck out. Will let you know tomorrow how it sounds, - look forward to it very much!
Like I say saying to Steve, - there are load of used vinyl shops here, - with very cheap classical albums. If you guys are looking for anything in particular you can't find let me know and I'll have a look here.
Cheers,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 01:19:41 09/03/10
(54)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 02, 2010 at 19:21:35
DAP repair of Banana peeling - why don't you take photos of your progress and post them for folks to get a feel for what is involved in the repair.
Re measurements - here there is the Stereophile series of test CDs, I normally use #3 in the series, you can also play test tracks from your computer if you are hooked up that way. There are a variety of test CDs in each market, so I am sure you can find something locally.
The calibration should be done by a calibration service - if you are going to Maplin I am sure someone there would know where to call. If you have a popular SPL meter, you may find that someone has posted a calibration curve for it. Yours may depart from it some, but probably only by a db or two.
If the guy who sold you the DCX likes those mods, then you should go and have them done once you got the PLLXO for both the top and the bottom. So it occurs to me that the current project should be to find the best second order LP for the 3.3 and to build its PLLXO equivalent. Then you can send your DCX to be modded. Once its done, then you can decide if you want to keep it in use or use it for bass alone, or to use the PLLXO for both sections and just have the Behringer handy for the next adjustment when you move.
Re phono stages and MC stepups. Here's the headamp I think it was like $500 in 1984. http://www.dayton-wright.com/DW536PreP.html
Stereophile did a review of the Melos phono as part of the MA333 Gold preamp set in 94, but has not put it on the website yet. Was probably about $2500-3000 back then. It has two gain stages and an input buffer stage. The gain is a cascode I think, with a 12AX7 ECC83 first stage and a 6922 E88CC for output. It was pretty powerful for the AT OC9, and the Dayton Wright has enough gain to blow you out of your chair. Anyway, I am curious to find out what a good MC would sound like on this setup with a trannie.
The stock cable on the Technics deck's arm is terrible, and you should oil the bearing before you play it.
Re 1200 models, you need to make sure they were not in DJ use and that everything is in order and operating correctly.
Gotta sleep
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 04:58:32 09/03/10
(53)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 03, 2010 at 01:19:41
Thanks Satie,
OK will go for the 2K 0.6 metal film resistor. I assume the 2.2K 2W resistor would slightly off the right value?. I can always upgrade the resistors later, - maybe for some flashy ones!
Yeah I’m not looking forward to the DAP repair, - it means I will not be using the 3.3Rs for a while and can’t continue all this fun with the crossover stuff. I took the 3.3Rs out of the way last night and put the 2.7QRs back. Played them, - they are indeed a bit more coherent but I personally prefer the 3.3Rs (in my room at least), - the 3.3Rs have a much more extended top end. which is hard to live without. The 2.7QRs are a bit muted at the top - perhaps though in a bigger room they would fare better and maybe with upgraded crossover too.
Anyway,- yeah I will do some photos as I repair so people can see them as a guide. Will start on Sunday most probably!
Thanks for the tip on the SPL calibration, - will check online for a calibration curve. Thanks for the info on the Steeophile CDS, - will get the right one.
I agree the DCX should be upgraded after I’ve settled on my first all PLLXO so I have something good to use for a while. (I’ve been checking out those cermet pots and wirewound pots you recommended too, - have seen some Bourne Cermet pots on Ebay, - ,might go for them, - what value pot should I use?)
Anyway remember I emailed Audiosmile a few weeks ago asking about what type of transformers they used in the platinum upgrade, - no reply yet, so I might call them soon. This device needs to be upgrade, - then you’re right, - if it works well then and is hiss free and sounds good I can choose whether to using it for the bass with the PLLXO HP or just keep it for experimenting.
My word that Dayton Wright looks like a very serious piece of kit!, - 37dB gain too, - will have to keep an eye out for one myself, - looks at those parts inside!, - it looks like a bomb or something! That’s a lot of gain, - possibly too much for these 0.2mV carts even?! Like I say if I send you “the Head” step up to try out as well, - it has three gain settings 20db (1:10) 22db (1:12.5) and 26dB (1:20). The Audio Innovations T2 has 28dB and about 32dB I think.
Well I tried the Technics this morning, - all I can say is wow, - this is really good. I frist tried it with the Shure M73HE cartridge. Well not really but but there is a serious problem for me here with this MM cartridge, - it’s the treble. There is that MM peak at 12K or so I think it is and not much extension above that. I’ve been used to MCs for so long that don’t have this MM characteristic is was very hard to listen to for me, - its so obvious. So I mounted the retipped Troika on the arm. Wow, - the Troika is an amazing combo with this deck, - it sounds so good. There’s refinement, dynamics, super bass, great extension at both ends, - its brilliant. This deck is so much more dynamic than the LP12. In some ways the LP12 is a bit more refined and subtly detailed but the compromise is the huge loss of dynamics with it. The Technics is far superior in my opinion, - such a better overall compromise. And I haven’t even tried your arm damping scheme yet, - will do that and report how I get on.
I’ve noticed the 1700MK2 sounds quite different from the Lencos I had, - can’t put my finger on it,- I think the Technics is just a better all rounder , - that’s my hunch, - its been a while since I heard a Lenco though. This Technics is far better than the Garrard 401 I had for a while, - the treble was too off the pace for me, - the treble on the 1700 MK2 is much clearer and a lot more modern sounding. Maybe I had a bad example Garrard though I’m not sure, - but it was in a good quality plinth.
I’ve noticed many times with the LP12 before is that it sounds pretty good to me using my headphones (my main pair are Sennheiser HD250IIs) but every time I use the LP12 on speakers, - whether the Proacs or Maggies, - it just sounds so lifeless and undynamic, - just can’t listen to it on speakers. I can only listen to CD on the speakers. Not sure why there is this difference. I’ve not tried the Technics on the speakers yet (only headphones so far) but I am sure it’s a lot better suited with the better dynamics. I mean the dynamics on the Technics sound at least as good to me as what you get from CD. Maybe if I had Naim phono stage/amps the LP12 would sound OK on the speakers but with my current kit it does not rock at all through the speakers!
You need to hear this Troika on your deck, - it works really well in my opinion, - even on the stock arm, - its medium compliance so it’s a good match for the stock arm I guess. I LOVE the VTA on the fly, - that feature is so useful too.
I am sure the Garrot is many times above these cheap MMs like the Shure, - but if it still has that characteristic peaky MM treble?, - I’m not sure if I could personally live with a charateristic like that in the long term (even if its slight too). I will be mighty interested to see how you get on with these MC that probably have a less peaky and more extended top end, and to hear if you prefer one of them or the Garrot.
There is a problem with the 1600MK2 I bought as the guy I bought it from gave me the wrong IBAN no for the bank transfer to pay for it!. So will have to wait a while for the money to be refunded to me before I can repay him!! I was thinking it’s a little silly having two of these decks, - especially as this 1700Mk2 I just got only cost me £85 (such a bargain!). But they are so good even if I am paying £180 for the other one its still a bargain in my opinion, and I get the another headshell too which is very useful. Not sure about keeping two of the same deck in the long term though, - I’ve been through this when I’ve had two LP12s before, - its nice to have a back up and spare, but you can only use one at a time, - it’s a bit silly having one sitting around doing nothing you could sell on.
I am going to love trying the DL304 on this deck too (when it arrives). Not sure how it will match, - I guess in stock form the arm is a little heavy for the highish compliance DL304 (the Dl304 is not high high compliance like a V15 for example, but its still on the higher compliance side). I have some foam damping sheets I can try on the arm and I will of course study your foil mod and try that out too. I really need the other headshell before trying the DL304, - don’t really want to mount the Troika off this headshell now I have it set up. I have the Troika set up for Baerwald alignment, - guessed that was best as that’s what I used on the LP12, so it probably better for the tip to be wearing in the same places. I guess I can send you the carts already mounted in the headshells then you can then install then on your arm and put your tags from your cable on. The Troika is a bit unusual as it has flying cartridge leads (there are no pins on the cartridge itself), - so you will need some pin adaptors for your arm cable tags.
I’ve only tried the Quad 99s MC and MM phono stages (with “the Head” transformer) so far, - not tried my Yaqin MM valve phono stage yet. The Quad 99 has very good SS phono stages though. From what I am hearing, - “the Head” transformer is a real class act, - it got a high bandwidth sound and the lower gain options are better in use than the AI T2 (despite the lower gain) as with the T2 I find the Troika sounds a bit shut in at the top. That’s not to say the T2 is bad, - its quite similar sounding and very good too, but with the “the head” you can fine tune and use one of the lower gain settings to increase the loading and get more top end if you like, - so that’s very useful to have three useable immedate loading options on this transformer that all sound different (liek I say you can fine tune with parallel resistors on the secondary too). I would be surprised if you think “the Head” is no good! Its very heavy, - at least 4-5kg or so! Especially for its size, - you think, - that’s what a car would be like if it was crushed up very tightly!
Here are some pics of one on this page
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:j0MPjxExpdgJ:theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php%3Ft%3D2172+"the+head"+paravicini+transformer&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
I hear what you say about the Technics arm cable, - am going to look into replacing it.
I think its might be better to give a used 1200/1210 a miss as you will never know if its been used for DJ use!, - I guess this other 1600 MK2 is a better buy still (despite the £180 price) as it unlikely to have been used for DJing and from what I have read and what you’ve told me, - these 1600/1700/1800 MK2 decks do sound better than the 1200 series due to the suspension they have. I have head the SL1200 before at some friends places, - hard to tell, - different set up etc, - but I am sure the 1700Mk2 does sound better.
Oiling? Hmm not done that yet, - what oil should you use? Where do you apply it, - had a look at the service manual but could not see anything. I might need to adjust the suspension too, - it’s a bit high on the left had side. Just one further question, - I guess the 1700MK2 uses the same headshell as the 1200 series doesn’t it? There have the same arm don’t they?
Rega arms are very cheap here, - even to buy a used modified one would be pretty cheap. I am quite tempted (when I have two of these decks) to get a Rega to try on one of the decks. If its no good I can sell on. You can get the Origin Live VTA adaptor which is nicely adjustable but I am sure its not adjustable on the fly though…! There is a very skilled arm repair guy here at a place called Audio Origiami, - he is a genius with Tonearms and even makes his owm, - he repaired a few of my tonerams including the Lenco GL59 one. He does his own Rega arm mods, - and they are supposed to be very good.
http://www.audioorigami.co.uk/AO_Rewires/AORewires.htm
http://www.audioorigami.co.uk/C_Feedback/CFeedback.htm
He can put internal damping in an arm and I like the look of some of his Rega mods, - even silver and gold finishes!
Anyway, better do some work!
All the best,
Colin
BTW How many ECC83s does you Melos use in the first gain stage? 1 or 2?
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 14:12:36 09/03/10
(52)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 03, 2010 at 04:58:32
The arm is identical among the entire series. Only bearing precision may vary slightly according to model price. This is only hearsay and not confirmed by listening. In any case, outside of the pro SP15 sp10 models, that came with no arm or with the famous EPA 100 (an engineering and production marvel to this day), the 1700II is second most expensive of the series.
Re oiling, I had the soundlab tech do it so I don't really know how to access the bearing housing to do it. I am not due for oiling for another year. I remember having come across a web page with instructions but don't remember where. Maybe on the analog asylum.
You can look for the service manual on Vinyl Engine, it has the whole spiel in it. Having seen the pics, I immediately called the tech to see if he would do the lube job.
I would say that you would want to have at least a 6 db useful adjustment range (I like to have 12 db) - it is cut only, of course, since it is passive, so you will need it in a shunt position at the bass LP after the filter stage, or at the mid/tweeter HP before the filter in a series position. The DC resistance equivalent on the HP is about 1800 ohms, while the LP is about 42K and can only be cut down to 22K. That is only a 3 db range, so we need to put the level control on the HP. So that opens the possibility of using a carbon pot (I only recommend PEC-precision electronics) in addition to cermets and wirewounds. 6 db over 42k would get you a 4 fold factor and about 160 K, a 100K pot would then give you a 4 db cut range of highs vs lows and a 10 db raise range of highs vs lows. So get a a couple of 100K pots. If the range of high cut vs lows is insufficient we can add a series resistor to the pot to increase the cut range and lower the raise range. The selection of 100 k pots is enormous, so lets stick with that, though you could use a 200 or 250 K pot to get the full 6 db adjustment range without additional components. So if there is one handy in that 200-250 K range get it, otherwise get a 100K. It is a linear pot you are after.
Suspended Technics DD vs idlers - the main difference is that the Technics has effective vibration management integrated into the design, while Lenco had not made any effort to design the box for vibration control, and Garrard left it to the customer to mount it correctly. So if you do better than the Technics engineers in your Garrard mounting or modding of the Lenco, then you will have better results than the Technics. Of course, the Technics engineers are cost and weight constrained, while us folks can get $2000-3000 slabs of soft slate cut and polished to mount our decks.
Re Dayton Wright vs the Head, the DW is so dynamic because of its bipolar resistors. It would be a great complement to an LP12 or other suspended belt drives. It surely made the difference in making the Oracle tables workable. It gives you enough expander like gain on the signal to pop the dynamics into the acceptable level. The multiple transistors operate in the bottom 1/4 of the transistor's S curve so that it is a more than linear gain, rather than what you get with operating the transistors over their full power envelope (less than linear).
The Melos uses 2 12AX7 and 2 6922. One each per channel.
The best of the transformers will give you a slightly less than linear amplification. Which will work with a more than linear cartridge and table, The idler drives and direct drives do this to a slight extent, particularly the idlers. That is because on larger volume moves the cutting tables would slow down ever so slightly. So idlers, which drive at a constant and overwhelming force, play those without any slowdown, and DDs only slight in their slowdown. Their really big advantage (transformers) is that they are passive and generally naturally linear - hence less noise and distortion so long as you stay away from saturation. I am familiar with their performance from reading the English HiFi press in the 80s.
My that is a dense piece, I guess that is De Paravicini's attempt at a model of a black hole.
I see you like that 1700. Cool. I was so "disimpressed" with the wiring, I could hear the wire's sound more so than the cartridge's. I had rewired (Cardas Litz) the arm on my Alexandria, and damped its armtube with a CLD damping material (similar to cascade VMAXP). This took the arm up a big step - the Oracle Prelude arm was very weak, shameful performance considering its original price, but this solves much of its problems.
To change the compliance of the system you can damp the 1700 arm with the KAB silicone fluid trough. It introduces damping on the other side of the armtube and changes the mechanical response of the arm/cartridge system. Look at KABUSA.com. Another thing you can do is increase the effective mass to make the match to a low compliance cartridge. My ad hoc damping is intended to allow me to use high compliance cartridges by decreasing compliance on the back end of the arm - as the wire and tape is stiffer than the cantilever on its rubber mounting. The 304 is medium compliance isn't it? should be a direct match to the arm.
Re Troika, how are the leads? bare wire ends?
Rega arms. I like the arms, but I prefer the Jelco based arms (Audioquest, Raven, Linn) as a value when bought direct from Japan. Incredible value. Like the Origin live guys and Audioorigami, there is a guy here, Pete Riggle, with a VTA on the fly adaptor for Rega arms.
Since the Audioorigami guy is right there, why not have him redo the arm? He can get the damping and weight to match your preferred cartridges precisely.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 15:05:42 09/03/10
(51)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 03, 2010 at 14:12:36
Thanks Satie,
Will look for the bearing oiling guide on the vinyl asylum. I guess it might be the same as the 1200 series (but will check).
The Troika's lead are terminated with female tags so to use it with similar female tags on your arm cable you need some sort of pins to fit the two together. I had this problem when I used the Troika with the Naim Aro as that didn’t have detachable cartridge tags on its internal arm cable. I might still have the pins somewhere, - will look.
I have been reading around the Technics arm a bit, - and it appears its quite good, just the cable is bad like you’ve said, - great idea, - I’ll get Johnnie at Audio origami to rewire it with cardas cable. He also can put foam damping in the arm which he says is very good, - not tried it before, - but from the revies I've read on it is does do a good job, - do you think that would be a good idea as well?
So yeah I might give the Rega arms a miss, I really do like having detachable headshell, - and if I got the arm rewired by AO I could still use that.
Do you know if the internal Technics arm cable is the main part of the cable that’s poor quality or is the external one too? I can see how your arm cable scheme is better as they are a lot less interfaces. I might well try that too but I would like to try to have the detachable headshell option if possible.
Thanks for the tip on the Rega VTA on the fly adaptor, - if I ever do get a Rega arm I will seek that out,- very useful info. The Jelcos are good value I agree, have seen them before here cheap, - will check that out too.
I will buy/get the 1600MK2 too when the money if refunded soon. It’s a little pricey for £180 but still the same sort of price as a used 1210/1200MK2, and it give me a backup deck and a spare arm and headshell. It has a broken auto mechanism, - will try to fix that myself (if it’s just the band that’s gone) but it might be a bigger job, - we’ll see.
I see you use what looks to be an upgraded headshell, - what brand is that?
Thanks for the info on the transformer use with idler and directs, - cool. The Head does sound very good to me with the Troika on the Technics, - better than it sounded with when I used the same cartridge on the LP12.
Thanks very much for the info on the pots for the PLLXOs, - On first read I am again pretty lost!, - so are you saying I need a control on both sections? So if the HP section has less resistance than the LP is the HP part naturally louder? How much louder do you think the HP secion will be in dB without any attenuation on either section?
One factor is that the Quad 606 has about 7dB more gain than the NAD 208 so perhaps I can use this somehow to my advantage. Now gonna have to read what you’ve written a few times and try to understand it!
Back to the PLLXO, - gonna get the parts for the new HP calc you gave me tomorrow, - so just to double check, -do I need a 2K resistor for sure to get the most accurate PLLXO, - would 2K2 be less accurate?
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 19:46:41 09/03/10
(50)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 03, 2010 at 15:05:42
The PLLXO and pots:
The LP will be about 3 db quieter than the HP, and you can only make it quieter if you don't have a gain stage. So either you need to adjust on the top or adjust both, but the available adjustment range on the LP side is limited on the up side relative to the HP portion. If you keep the adjustment on the HP portion (or on both) then you will have a high enough impedance for a tube preamp. The minimum of the dual control arrangement, or the control on HP only would be 15K.
If you use a 2K2 resistor than you need to use a 200nF cap - I did not find a Wima at 0.2uF but you are welcome to try finding a combo of foil cap and resistor that works. R should be 2000 +10%/-20%, and R*C (ohms and uF) must be 440 +/-5%.
I think the detachable headshell is very convenient, and the precision of the arm is far better than the Rega. The problem is the cable and the resonance of the constant diameter tube. So damping the tube is a good idea. When you have it rewired, have the integral RCA cable taken out too, and have it replaced with the continuous run from the headshell connector to the RCA plugs.
I have headshells from different turntables, arms and extras bought separately. I have a Technics graphite shell, one from a Jelco arm, the original from the 1600, and one from a Sansui 929 that was damaged in shipping. Terrific arm, but the bearings were bashed in. Has an all metal VTA on the fly, very precisely built. The 929 was a great deck too, but mine was damaged beyond repair. I also have a Lenco 78 waiting for me to finish the new plinth, a pioneer DD, and two Oracle Decks, an Alexandria II and an original Delphi with burnt out motor (or rather without since I threw it out), some day it might get the DC motor I was intending on getting for it, or I'll sell or trade it. The Alexandria is on the way out either with a Jelco Arm or the modified Prelude. The headshell in the pic is from the Sansui.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 07:11:41 09/04/10
(49)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 03, 2010 at 19:46:41
Hi Satie,
Thanks for the very interesting read.
Back to the Troika, - I guess the idea of the flying leads was to eliminate an extra interface (between cartridge tag ends and cartridge pins) and that would be the case with a standard headshell where you could plug the troikas flying lead tags directly into the headshell pins, but for use with your toneam or the Naim Aro I had there is obviously no advantage major advantage, - but its obviously the same amount of interfaces (just about) as you plugging the tags on your arm cable directly to cartridge pins on another cartridge.
I will test again tomorrow but so far I have been might impressed with the Sl1700MK2/Troika combo. It could perhaps do with very slightly more control, but I’m guessing the arm cable damping and arm cable upgrade will improve things massively.
I agree the Technics arm seems pretty good save for the damping issue and the cable issue you mention. I think it’s a far more convenient to just upgrade this tonearm that does have a lot of potential rather than fit a Rega that is less flexible (as it doesn’t have detachable headshells). The Rega project would be a little pricey too as you need to buy the VTA and the plate as well. So I will definitely try the Technics arm upgrade on one of these decks at least.
I think that Audioorigiami uprade on this arm is a super option for ne, -yes he can do a continuous run of cable from the headshell to the RCA sockets, - he gave me that option when sorting out the bearings on my Lenco arm, so I will 100% definitely go for that. Do you reckon the Cardas cable is a good option? Or should I go silver? And I will definitely go for the foam damping filling too, - then hopefully the arm will really perform. I spoke to an Pro LP12 setup guy in a shop here and he told me that AO upgraded an Ittok for him that had ceased bearing, - Johnnie rewired and put in the foam damping, - he said the resultant arm was as good as some of the priciest arms he had heard.
It a shame ,I spotted a fully auto Technics 1300MK2 deck on Ebay yesterday for only £90. Its sold now. I could have bought it but decided not to as it does not have the same tonearm as the 1600/1200 series. It looks like a pretty heavy duty machine, - heavier than the 1600 series at 12kg and it has exactly the same suspension system as well. The tonearm I understand is better than the one on the 1300 MK1 version and it does have VTA adjustment, but its not VTA on the fly like the 1600/1200 series arm so I reluctantly decided to give it a miss though I appreciate it was a great deal for someone. Looking at the vintage technics site it seems it cost more than the 1600 MK2 when it was new at $490. I’ll stick with 1600 series, - I’ll just get this more pricey 1600MK2 and then I’ll be set with two great decks to upgrade. I think I might even sell the LP12, - I have one with a Rosewood plinth and the plinth alone is worth a bomb on the used market. I can always get another LP12 later of course there are so many around.
I find the Technics deck (from my limited experience so far) is also awful lot easier/less fiddly to use and than the LP12. That coupled with quick VTA and cartridge changes makes it right up my street.
Thanks for the info on the PLLXO. That’s great I understand this less technical explanation! (sorry for my constant lack of technical knowledge!) Will have to decide what to do then. Where I put the pot(s) does depend on which amp I want to use on each section due to the gain differences of them. For example if I want to use the NAD on the top even though the HP section is 3dB higher output than the LP I would still want a pot on the LP and not necessarily HP as the Quad which would be on the LP has 7dB higher gain than the NAD. So I might put pots on both so I can have more flexibility. I think it makes sense to spend a bit of money on these pots to get something that will sound good and also preferably have quite a wide adjustment range, at least enough for my purposes. For example if I wanted to use the Quad 606 on the HP that’s a 10dB gain difference between LP and HP so I would need a pot capable of 12dB attenuation on the HP. The other way around (NAD on the HP) there is about 4dB gain difference (with LP being louder as its linked to the higher gain Quad) so I would obviously need at least 6dB attenuation available on the LP. So it might make sense to get pots capable of a wide range of adjustment, - I guess the Cerments are less flexible for this, - would wirewound or carbon track pots give more adjustment?
I am a bit confused with this bit! “If you keep the adjustment on the HP portion (or on both) then you will have a high enough impedance for a tube preamp. The minimum of the dual control arrangement, or the control on HP only would be 15K.”
I am not sure exactly, but are you saying if I use a pot on the HP or both HP and LP I will have a high enough impedance for use with a tube preamp? But if I put a pot on the LP only and not HP I would not have a high enough input impedance for a tube preamp?
Many thanks for the info on the 2K resistors, - I have given her orders to get that one today in the 0.6W metal film, not 2K2. I see I can get Audionote Tantalum resistors in 2K value in either 0.5W, 1W or 2W versions. They are quite pricey though obviously, - do you think its worth it? Is so which power version should I get, - the 1W ones look like the best priced ones. If you don’t think its worth it I will give it a miss – it might be more cost effective upgrading the Wima caps instead for example.
Not sure if I will try this new PLLXO before doing the delam repair, - will let you know.
Sounds like you’ve got quite a few turntables there!, - Shame about the Sansui, - sounds very nice. I guess if you are using the Technics most of the time it might not make sense keeping all the others long term like you say, - you might as well sell one of the Oracles if you can get good money for it. The Lenco GL78 is a nice deck, - that’s the one with the heavy aluminium platter isn’t it? (GL59, L70, L75 all use steel platters). Let me know how you get on when you get the plinth made, - what are will you be using? Will be interested to hear how it compares to the Technics.
Its interested your technical explanation of the LP12 type sound, - not really thought of it like that. The problem can be with this type of sound where the “emotional frequencies” are highlighted is that it’s a balance, and sometime you can get tired of it, and it might not be like a real life sound of course. I think it might be better to start off with a more neutral source like the Techno and build some mild amount of these emotional frequencies into your other component, - like the speakers for example like you say. The Proacs have some of this emotional characteristoc too, - and its too far with the LP12, - the sound is too undyanmic and too sweet and “lovely” sounding, - it sends you to sleep.
Like I say amp partnering helps with the LP12, - the Naim being a great partner IMO, the dynamic nature balancing out this defecit in the LP12.
The LP12 certainly can be a good sounding music making deck for sure, - and from my experience, - I have owned 4 different ones, and heard my Dads one many times, examples do vary quite a lot, -not sure if this is due to setup or manufacturing variations in the plinth etc or both. The one I have now is a bit too soft sounding. The original older early 80s one I had actually sounded a lot more dynamic, - but I sold it thinking if I bought a newer late 80s one with some of the upgrades Linn did on it at that time I would get a better deck, but that was not the case. I wish I had kept the older one I had that sounded more dynamic. It easy to just say well why not hang onto an example that sounds good to you but unless you’ve tried a few examples to see how they sound or can directly compare a few you won’t know how they relatively sound compared to one another of course! So yeah it is possible of course you heard a soft sounding example and another one might have been a lot better.
For me personally I now have some experience of how different LP12 sounds so if I buy more in the future I will know reasonably well if I have a goodun (for me) or not.
Interesting what you say about the speakers. And your experience of that KLH, - I hear what you say about making the voices etc sound more beautiful and you wish real life was more like that, - the LP12 can do a similar thing too as well, - and I guess that’s partly why its so popular, - its adds this addictive coloration to the sound. Bu like you say it can make everything you listen to sound like this and perhaps it might become boring to listen to that same coloration all the time,
I think the key is getting the balance right without he entire system, - not too much of a particular coloration so you get a good compromise of everything.
I love the Maggies for sure, but I heard some Tannoy Monitors Golds last year (Lancasters) driven form a 10 wpc leak stereo 20 amp, - and was really taken with the way they sounded. They are pretty big speakers though and they monitor gold and reds in 12 and 15” drivers are pretty pricey too, but one day I might explore that avenue as well with low powered valve amplification. These vintage Tannoy speakers prices are high and rising all the time, - must I suppose be for good reason. I will obviously keep an eye open for a bargain in the meantime as well! Pretty efficient drivers about 95dB I think.
Have just found a used 1200 headshell on Ebay, - so I will use that for the Denon 304. The Denon has not arrived yet, - can’t wait to hear that cartridge again, IMO it has such a wonderfully enjoyable but also very technically accomplished sound at the same time.
I will reserve full judgement of how the 304 initially sounds on the Technics as I am sure the arm would need to be damped more for it to perform well. I will try it on the LP12 though as well and see how it sounds on that. With some damping foam pads added on the Ittok outer tube too!
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 23:52:22 09/04/10
(48)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 04, 2010 at 07:11:41
Re Technics tonearm.
The wire you prefer should be based on the cartridges you prefer. If you have a tendency to get tizzy MCs with more than life high end extension, get the copper. If you tend to end up with round tip cartridges with pronounced top end rolloff get the silver since it tends to do skin effect better over time. Generally speaking, you get longer life from silver because it tarnishes to silver sulfide which is a conductor, whereas the copper oxide layer on the copper - which thickens over the years, is a semiconductor and the cabling becomes more reactive over time, Particularly at high frequencies.
Re Troika, so you are saying I need to put in pins on my leads? I'll just get a set of long pins and put them in my tags so they overhang and attach the Troika tags. I guess the extra wire will get pulled back and taped onto the headshell.
Re Pots for PLLXO, I think the best solution to give you sufficient control is to have pots on both top and bottom, something like a 100k pot on the HP, in series before the filter, and a 100k pot on the LP in series after the filter. If you want to keep the HP free of pots, then you would need to add a fixed resistor in series sufficient to cut HP volume by 16 db - something like a 70k resistor, and then LP would need a 100k pot. The combined min impedance with the added fixed resistor on the HP and the pot on the LP (after the filter) would be some 30+ K actually, better than I calculated earlier. Very good for a tube pre. The insertion loss would be significant however, something like 16 db min, leaving the quad pre out of the question. With the two pot solution there would always be a combination that would work for either the quad pre or a tube pre.
The impedance of the naked HP is 1.8K. so the combined impedance would be some 1.6k. If you add the pot on the hp, you would be adjusting it to a higher impedance on the HP and can keep it high enough for a tube amp.
The older series technics mk II tables were heavier and more expensive because of dicrete control circuitry and then new technology, I can't say they were any better since the controls would be quicker in an integrated circuit, which is present in the later tables.
Re Tantalums - I never tried them but they have a very good reputation, try them if you can afford them.
The Lenco plinth will be constructed of soft slate tiles I spent hours selecting out of 4-500, pinged them all and picked those with the best decay and least ringing. These will be set with polymer fiber reinforced mortar so that I can drill into the slate without disintegrating it, to provide some CLD effects.
I think that the place to provide the woody resonances and tubey romantic sounds is in the tape loop of your preamp. Add it in when it is needed. There are plenty of thin sounding recordings and you are likely to have much recourse to this but there are plenty of recordings that need just a minimal interference. The LP12 as a deliberately euphonic device is entirely acceptable as an alternative source. Using it as an only turntable, which is where most people would be, is not kind to their music. On the other hand, trying to make the LP12 a perfect solution for the single table system has not panned out, as the upgrades that make it more dynamic, resolving and extended also make it less euphonic and less able to handle weak recordings.
My thought on this is that the solution is a tube buffer in a wood box -Maple bottom Ash sides and spruce top. 6N1P tubes if the system is lacking in dynamics, 6922 or 6SN7 for powerful but slightly romanticized sound, and 12Ax7/12AU7/12AT7 for truly romantic voicing, and a circuit similar to the Eastern Electric BBA - or simply take the BBA and replace its sidewalls and top with spruce and whatever other wood you would want to color the most microphonic tubes you can find.
I have in the back of my mind this Carver Amazing like speaker composed of large diameter neodymium magnet woofers and a line source of Neo 8 or NEO 8 PDR. Another one is a truly big woofer sitting behind a line source of Neos in concentric horns. Here's one woofer that caught my eye: http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=294-895
and this for the Carveer like speaker: http://www.parts-express.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=295-136&ctab=1#Tabs
The concentric horn idea actually came from seeing a Tannoy Westminster and hearing a Klipshorn, then reading about the Beveridge waveguided ESL.
I figured my approach would eliminate the need for the heavy transmission line box by using low FS subs in a broad baffle (horns) with minimal backwave control - heavily stuffed slotted box.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 18:52:21 09/05/10
(47)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 04, 2010 at 23:52:22
Hi Satie,
Sorry for the delay in replying, - I typed out a long message earlier today but the stupidly unplugged my computer by mistake,- so had to retype it all! (Was using Wordpad not word!).
Anyway, - look like you've either been doing my all night Vampire special or you've been getting up at the crack of dawn to write your weekend messages!
I emailed Johnnie at Audio Origami. I asked him about Technics arms vs Rega arms, and he said that the Technics arm when upgraded is as good as any Rega. So that concurs with what you've said and what I've read. He can do Cardas 33ga ofc copper litz or Kondo silver fairy wire for the internal cable. And he can put the foam damping in the arm no problem. He said the external cable he does is a van damme SPOFC microphone cable. I think he solders it to the internal cable to the external cable. I asked him about having a continuous run of wire but he said that was not a good idea, - I guess as the internal wire is very thin?
Anyway,- will have to decide on copper or silver for the internal wire. Thanks for the info on the differences. The silver is much more pricey though like about 4 times, so I might just do the copper.
Yes you got it dead right with the Troika, - you will need some sort of pins to put the Toika tag end and the arm cables tag ends together. I used pins from a cartridge but it would be better to get something a bit longer, - it was very fiddly with small pins. Then yes you just tuck the wires away and tape up.
You are dead right about the LP12, - its not a good source for a wide range of material and systems. And the later upgrades lose the musicalty and charm so there is not much point if it sounds off with poor recordings, - you might as well get a more neutral turntable in the first place like the Technics and perhpas build some switchable charm into your system with the tube buffer idea (that's a very good idea)
Wow your speaker ideas sound grand, - a 21" woofer! Do you ever intend to get something based around these parts built, or build it yourself?!
Back to the Vintage Tannoys, - Well I suppose they must be pretty good as they are so popular, - they are very pricey on the used market (the Monitor Gold, red and silvers). Its one of those thing rich Japanese collectors want (along with Garrard 301 and Thorens TD124MKII turntables amongst others) , - so the prices keep rising. I bet the Tannoys are even dearer in the USA than here. I will look for a cheap pair, - never seen a cheap pair yet but I am sure a set will turn up someday. I could driver a small/medium sized pair with my Art Audio valve amp in triode mode without any problems.
I am sure I have not been hearing my Technics to its full potential as the suspension need adjusting, - and it so high on the left side it fouling the plinth, so effectively the suspension is disabled right now, - I need to get the right socket size to adjust the nuts on the springs, - then I am sure I'll be able to get it right and hear how its really supposed to sound.
DL304 should be here very soon, - maybe tomorrow or the day after. Can;t wait to hear one again.
Many thanks for the PLLXO info, - so do you reckon two 100K pots on each PLLXO in the positions you specify will give me enough adjusting range to get the levels matched for both when I want to use the Quad on the bass and NAD on the mid/treble AND vice versa? Like I say the Quad has about 7dB higher gain than the NAD. I could get 200K pots if hats a better option, - how much attenuation does a 100K pot give you vs 200K?
I've seen some bourne cermet pots for good prices
http://www.viewcom.force9.co.uk/data/trimpot1.htm
Would these Cermet pots be OK?, - I remember you saying the attenuation was limited with them though. Might a wirewound or Carbon track give me more range?. It might be nice to get a dual pot too, - which would obviously be a lot easier to adjust than separate for left and right on each section.
I am going to start the delam repair very soon, - so not tried the HP PLLXO yet, - hope do get all of the delam repair done this week though and get it out of the way. Bit of an annoying break with making progress with the crossover trial but its unavoidable I suppose.
Its annoying with the 2.7QRs, - it impossible to see if there is any delam as the the wires are at the front and not immediately visible, - youc an only see the magnets through the back of the sock, - the 3.3Rs are the other way around with the wires on the back and magnets on teh front, - its very easy to see dealm through the one layer of sock on the back. When I've done the 3.3Rs I will look at the 2.7s, - just taking the front covers off should hopefully be the answer,- I'll then be able to see through the front of the sock and if they need any work. I suppose its quite likely they might have some banana peel as well!
Wow your Lenco project sounds SERIOUS!, - you hand picked slate out of 400-500 tiles?!! That's dedication. Look forward to hearing about your progress, - have you any ideas what arm you'll have on this deck? Perhaps a 12" incher? Look forward to hearing how you get on, - guess some way off, - sounds like you've not started building this plinth yet in earnest!
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 05:40:23 09/06/10
(46)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 05, 2010 at 18:52:21
Definitely the vampire special.. sleep pattern all inverted.
The HP will have 17 db range for adjustment with a 100k pot, 20 db with a 200k pot. The LP will have an 8 db range with a 200k pot. If you want a wider range then it will require a slightly different selection of LP values (same slope and crossover point just a different basis). But the LP starts off 3 db lower.
There is nothing wrong with the cermets at the lower end of their adjustment that is not also wrong with anything else.
First of all, do you really want a 25 turn pot? and a screwdriver adustment? These are not designed to be adjusted regularly and will eventually fail - but I guess crossovers are not likely to be adjusted anywhere near the frequency of the volume or balance controls. But they are indecently cheap so maybe worth the effort of replacing them every couple of years. Of all the trimmers on viewcom, I know of only the Vishay Spectrol 43p series as being actually linear taper. The others i am not sure, though.
I was thinking more along the lines of this:
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=3852A-282-104AL-ND
or this Carbon from PEC
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=RV4L254C-ND
But they are 10 times the cost. So you got me thinking of trimmers too.
Switch records time for the final 2 movements. Tchaikovsky PC3.
The silver fairy costs dearly, I decided on my DIY cable as a compromise over straight silver. I just couldn't see myself spending so much before I have so many other things taken care of. The Cardas litz is very delicate and I would only try using it for the entire cable if I were willing to dress it so that it does not tear under normal use. I am still using my own cable undressed and I do have to be very careful with it though it is nowhere near as delicate as the litz. But i would not be afraid of the solder joint and if the guy at audioorigami likes it, there are very good mic cables from the pro audio guys that perform very well. Actually, Mogami produces some audiophile quality cabling in their studio gold line.
Actually, on the Prelude arm sitting on the Alexandria the cardas litz goes to the RCA Jacks.
I might get to building something like that idea for a concentric horn loaded system. I played around with simple waveguides on my tympani and It does appear like an interesting prospect. I put a 10+" deep horn on my midrange (95 db sensitive) I left the volume setting as it was and it nearly blew my ears out, they rang for weeks. I think I got to something like 105 db sensitivity. I think one of my preamps can play that.
I am a little stuck with the Lenco project as I don't want to demount the parts off the stamped plinth and mount them on the heavy steel plate that is really needed to do the job right. Otherwise I would need to start with a wood top layer and a second layer to space out to the recess under-the platter. The tiles are slightly thick for the spacer function, but with a wood one I would have looser coupling to the slate and suspect insufficient vibration attenuation.
I got to listen to a Tannoy monitor at an audio show a long time ago, but the best of the Tannoys are the named speakers. The folded horns behind the main horn are also transmission lines, and they are the bulk of the cost, but produce prodigious loud tight bass.
If you have a problem with uneven spring tension and adjustment of the pillar feet, so the top plinth is sitting on the body, then you can try getting it suspended by simply putting some risers under the feet to get the outer plinth high up enough to suspend the body from it. I sm so hsppy I gave it to the tech to fix up. I really don't want to deal with that. Mechanical things break and can't be soldered back in place....
Well, when it shows up, give us a heads up if the 304 is all you remembered it to be.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 09:47:52 09/06/10
(45)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 06, 2010 at 05:40:23
HI Satie,
Glad to hear the weekend vampire tradition is alive and well on the other side of the Atlantic too!
Yes got the 304, - mounted it in the Ittok/LP12 first (will wait before trying it in Technics as I don’t have the other headshell yet.
Its so uncanny, - this 304 must be from the same batch as the first one I had 4 years ago (that one sounded sublime), - serial nos 2343 and 2344!, - what are the chances of that?! I had a newer one (which again I broke), - 45** and that one did not sound quite as nice.
This one sounds magic, - and maybe possibly has a bit more bass than my 2343 serial one. Same great treble extension and transparency. You are going to like this a lot I reckon. It does sound better IMO than my 2343 serial one because its fuller sounding, but I am not exactly sure if that’s due to the cartridge being different or the LP12/ittok being different, - coupled be the later. This LP12 sounded more bloated than others I’ve had – it matches the 304 quite well!. I personally think its better than the Troika, - the transients are far better. The Troika is a little fuller but it does not as good in my opinion.
“the Head” step up is a great device from what I have observed using these cartridges so far. The middle tap (the one labelled 15 ohm with 1:13 step up ratio (loading about 270ohms) gives near perfect loading for the Denon 304 in my opinion, - the 1:20 ratio input reduces the treble too much and the 1:10 ratio is too bright. The 1:13 on the step up sounds very similar in brightness level to using an active headamp at 100ohms with the Denon 304, which is the optimal active loading for this cartridge IMO. The Troika (despite its lower internal impedance of 3 ohms) sounds best on the 1:10 stepup ratio of “the head” (the input labelled 40 ohms) in my opinion (which gives 470ohms loading into a 47K MM stage) , - that’s the only setting that gives enough treble with the Troika. With an active headamp too its better to load the Troika higher, - Naim use 560 ohms with their MC stages for example. It sounds too rolled off on a lower setting. Perhaps when you had that demo many years ago they were using a headamp/mc active stage or step up with MM stage where the loading was too low?, - 100 ohms setting is of course very standard for an active MC stage, so maybe that’s what you heard, - it too low for a Troika, you will hear a full sound but not much treble!
I tried the carts with the Audio Innovations T2 step up transformers as well. The T2 is very good sounding as well - not that much basic difference in the actual quality of the sound vs the head IMO but the problem using the T2 step up for both these cartridges is the loading even on the lower gain setting (the 1:22.5 ratio setting) is too low, - only about 90 ohms. And on the higher gain 1:45 setting its only about 25 ohms so that input is unusable with the Denon 304. Anyway even on the low gain setting the two cartridges both have a slightly rolled off treble, - it still sounds fine, but “the Head” is far more flexible because of its more useable lower gain/higher loading taps in the case of these two cartridges. It’s a shame the secondary ratio is so high on the T2 or there isn’t a lower option. I am not sure if I should keep it, as I now have “the head”, -but maybe other cartridges would match well with the T2 and you could even use a cartridge like an Audionote IO (0.05mV output) on the T2s higher 1:45 ratio setting and get enough useable gain. Of course your Dayton Wright would also have enough gain too, but I’m sure that perhaps with a cartridge of that low output there would be too much hiss with an active Headamp, - a step up transformer I guess is the only sensible option with a 0.05mV output cart.
I know you are a gain freak so I’ll send you the T2 as well to play with, - will be interesting to see which you prefer but I think with these cartridges you’ll prefer “the head” due to the better loading despite the slightly lower gain. Obviously you can only use the Troika (not the 304) on the high gain 1:45 setting of the T2 (as the Troikas internal impedance of 3 ohms is low enough). But still I think you will find there is not enough treble with that combo, - like I say the 1:10 setting of “the head” sounds much better in the treble with the Troika IMO despite the much lower gain.
So anyway,- I tried the Troika on the Technics again after hearing the LP12/304 combo. Its different but still very good in different way (when the Troika is loaded right!), - I think the Troika works nicely with the Technics arm. I prefer the sound of the 304 on the LP12/Ittok though due top the higher transparency and better transients the 304 has. But the Technics needs the suspension adjusting like I say and I’ve not had the arm cable damped yet. The Technics does sound more dynamic, - but that 304, - it really is something. Can’t wait to get the other headshell and try it on the Technics. I am expecting it to sound different from how it sounds on the LP12 of course, but I hope it will still retain its great virtues and it might make an even better combo. Will obviously have to use some sort of make-shift arm damping when using the 304 with the Technics.
Anyway, - when I’ve tested out the 304 on the Technics I’ll ship all this gear to you, - within a week or so I would think. Will let you know. Hopefully this 304 is not too knackered, - the guy said 150 hours but it might be more, - but at least I hope it will give you some good idea of what this cartridge sounds like. If you don’t like the sound initially (which I doubt!) give your ears a little time to adjust.
Thanks for the tip on adjusting the suspension, - I’ll try to get the right sized socket today, - if not I’ll try your suggestion
Many thanks for the info on the arm cabling. Yes obviously the cardas litz is very thin wire. I might try your cable scheme actually as I’m getting two of these decks, , - which thicker cardas cable do you use again? Is the foil just kitchen foil or something more exotic?! I don’t need the antiskate option but I suppose it would need to be built in as the cable has to go somewhere, - so I could still build it in a put the antiskate on the arm on zero I guess?
Thanks for the info on those pots, - that’s great. A 100K pot for the HP has more than sufficient adjustment and 200K for the LP should be just fine as well.
You are right, - I might as well go for something more practical and get a pot with a proper knob as you are right the screwdriver trimmer are a silly option really despite the lower price. Which of those two pots you listed would sound better/, - the Bourns or the Precision? I will look for them here. Is it possible at all to get dual ones at all? (for the convenience?!). Then I can still use my balance control on the Quad if necessary.
All the best and thanks again,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 03:57:00 09/07/10
(44)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 06, 2010 at 09:47:52
First, the pots, I would get a cermet for the bottom and a PEC carbon for the top. Carbon has that magic spaciousness, while the Cermets retain bass tightness and extension better.
Ahh so you got a nearly identical 304 to what you had before? Sounds interesting. You obviously like it better than the Troika on the LP12. And I understand what you like is the fuller (to the point of bloating) sound of the LP12 with the somewhat light sound of the 304, which sums up to sound like a more delicate and extended Troika?
So the 304 takes 100 ohms active, and 1:13 on the stepup into a 47k MM stage, while the Troika goes into the 1:10 which gives a really high 400 ohm loading? on a 3 ohm cartridge, but that works to its advantage because of its naturally rolled off top.
The Audio Innovations T2, it seems, is not really a good match for either the 304 nor the Troika, but is intended for those 3-4 loop MCs like the Audio Note Io with practically no output and the impedance of an electrical short. So While you might find it useful as you may dare go into those sorts of cartridges, though I am no stranger to MCs I prefer to avoid them if I can get similar or better performance from a MM, and I definitely am not going the extremely low output route. So I think the T2 would be lost on me.
My predilection for high gain is accomplished in the preamp gain stages, either in the Melos or the Audible Illusions, when not accomplished in the phono stage.
Re what I used in the tape integrated cable is not Cardas litz but a mil spec silver on copper multistrand in teflon, very much like this: http://cgi.ebay.com/20-stranded-32-AWG-Silver-Teflon-Wire-5-color-Tonearm-/380261207494?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5889558dc6
There used to be thinner gauge mil spec wire, but it seems to have disappeared from the market.
I was considering making a combo litz and mic cable but I figured that the external mounting of the wire would prohibit something so delicate. Besides, I needed stiffer cable if I wanted to employ it for damping and for anti skate.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 06:08:40 09/07/10
(38)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 07, 2010 at 03:57:00
Hi Satie,
Thanks for the link to the wire, - that pretty cheap, - so is the one you use the thinner discontinued one or was it this one?
I see they also sell one that’s slightly thicker but it 3 times cheaper!, - but I guess that’s too thick for a tonearm? The one you’ve quoted is pretty cheap to try anyway.
I might as well try your mod at least, - to try it will cost very little and its easily reveraible if its not to my liking (which I doubt will be the case). Like you say have to dis and re connect the cartridge tags to the tonearm for cartridge changes which is a bit of a pain, but doable . Did you just use aluminium kitchen foil for the damping wrap?
Yes that’s it on the cartridge scenario exactly. The Denon DL304 has a light sound, - so in my opinion it works well with the somewhat bloated (but musical) base sound of the Pre-Cirkus LP12/Ittok/Valhalla Combo. And indeed I would say that on this particular deck the Denon really beats the Troika as its more delicate and more extended. I have no idea how the DL304 will sound on the Technics, - it might be too thin sounding, - but hopefully not. I will let you know very soon when my other headshell arrives. I might try damping the arm with foil to help things when using the 304.
As for the loading yes, - that’s what I’ve found, - These two cartridges are a bit atypical actually I think. You would think the Troika would sound OK with low loading due to the low internal impedance but it really doesn’t IMO. You need to load it pretty high to get good top end, - 470 ohms with a step up or that or more with an active stage too IMO (maybe 1K). Cartridges seem to be quite variable in how they react to loading, - some change in sound a little but others a lot. In general different loading on an active stages should not change the sounds as much as it does with step up transformers, but some cartridges like the Troika are atypical.
Denon, - yes with the head, - it sounds best to me on the 1:13 setting (which is about 280 ohms loading), and for the Troika I found 1:10 gave the most top end and sounded best, but both cartridges are technically compatible will all three inputs on the head so try all of them to see which sounds better for each cartridge in your setup And you could even play with changing the loading by adding resistors (or resistor cap) on the secondary before the MM stage. But in my opinion it’s a bit fiddly doing that, - I’ve found that using damping resistors tends only to be necessary when using cheaper step ups as they tend to ring, but better quality ones like this don’t ring so it not really needed and its a lot less hassle not using resistors.
The T2 is pretty light, - I might as well send you it too to try out. Perhaps a little rolled off because of the mentioned loading problem but its still a quality device. And Step ups do also vary in sound of course when they are mated to different MM stages, so try both step ups and see how you get on. The T2 might even outperform “the head” with your Melos (but I doubt it!). When you try them experiment with the interconnect you use between step up and preamp, - mainly because I’ve found different cables can have a big influence of the amount of hum you hear. So if you do hear a bit of him which is annoying, try another interconnect until you find one that gives low hum.
Will be interested to hear if you prefer the step ups with these cartridges or the Dayton, and which of the cartridges you prefer.
I see so if the MC cartridge/step up/Melos MM stage combo does not give you the usual high gain you like, you can crank it up with the preamp (I guess by changing valves?), and maybe changing valves to get more gain in the Melos too? I guess when using the Dayton, you can try any loading greater than 100 ohms for both cartridges. So looking at the specs of the Dayton, I would probably try 100, 250 470 and 1K for these cartridges. 2.2k I think would be too high and the other below 100 ohms too low but I guess you can try them all and see what sounds best.
Do you have any equipment you use that utilises as single ECC83 at all? I had an Audio Innovations series 500 integrated amp which I sold that used a single ECC83 as the input valve. The reason I ask is because after I sold the series 500 I have a very nice sounding Mullard ECC83 sitting around I don’t use, - was thinking maybe you could have it/use it, - in return for all the help you’ve given me.
I have a good source here for valves, - I know a guy who has a lot of Mullard and Brimar valves, and other brands too. If you ever need anything else at all let me know and I’ll find out it my man here has anything in stock. His prices are very cheap.…
Thanks for the info on the best way to do the pots, - Cermet for bass, Carbon for mid/top. That’s exactly what I’ll do when I get around to it.
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 09:25:53 09/07/10
(37)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 07, 2010 at 06:08:40
I think I ended up using these because the 34 gauge were too thin to make it to RCA plugs. They tore when I was stripping so I figured it was not going to make it as an interconnect. I also made a digital from it and it was wonderful till the copper foil buckled and broke the signal wire. Just too delicate outside the tonearm.
The kitchen Al foil is fine - thats what I used, the heavy duty is too stiff. You may want to cover the RCA cable portion from the table to the pre/stepup with an additional layer so it will not have a conductive external layer. Transparent packaging tape should do.
The Melos phono stage is a two stage, MM/MC phono pre with an external power supply. It has adjustable loading from the front panel. Stage one is ECC83, stage 2 is E88CC one per channel. Recently swapped back from Amperex 7dj8 to Mullard/National 6922. Here is a set of pics from the prior generation to mine. http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/264065/fs-melos-333-tube-phono-stage-for-diyer-price-drop-i-need-this-gone
The Audible Illusions Dual Mono is a full function pre with a MM phono stage based on ecc83, 2 per channel, one for input, one for gain.
I thought we went over this before.
Anyway, the gain on the Melos phono is too high for use with a stepup beyond 10:1. It would overload my inputs at over 20 volts out. As it is, when using the Musical Fidelity HTP as a preamp, the Garrott's robust signal is amplified to well over the 10 volt overload point and I need to add 6 db L-pads to attenuate.
As for the Melos' ability to service MCs, Jonathan Valin of Fi and Absolute Sound, used it as reference with Clearaudio Signature cartridge, Koetsu Pro IV cartridge, Decca London Jubilee cartridge in the mid-late 90s. These go as low as 0.3mV,
I would be happy to take the ecc83. Thank you.
I use the Dayton headamp with the Audible Illusions Dual Mono. That was the preamp that launched the firm. It is the first cascode preamp and was designed by Bruce Moore (later of Paragon and MFA).
Re T2, I'll follow your lead here, if you think it will do us good for me to compare these to the active ones, then I will go ahead and do so.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 10:21:17 09/07/10
(36)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 07, 2010 at 09:25:53
Hi Satie,
AHH, - sorry was confused before. So you basically have two valve phono stages, and would mainly be using the stepups and Dayton only with the MM stage in the Audible illusions preamp? Sorry for the confusion. I thought the Melos was your only phono stage.
So the Melos is just a high gain valve phono stage, - and I see you mentioned before it has switcable loading too, - thats very useful. If it was used with a 0.3mV MCs when reviewed these two MCs I am going to send you would be woth trying too, - they are both 0.2mV, - but thats a huge difference in output from your Garrot of course. I guess if the noise levels are OK its worth trying the carts with the Melos alone and no step up/headamp device to see how it sounds.
And yeah its definitely worth trying the T2 step up with the Audible illusions MC stage along with "the Head" and the Dayton Wright. The T2 is a good step up as well.
And like you say perhpas you can use "the Head" on the 1:10 setting with the Melos too if you set the loading on the Melos to somewhere between 20K and 47K. Like I say I think the Troika need 470ohms at least (1:10 step up into 47K) at least and the Denon sounds good at 250-300K IMO but I'lll be interested to hear how you get on with experimenting. And you might get away with cutting out the L-pads in this config so that would be nice I guess despite using an extra part (the Step up)
In general does the Melos phono stage sound a lot better than the phono stage in the Audible Illusions? Or are they just different sounding?
Will have to look out for a Melos, - that one on Head-fi was cheap, and it looks like a very nice piece of kit too.
Thanks a lot for the cable info, - I'm going to buy those cables I think and give it a bash. So do you twist the pairs together that correspond to
r hot/r ground and twist another pair together that correspond to L hot/L Ground?, and join them up or do you twist all 4 wires together?
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 12:26:32 09/07/10
(35)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 07, 2010 at 10:21:17
The wires in a twisted pair must be hot and ground/negative otherwise you do not get the noise rejection effect and risk inducing crosstalk. I put the two pairs in parallel 5-6 mm apart.
Re Melos 333 The one on Head Fi was broken and missing a power supply, but had the ad had the best pictures in it. It is terrific and a great buy up to a grand sterling. While the Audible illusions in stock form can’t come close to the Melos, which is also 20 years younger, once the Dual Mono was recapped with more modern polyprop caps, repotted, rewired, and had new hardware put on, it is competitive with the Melos on MMs. The Melos, however, has 50 odd db of gain and is quieter. The two phono stages differ a little in presentations as the Melos prefers a wide soundstage over deep while the Audible Illusions has a deeper balance. They are both dynamic, extended, dimensional and full sounding, giving up only the slightest amount of detail.
Using the OC-9 which has 0.4 mV there was no problem with the Melos, and it was VERY LOUD with the Dayton Wright and the Audible Illusions. So I think all of the step-ups will work fine.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 14:37:48 09/07/10
(34)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 07, 2010 at 12:26:32
Hi Satie,,
Yes I can imagine a 0.4mV output MC cartridge with a 37dB gain headamp into a standard MM phono stage is a bit too much input! I think even on a valve phono stage that would be overloading! A 1:10 step (20dB gain) up is really optimal for a 0.4-0.5 mV MC, or maybe 1:13. If you want to change the loading with an MC of that sort of output you have to use resistors really. Its not so easy to decrease the loading by just using a higher gain step up ratio, - if you used a 1:20 (26dB) with a 0.5mV cart for example when you'd be at about 10mV input into the MM stage which I suppose is a little too much.
This is why the Denon and Troika are useful having 0.2mV output as you can use different step up ratios to change and play with the loading without overloading the MM stage. The only one which would get close to overloading a MM stage in my stuff is the Troika with the higher gain setting on the T2 (which I would probably not use anyway like I say, - that gives about 9mV into the MM stage using the 1:45 ratio of the T2). Its just a bit of a pity that both cartridges sound better on the 1:10 and 1:13 taps (IMO in terms of the loading) rather than the 1:20 of the head or the 1:22.5 of the T2, as the output is more ideal with these higher settings. But like I say with when using 1:10 and 1:13 ratios from a passive step up into any MM stage with a 0.2mV cartrige, you will get little noise in terms of hiss anyway. And if you can increase the gain later on before it hits the power amps like you do then its not a problem.
I suppose with a valve MM stage you can put a lot of gain into it without problems but I like the Quad 99 MM stage too so with SS phono stages I've heard its best to keep things within limits and avoid overload.
Putting aside for a minute that the OC9 sounds awful in subjective sound quality terms, how did it sound stright into the Melos in terms of matching? Were there enough dynamics using a low output MC cart straight into the Melos with no step up device or was the Dayton/Audible illusions combo a lot better overall with this MC?
What options do you have for loading on the Melos? Good point the one of Head-fi was without PSU, - not great. I'll keep an eye out for one of thee though, - I will be very interested to hear if you can get these 0.2mV cartridges to work with it OK without hiss and for them to sound OK. I'm guessing 0.2mV might be slightly too low for it to work really well. 0.4-0.5mV is probably much better, but look forward to your views.
Good that’s the Melos is a very quiet stage. I guess you are saying the Audible illusions was a bit noisy with the Dayton? (or did you mean with a MM cart?), - well I am sure the Audible illusions will be much better from a noise point of view with the passive Step ups than it is with the Dayton.
Thanks again for the info on the wire, - I bought those ones you linked!, will give it a go. Yes that’s what I thought about the twos twisted pairs (hot and ground/neg for each channel twisted together to reject noise) So you mean just space the two twisted pairs 5-6mm apart when you tape them to the tonearm? Really look forward to trying this. Will hold off on Audio Origami for a while, - this is a lot cheaper to try first!
Cheers,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 20:24:33 09/07/10
(33)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 07, 2010 at 14:37:48
Re overload, I really never got there with the Dayton Wright and the Audible Illusions, it was simply a matter of having to set the volume control very low, like 7-8 O'clock. That as opposed to CD played VERY loud at 12.
Re gain choices on the Head and T2 for the 0.2mV carts, I see the point there, but I wonder if tweaking the loading with a resistor wouldn't have been the better choice, and let the gain go where it should. I know you think that is one step too far in tweakery, but wouldn't that work so you get both the proper load and the proper gain - and the proper tonal balance?
Re overwhelming SS inputs vs tube. With the many opportunities I have had to do so, I have yet to actually achieve a distorting tube input stage, but I have managed to overload every SS input stage I ever had. Tubes just keep going till they stop, SS gets all out of whack and distorts like mad. Some go into oscillations and may burn. The only exception was the Megalodon Sansui Receiver I had in the mid 80s on the JBL Centuries. Boy did that thing have grunt with the Lenco.
Re OC-9 into either was very dynamic with a 100 ohm loading (if I recall correctly) - its only redeeming quality outside its extra 3 db hnder 20 hz and the extension on top- I played it on the Technics into the Melos and it was very dynamic. It did not sound much different than it did on the Alexandria into the Dayton wright and Audible Illusions. The transistors did produce a slight bit of extra transient energy, but I think it is transistor shot noise, as it did occur occasionally with minor crackles from the vinyl in the absence of an actual transient of any substance. That could also have been partially my fault in supplying a little too much battery DC voltage when putting in a fresh battery.
The Audible Illusions is not noisy per se, just not as quiet as the Melos. It might be now because I had the tech do the phono input hardware in the last visit, as it was forgotten before, but I had not listened to the phono there in a while. Actually I mean with the OC9 on the Dayton Wright vs the OC9 into the Melos. I have not compared them directly with a MM, which I should.
Loading settings on the Melos: 5 10 22 47 91 180 270 390 510 1K 23K 47K
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 21:13:02 09/07/10
(32)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 07, 2010 at 20:24:33
Hi Satie,
Just caught your message before going to bed!
Glad to hear you have never overloaded any tube stuff!, - you seem like a tube phono stage/preamp type guy but did you ever own and SS preamps/phono stages you like? Just curious? Or was the overload issue too much of a problem even if they sounded OK?
As for the MC loading with step ups. Well, say you have a cartridge which likes being loading at about 250 ohms with a step up. You could use either the 1:10 or 1:13 input on "the head". These have loading of 470 ohms and 280 ohms respectively into a MM stage. Now you could get to 250 ohms by using the 1:10 step up ratio with a resistor on the secondary but its obviously a far better option to use the 1:13 step up ratio input instead as that's naturally a lot closer to 250 ohms without using any resistors and you will also get a bit more gain too. For a cartridge that like this loading its obviously not viable to use the 1:20 output as the natural loading of that into a 47K MM stage works out at 117 ohms, - lower than 250.
I did do a lot of resistor load tweaking before when I used the Sowter 9580 transformers. They have a 1:12.5 ratio, - so a natural loading of about 300 ohms into a 47K MM stage. I used to load them with the Denon DL304 with resistors right down to about 80 ohms where it sounded pretty good. The problem was the Audio Innovations P2 MM phono stage I had at the time had a very hissy circuit and the resistors reduced the gain and made the hiss problem even worse. I found using a cap in series (after choosing the value carefully), - i went for 120pf in this case) with the resistor helped a lot and increased the gain reducing hiss. The Sowter (though the step up ratio is similar to "the heads" 1:13 input) sounded quite different,- the Sowter was brighter so you needed to use lower loading, and it also was prone to ringing with the high 40 ohm internal impedance of the DL304 without any resistor damping, - you could hear the ringing, - like a nasty metallic sound in the treble! Fortunately these better quality transformers in the head and the T2 don't ring at all so its a relief not to have to use resistors. I used to find it a real fiddle, - I am glad to be free of it!. Will be interested to hear if you use resistors though, - with a stage as high gain as the Melos you could use the 1:10 input of the head and play with resistors on the secondary and not worry about losing any gain.
Those loading options are grand on the Melos, - but it has no adjustable gain?, - its fixed sort of between MM and MC at about 50 odd dB?! Bit weird! But its still great if it can be used with a low output MC without any step up device.
Seriously if your OC9 sounded anything like mine did then I would forget how that compares to any other cartridge, - I mean even Audio Technicas own £20 AT95E MM cartridge probably outperforms it. The OC9 (to me anyway) just sounded plain nasty, - horribly clinical, harsh and unlistentable IMO. If all examples sound like that I just don;t understand why people like them?! I am sure both these two MCs I am going to send you will sound like heaven in comparison to the OC9 even though there are not mega expensive. They will make a far better comparison with your Garrot MM I'm sure.
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 01:31:01 09/08/10
(31)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 07, 2010 at 21:13:02
OK, so you made me look
The gain on the Melos is 60 db, max output 20V, S/N 80 MM ref 0.5V, 75 MC > 100 db Ref full output. Sensitivity, 0.5mV for 0.5V output. Gain is supposed to be adjustable internally via jumpers though I don't have the manual so would have to guess, I simply use the attenuators when i need to. And I set my MF HTP at full output - 10V so they match up on the pre.
The Audible Illusions Dual Mono is rated at 45 db phono gain 60 db including line stage gain, SN phono alone is 64 db, 78 with line stage gain ref 0.5V out. Max voltage output is 80 volts??? has to be a typo, it should be 40. who knows.
Lets see, SS preamps I liked. In my system there were the pre outs of the giant Sansui, not particularly great but very flexible, Rotel integrated 870? pre outs not special, MC input ok, definitely enjoyable, Rotel 970 or something preamp nice MC, better than the integrated, Went and listened around, There was a Symphonic line that was dynamic and detailed while inoffensive, Threshold's Fet 10, i never heard it without screechy amplifiers and MCs setu up with too much VTA, but it seemed to be the one solid item in the chain. The Classe 5 or was it 6? really nice. Then I heard a tube pre and immediately scrounged for one. Got my Audible Illusions Dual Mono. set it up, Jeez I never knew the Vandy 3C could do BASS, Grand soundstage. So no, nothing like that came out of a solid state, though there is more detail available. The Musical Fidelity HTP is SS and is very nice. More detailed than the Audible illusions, not as good as the SHA Gold in active out nor in passive out. A full order of magnitude less dimensional than the tube pres. But it does D/A and A/D primarily used as DAC. BTW a Ken Kessler favorite for HT.
Re OC9 you might be particularly sensitive to the crude and rude qualities of the OC9, but it is dynamic and extended in a tizz and boom kind of way. I did enjoy it with my extra lossy inductive solid core cables that made digital bearable. But then, mine is a really old one from the late 80s or early 90s, so you were likely using more modern production, it is quite remarkable how long I managed to use it, though it did have occasional company.
I see that the best thing to do is to just swap gains, since there is enough gain on the stepups to allow a normal pre to do the rest of the adjustment.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 05:04:26 09/08/10
(30)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 08, 2010 at 01:31:01
60dB is a lot of gain for a valve phono stage!, - that’s impressive, - if the Melos is able to manage it without much hiss then that’s a real achievement. I can see a 0.5mV cartridge might be fine. And the S/N ratio rating is good too. A 0.2mV cartridge could possibly be too noisy but you'll have to try it and see how it goes.
The thing I have found with different phono stages is that the dB rating does not always correspond with more S/N. That Audio Innovations P2 I had was 45dB which is considered medium to high gain compared to other MM stages, - but the design of the circuit was far noisier than anything else I had ever used!, - a 1:10 step up (taking the gain up to 65dB) was not really enough to cut through the noise, - 1:20 or more was more like it. The P2 did sound good though despite the hiss, - the circuit is changeable to get less hiss but then the magic might be lost. The T2 transformer were in fact designed for the T2, - they even plug directly into it. Perhaps the T2s were made with high ratios partly as the P2 stage has such a hissy circuit?!
But yeah if the Melos is able to provide that gain without a lot of noise, - that’s a real achievement.
I did once try a valve MC Headamp, - an Audion model. The sound was extremely good but it was far too noisy. So I am a little sceptical about the extra gain needed for an MC coming from valves alone. I was told by the Auido Innovations repair guy that a step up with a MM stage is the only quiet way to do it and there really isn’t any other way. But perhaps he had not heard of the Melos?! Perhaps Melos found a way to do it quietly that was pretty expensive to execute and that’s why it's not more common?
Ah you had the original OC9, - well I had the ML2 version (not the current ML3), - with microline stylus. It did have very good tracking with very low noise from that stylus. The Denon DL304 for example is a bit more prone to clicks and pops than the OC9 was but the OC9 just sounded so unmusical in comparison and not extended and refined like the 304. I agree the OC9 is extended but unrefined/rough sounding,- boom and tizz exactly. I just don't understand why anyone would want a sound like that?!!, but obviously there are fans it!
So does your Audible Illusions phono section have adjustable loading too like the Melos does?, - having adjustable loading like that is really useful and very convenient, - its far easier than messing around with resistors when you are instead using a step up with only one fixed step up ratio and an MM stage with fixed 47K loading.
Denon actually recommended loading the DL-304, DL-103 and DL-S1 cartridges at the same value as its internal impedance when using a passive step up, - 40 ohms. I have been told before this is a very odd thing to do. I tried it - it worked OK with the Sowter, but with the T2 for example there is too much treble loss. Not tired it with the head. What Denon recommend is actually in contradiction to the expensive AU-S1 step up they make which has a 1:13 step up ratio (like the middle tap of the head), and a natural loading of 280 ohms, - it even says that in the AU-S1 specs so there it obviously does not have resistors inside taking the loading down to 40 ohms!
Denon recommends loading these MCs at 100 ohms for use with an active MC stage. A friend however had a 304 and preferred it a 470 ohms into an active stage so you can experiment, - certainly try out all those nice setting on your Melos.
I am unsure how the AU-S1 step up sounds I am sure its very good. Nearly bought one before when they were half the price they are now! And the other one I am very curious about is of course the Audio Note copy, - the S&B TX103, - that has switchable 1:10 and 1:20 step up ratios. My guess is that "the head" is comparable, and it usefully has all three of these stepup ratios the other two have all in one unit. Like I say I might get the S&B from a local shop to compare "the head" to and see how much difference there is. The head is a much older design of course, - its possible the S&B does sound better and it has a good reputation. My hunch is though "the head" will stand up well.
By the way "the head" has very little in the way of hum noise, - its much better in that regard than the T2 and I know why as I had a quick look inside, - its got some sort of wool shielding inside, - in fact the T2 has none!
These three input of "the head" are much less critical for you than for me as you have a much easier way of adjusting the loading later on in the MM stage, - with the Melos for example you have easy access to loading of 470ohms, 230 ohms 100 ohms and 51 ohms (and lower but I doubt there would be much point in trying lower) when using the 1:10 step up ratio and selecting 47K, 23K, and 510 ohms on the melos. And of course there are other options directly available to you too when using the other ratios of the step up (I've not calculated them though, - 1:10 is easy!!). And of course when using the Melos alone you have all these vast loading options available.
You will find with the Denon (for example) as you go lower in loading, starting from about 500 ohms the volume level will slowly decrease as you get closer to the internal impedance. At 100 ohms is should be a bit quieter than higher up, under 100 ohms and the level will drop quite a bit.
And of course you have the Dayton with all its loading options AS WELL!, - I am jealous thinking about all these loading options you have!
And I see then with a 1:10 step up your Melos with have 80dB gain, - thats very nice, - plenty of gain and perfect for these 0.2 mV carts. You will just have to play with the loading. You might be able to try the 1:13 ratio as well with the Melos but 1:20 will most likely be too high. So the 1:20 of the head and the 1:22.5 of the T2 will only really be testable with your Audible illusions.
I listened to the DL304 again on my Pre-Cirkus LP12/Ittok last night - it really does sound very nice. Just as good as my other 304. I did occasionally hear some mistracking which I guess might be due to the stylus hours (either that or my adjustments, - or perhaps my VTA and alignment adjustments were out?!), - but like I say I hope its OK in the wear regard and at the very least will give you a good idea of how the 304 sounds. I have not tried cleaning the Stylus, - I have some of that Clearaudio Elixir stuff, - it work great when you first put it on but you find yourself having to do it every 5 minutes as the treble rolls off very fast, - I think when you apply it, it cleans the stylus but then it also makes it pick up rubbish much quicker! Even if you let it dry for a minute or so it does not seem to make a huge difference and still the dirt pick up fast, so I have avoided using it so far. I guess a vacuum record cleaning maching would really help with this, - I have wanted to get one for years but they are just so eexpenisve. Wish I had got one when they were cheaper. I think the Elixir cleaner might dissolve release agent, which is possibly why if you play an un vacummed record after using Exixir it sounda off very fast!
Anyway, - Of course you can easily play with the VTA and VTF. The recommended VTF for the 304 is between 1 and 1.4 grams!, - I find somewhere between 1.2 and 1.25 is optimum. Usually nearer to 1.2. So its quite unusual for an MC to have such low tracking force requirements, - must be due to the highish compliance of the 304. I mean it can actually even track OK as at little as 1g! Compare this to the 2.5g tracking weight for the DL103! The Troika is medium compliance and the right VTF is around 1.5-1.65 g, - maybe 1.7 max. I usually use around 1.55 to 1.6g. Not sure if you use a test record with tracking test but if you do, just to warn you the Troika is well known to perform very badly with those tests!, - but it tracks fine on real music. The Dl304 does much better on tracking tests. But the best MC cartridge I found so far for sailing through these tracking tests was the DL110!, - it really tracks these tests like anything. It also tracks much better than the DL160 and DL103 as well. But I guess its still not up to decent MM tracking ability.
You will want to lower the VTA for both the Troika and the 304, - both cartridges are much shorter than the taller Garrot.
Not sure if you read my other thread concerning the Aro in reply to Andy, but one day I do intend to try out and Expert Stylus modified Denon DL103 fitted with their sapphire cantilever and Paratrace diamond. And see if it really does sound like the good parts of the 103 with better treble extension, - could be a very good cartridge if that’s the case. They sell them new for about £300 pre made! They told me that this craze for metal and wood bodies upgrades for the 103 are a silly upgrade as the main problem with this cartridge is the lack of treble extension and that’s due to the conical tip. They said the standard conical diamond is very good quality and very well polished but its just too big to give any decent treble extension unfortunately. So they advocate a stylus upgrade rather than a body upgrade. They leave the suspension alone when upgrading the cantilever/tip, - so it still low compliance, but they said with the Paratrace tip fitted the cartridge will then happily track well at about 2g (rather than the usual 2.5g!). anyway, - I do intend to try one of these, - it’s a real shame I don’t have the Aro anymore, - the 103 sounded very good with that. It sounds a bit too bloated and heavy sounding on the Ittok with a Pre-cirkus LP12. The Aro's lighter sounding nature complements the 103 very well in my opinion.
Anyway, - here just one of many person's view of the DL304, -
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=300900
and this was on a Technics SL1200MK2 with the arm in stock form I guess so that’s a very good sign for us. One thing I really notice is that most people describe the 304 in the same way, - magic sounding with a superbly clear and refined treble. They are always the first words that come to mind.
Will be interested to see if you think the same.
Anyway I think the postie tried to deliver my other headshell yesterday (they left a card), but I won’t be able to pick up and fit the DL304 on the Technics until Sunday, - but I'll let you know then for sure if its the real deal or not. And will most likely send you the stuff early next week when I've packed it all up OK.
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 23:01:23 09/08/10
(29)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 08, 2010 at 05:04:26
The Melos was supposed to be a “poor man’s” AR SP10. Just without the forest of tubes and giant power supply, and thus without the pricetag. The S/N is a real figure, and with a MM you get the tape hiss way above the tube noise. Even with the noisier Mullard/National I put in now, the noise floor is quite low. I am sure that the step up would improve the perceived S/N but quite frankly, it is the lowest I have seen on tube gear under $10K and is competitive with most SS devices.
The Dual Mono does not have adjustments, it has a bona fide MM stage without additional pretensions.
I see that you already know how to load the Denon, so I will just follow the numbers here. So 100 to 470 on the high gain active, and try 1:10 and 1:13 on the Head with the resulting loadings of ca. 470 ohms and ca 250 ohms, then see what they are like feeding theHead into the Melos with say the 23k loading.
On the Audible Illusions, I’ll try all of them, the Dayton Wright, the T2, and the Head. If you ever look at Salvatore’s http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-PhonoStages.html, half his recommendations are tube preamps from the 80s and early 90s with Bruce Moore’s designs getting half of them. These are supposed to be heavily modified with all film caps for power supplies and teflon caps for signal. You will find his MC step up recommendations familiar http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Step-ups.html “the head” is the EAR MC3 here.
I avoid using commercial cleaners in general, and only resort to using a stylus cleaner when there is some gunk that won’t come off any other way. I have a tight rough stylus brush that does a very good job. When a record needs a cleaning beyond the AQ carbon brush, the Discwasher brush + standard water rubbing alcohol + a drop of dish washing detergent solution is used, and then steam cleaning if necessary – by far the most effective cleaning method. If there is stubborn gunk on the stylus, I just wet an LP and play the record. At some point the needle is covered in goo, and I clean it again with the rough stylus brush, normally, the old gunk is dissolved into the new goo in one go maybe two, then it comes off with the brush and you can finish by drying the record. I avoid all the treatments because they leave behind a layer of scuzz, whether it smooths things out and lubricates is irrelevant, it changes the effective shape of the groove and eliminates the possibility of getting what the cutting lathe put on the master. I did some tribology work, and can say that there is nothing that can lubricate the kind of undulating surface we have but for small molecules like water and alcohol. It can’t be short chain olefins and such because they swell the vinyl. Even thin layers of those will be in the way of tracing the shape of transients and high frequency tones. Perhaps Last brand does something different.
The mods to the DL103 sound similar to what Zu Cable (and Druid speaker fame) do here with these, and what Soundsmith do in retipping most MCs.
I am sure the VTA and VTF will be rather straightforward since you have your numbers recommended from hands on experience. 1.25 g for the 304, 1.6 for the Troika.
I did look at the postings but I don’t really speak “Linnie” that well.
Re tracking, I like my Garrott for its tracking ability, it will stay on the mark on everything but the worst wave warps. I just listened a few times last night and before to a bowl warped record elevated over 5 mm at the rim. Tchaikovsky Piano Fantasy, I just raised the VTA and then lowered it back as the tone changed later in play. If there is one thing that drives me mad it is cartridges that don’t track well. Like what’s the point? If it won’t stay in the track how would it play anything? If it has trouble tracking my favorites, then it is simply not going to be used. Actually, that is how most all MCs ended up staying in the stores.
I am intending on getting a new clamp for my Technics deck, I was very used to using the aggressive screw on clamps from the Oracle tables, but KAB – after years of offering a screw tap and screw on clamp found that there are problems doing this, and stopped offering the service and the clamps and took a year to come up with a new xlamp, a reflex clamp, so I am ordering it.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 04:23:36 09/09/10
(28)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 08, 2010 at 23:01:23
Hi Satie,
The ARC SP10 looks really good too, - I see they sell used for about £2500 or more!, - a bit out of my price range! And the spces of the phono stage looks really good. 72dB gain! Without transformers?!!, - that’s impressive. I see the thing is here is must be expensive to make a phono stage like this, - and it looks pretty complex too, - I guess that’s why its not more common. I will definitely look out for a Melos if it’s a “cheap” version of the SP10, - are there any other high gain phono stages like this that can amplify an MC without transformers, - or are these the only two main ones?
I am not sure at all how “the head” compares to the EAR MC3. They do seem to have different specified inputs (the gains look different to me). The MC3 has a times 30 voltage gain tap (the highest gain one), - the heads top gain tap has less gain than this for sure as its slightly quieter than the T2s 1:22.5 input. I have not measured it but I am guessing the highest gain input on “the head” is 20 voltage gain, the lowest one 10 and the middle one somewhere in between. So I’m pretty sure its not the same step up, I could be wrong. It would be interesting to find out how similar they are, - I guess if I try to email TDP I might not get a reply but I could try I suppose! Like I say “the head” is very dense heavy for its size, - it’s a shame there is no mention on the internet of the MC3s weight as I could compare that. I read the TDP did hand wind the transformers in “the head”, - if that’s indeed the case I’d be interested to hear if he hand winds the EAR transformers too.
I see my Salvatore recommends the S&B TX103s, - I read that before a few years ago when I was thinking of getting the Bent Audio units (wish I had now!). Yeah the TX103 is likely to be very good from what I have heard, - its just so hard to get even a used step up using them cheap nowadays. I will constantly be looking for some Bent Audio MuMc units in case one turns up for cheap, - they handily have screw terminals on the top for easily adding resistors in parallel on the secondary, - now I like that!, -no soldering required, so very quick and easy resistor changes. Its such a shame I did not buy the Bent Audio units when they were cheap, - the TX103 was basically a cheap Audio Note copy back then, - and a copy of one of Audio notes BIG MC transformers, - not the cheaper smaller Audio Notes. So it was really good value. You live and learn I suppose. At the time I had been undecided of whether to get the TX103 or the Denon AU-S1 as I loved the Denon Dl304 so much, - the AU-S1 was likely to match the 304 very well as its designed for use with the DL-S1 cartridge that has near identical specs to the DL304. So yeah that’s partly another reason why I didn’t go for either as I was not sure which to. In hindsight I should have gone for either really, as they have both more than doubled in price. Though the Denon transformers is also a bit of an unknown quantity too, - not seen any proper review of it anywhere. The TX103 is known to be good for sure so I suppose I should have got that.
How “the Head” compares to the TX103 is unknown as “the head” is a bit of an unknown quantity due to the age of “the head” (late 80s) and the lack of information on it. Like I say I might try to borrow a music first step up (which use the TX103s) to see how it compares so I will known then for sure.
The Heads middle gain tap is pretty useful for my two MCs , - the TX103 does not have a middle gain tap like that. You can load to the same level using resistors and the TX103s 1:10 tap but when there would not be quite as much gain as the middle tap of the head.
Yeah your plan for using the transformers sounds grand, - try everything on the Audible Illusion phono stage, and try the low and possibly medium gain taps of the Head with the Melos with different Melos loading levels. And of course Melos without a transformer. Before you get the stuff I’ll calculate more accurate loading levels for the step ups with your gear.
Thanks for the great info on record cleaning, - so are you saying you would not use any sort of vacuum device after cleaning?, - if so that’s good as they are expensive!
I will look into the discwasher method, - have heard before that that is good. How do you do steam cleaning?, - do you need some sort of special steam jet? I bought that cheap Disco Antistat cleaner, but its terrible, - the solution leaves behind a debris that clogs up the stylus constantly, but I’ve heard of people using the Disco apparatus with a different home made solutions that don’t leave a residue, and that’s works well, so perhaps I can still use it like this..
So when you use water cleaning etc, - you don’t then remove the water by wiping it off as much as possible with something or use vacuuming?, - you just let it air dry? (I assume you used distilled water too not tap water?!), - is bottled mineral water or filtered tap water OK?!!
What sort of rough stylus brush do you use?, - I use the Clearaudio small one that has small stiff bristles, - its not bad but it can’t always remove the crud.
I can see you tracking is well important to you. I am sure these MCs will not be as good as your Garrot. But they should hopefully be OK over most of a record side. If you hear a bit of mistracking you can obviously try increase the VTF to improve tracking and raising VTA to compensate for the increase VTF. With the Denon I would try it first at around 1.2g and see how you get on and increase as necessary. Similarly with the Troika I would start at about 1.55g and increase from there.
I will have to look into record clamps, - not tried that before actually. I’ve heard before it can make a big difference.
Look forward to trying the DL304 on the Techie soon, - will let you know if it’s the business or not as soon as!
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 11:16:11 09/09/10
(27)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 09, 2010 at 04:23:36
Re steam cleaning, the Mapleshade kit is a good starting point, though not very cost effective.
http://www.amazon.com/Haan-Personal-Sanitizing-Handheld-Attachments/dp/B001EX44C2/ref=sr_1_84?ie=UTF8&s=home-garden&qid=1284043068&sr=1-84
this is a good one. My wife got a Shark, so I use that.
I buy fuzzy microfiber towels in 24 count bags at Sams' club -one purchase will keep you in towels for a long time.
Do remove as much water as possible with vacuum or microfiber cloth. Obviously vacuum LP cleaning machine is easier. an old plastic DD turntable will do the rotating easily, a bissel mini wet vac with a microfiber towel folded over the nozzle will do the rest - if you think wiping by hand is too much effort.
use only distilled water or deionized water.
Re the Head vs EAR products, the Head dates from before TDP would have been recognized by an audiophile as having a particular meaning, and before EAR. Now there are actual employees...
I don't think the TX103 was ever viewed as a downscale audionote substitute because Audionote was not yet a big name out here. It was never cheap this side of the Atlantic, but the Denon stepups weren't either, since they were mostly built for the local Japanese market. The really good stuff from Japanese high end was never seriously marketed in the US. The US was always viewed as a headless market - all middle market. In the day it was the one place on the planet where people were downright proud of being average. In any case, I share your misgivings on having missed out on getting them while the getting was good.
My stylus brush is the little discwasher brush from the 70s it has a little wood housing it has a swing out arm and a magnifying mirror on the other side. Very short and stiff bristles.
Re tracking, if you have reservations on tracking, I may have trouble with using them since that is one of my major sensitivities. There is nothing like a mistrack to break the flow of the music and distract from making critical judgments.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 20:50:35 09/09/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 09, 2010 at 11:16:11
Hi Satie,
Quick Update.
Yes the Ittok VTF dial was way off. I checked with an Ortofon tracking gauge. I was using the Denon at about 1g not 1.2g. That's why there was obvious mistracking!!. With it at 1.2g I can't hardly ever hear any, at 1.25g none really at all. Hmmm the Troika must have been far out when I used it with this arm too, - maybe I was using about 1.4g when I should have been on 1.6g. So thats a relief, - hopefully you will find things fine on most discs with the right VTF. the VTA is quite sensitive on both the Ittok and Troika in my experience. Good job the Technics has VTA on the fly!
I tried the 304 with the Camrbdirge Audio 640P phono stage on its MC setting. This has 100 ohms fixed loading. The 304 really does sound fantastic with this phono stage, - better than it does with the Quad MC stage actually, - the opposite is true with the Troika. I tried "the head" and the T2 with the MM input of the 640P and in my opinion it did not sound as good as the straight MC stage of the 640P. Mind you this was just with the 304, - not tried the Troika with the head going through this.
I don't think transformers match that well with Solid state MM stages, - have experienced this before. And I also tried the transformers on my Yaqin MS-12B valve phono stages and the sound is much better in all regards. But the Yaqin is a bit bloated, - that's just the way it sounds. Boy I wish I had still had the Audio Innovations P2 valve phono stage now I have the "head" and also wish I still had the Art Audio Vinyl valve phono stage I had for a short time (though the P2 was considerably better in my opinion, - really should never have sold that).
So yeah I think it would good to send you the 640P too to try and compare, - its surprisingly good on the MC input (and is very good with the Denon) and I've read that the MM inputs is supposed to be even better, but I guess not using a transformer and MC cartridge. I have not tried it with a MM cartridge.
The only hitch with sending you this is the DC adapter with it is for 230V only it seems. Do you have a 110V 12V DC adapter with the standard sort of connectors?, - I am not sure exactly what size the power little input jack is on the 640P, - the second biggest standard DC type socket I think. If you don;t have anything I might be able to find something at Maplin.
At least the pretty noticeable mistracking mystery I had was is solved now.
The other Technics headshell came today, but I think it must have belonged to a DJ as it was loose at the connector part! I've had to araldite it up, - which seems to have fixed it, - does not move anymore, - . will give it longer to dry and try it with the Denon on Sunday. I've heard these Technics headshells are not bad but others are better. People seem to recommend the Sumiko one which has azimuth adjustment too.
Do you reckon if I send you the cartridges already mounted/aligned in the Technics Headshells you'll use them like that or will you want to fit the cartridges in better sounding headshells? If the Latter I might as well send you the cartridges in their original cases.
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 14:48:30 09/09/10
(25)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 09, 2010 at 11:16:11
Hi Satie,
It looks like you truly are a classical Junkie, - with such large dynamic swings in classical music it might possibly be difficult to get an MC to work well for you, or it might annoyingly limit your choice of albums to ones that don't have such a large dynamic range.....
I am a Church Organ music lover (and used to play myself). This material is a real nightmare to reproduce on vinyl because of the dynamics and the very low frequencies. I would agree too, - most of the Organ LPs I have are very difficult to listen to due to mistracking distortion.
I've heard people say before that CD was the best thing to happen for recorded Organ music and I would tend to agree! The ultimate tone of the sound on CD might not be as good as vinyl but crucially you can hear the music without any added distortion! I do quite like CD in some ways for its clean reproduction of classical music in general and tend to avoid most classical on LP because of tracking issues because of the dynamic range issue. Though ultimately I still prefer the tone of a classical LP if an album tracks OK. Most of my LP stuff in non classical stuff though.... mainly because of the tracking issue with classical and MCs!!
So yeah see how you get on. The Denon DL304 is a pretty good tracker for an MC. Definitely better than most MCs. Its not as good tracker as the DL110 but its still pretty good. If you have a problem at the standard 1.2 gram tracking weight with dynamic material, then raising it up to around 1.3g should improve things a lot. Do you have the hifi news test LP? Or something similar? (I guess so) Like I say I am not sure how good this example of the DL304 I have is in terms of wear but one factor is that Ittok I am using it one might have a slightly dodgy tracking force dial, so I am not totally sure the VTF is right, - will have to double check with a VTF gauge. Not done that yet!
As for TDP, it seems he actually set up EAR in 1977 according to this info I checked out. And it seems its likely he was reasonably well known as a good designer by the early eighties at least. Though I guess nothing like as well known as his post 834P days though.
http://www.ear-yoshino.com/tim_bio.html
http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/1107parav/
http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/990paravicini/
In the last Stereophile article, - "the head" step up is mentioned in the second paragraph so although that was written in 1990 is does sort of confirm that it was probably a well regarded design at the time at least. Like I say though I am not sure how it would stack up against a much more recent design like the TX103. Its seems TDP did do quite a lot of consultancy work, and I know the Musicaly Fidelty A1 integrated SS amp was one of the most successful hi-fi products he designed at the time and that was obviously just on consultancy basis, - he still owned EAR at the time, but was sought out as a consultant due to his skills. It does say on the front of "the Head" that the unit was designed by TDP so I guess his name must definitely have carried some weight then too and that’s why High End Audio Devices used him as a consultant for it and the rumour I've heard is that he did actually hand wind these transformers himself. And hopefully if he had a name back then he would have done a decent job as he had a reputation to live up to , - especially as his name was going to be put on the box... I hear what you say he no doubt was not as well known to the average Audiophile back then as he is now but based on the other good work he did before this and since I think its likely he probably did a good job on "the head"
I am not sure what time exactly "the head" dates from, - perhaps earlier than the late 80s?, - maybe mid 80s? Anyway its price was £350 back in 1988 which was a lot for the time. So I think its probably pretty good. Like I say I really want to do a showdown with the TX103 one day. I've seen "the head" mentioned in old reviews of high end kit as being using a step up device so it was certainly likely to be well regarded as being pretty top notch at the time at least. If the TX103 is much better I guess I will try my best to find one and sell the the head. I know Salvatore compare the TX103 to other Step up including the EAR MC3 but he obviously did not compare to a "head" as I guess he woudl have mentioned it. I do not know for sure but I am guessing it is possible that "the head" could have been a even more no compromise design than the MC3 etc. But its very hard to know for sure. At least if I compare to a Tx103 one day I will get some better idea.
I do have a small Cambridge Audio 640P SS phono stage, which IS budget but its pretty highly regarded. It has very high RIAA accuracy, - to within 0.3dB I think from 20hz right up to 50KHz. The MM stage in it is regarded as being very good and the MC stage pretty good. It also has switchable subsonic filter. I can send you this to try too, - not to really use as I'm sure your valve gear will smoke it hearing its MC stage will give you an idea of possibly the frequency extension you might be missing using the transformers into a MM stage. Certainly last time I compared the MC stage of the 640P to using the T2 going into its MM stage, although the T2/MM setup had great virtues, - it was obviously not as extended at the top as the 640Ps MC stage. The 640P is very small and light, - easy to put in the package. The 0.2mV MCs are a little low output for its MC but it still works OK, - if you can crank up the gain with your preamp be fine. I've not yet tried the 640Ps MM stage with "the head", - will try that tonight most probably. Might fare a lot better on the freqneucy extension issue due to the lower ratio and hence higher loading on the head vs the T2. Obviously theses two MCs of your Garrot will no overload it, - unless maybe if you use the T2 on its high gain setting into the MM stage.
I know you have the high end Dayton active headamp, but like I say the 640P will perhaps be interesting to use for a few comparisons and show you what a pretty good budget phono stage can do these days. I've tried other recent more expensive SS phono stages in the past few years and the 640P is one of the best soudning of the lot despite being the cheapest. The Phono stage in the Quad 99 preamp is slightly better but not by a huge margin.
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 03:14:34 09/10/10
(24)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 09, 2010 at 14:48:30
I am very much a fan of the Grand romantic tradition from Beethoven to Prokofiev, with a particular weakness for Russian romanticism. The music pieces are big and dramatic, the chamber music is just a mini symphony- big music in a small setting. And that is how I got an OC9. It was the only low cost MC to make it through the beginning of Rachmaninov's 1st piano concerto.
I actually could have tried some organ music too, some Reger maybe.
Actually, if you have some organ music on LP do go ahead and see what it is like with the Technics. I would also suggest you give a try to your Ittok with outriggers at the vertical bearing (they would be perpendicular to the arm wand) this should produce a high horizontal torque and help stop the cantilever from moving the arm sideways (outside of normal advancement of the cartridge). I don't remember where I read about these and I am too tired to google it and go over the search results. The reasoning is sound, and should help with tracking. The Origin Live knife edge bearing arms are built around this idea.
I have a test LP buried somewhere. I have not found it in at least two years. I keep thinking that it is near the odd records that don't quite belong to any category but it just isn't. I should just go and get a new one.
I have not read up on TDP's bio, thanks for the URLs, but I remember EAR Yoshino items popping up along with Audio Innovation's shiny tube stuff through the mid 80s along with the appearance of Roksan and Pink Triangle. I thought it was the tube electronics that established him then.
I absolutely loved the MF A1 and never knew TDP was involved. I always thought it was Michaelson who made the effort to transition from tubes to class A frying pans. His greatest achievement was to make op-amp based products that actually sound good.
You have peaked my curiosity with the 640P but it keeps reminding me of Rotel stuff. Competent and smart and not quite up to the job. The 840C CD player/DAC - now that was impressive. Hits way beyond its price point.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 04:02:48 09/10/10
(23)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 10, 2010 at 03:14:34
Hi Satie,
I think you must go to sleep later than me!!
Funny you should mention the CA 840C CD player,. – I'm possibly after one of those. Or maybe the Quad 99 CDP2 or Rega Apollo (though its not as flexible). I had a 740C for a very short time, - it was too soft sounding for me, - but apparently the 840C is much better.
The 640P phono stage is a big hitter for such a cheap product as well, - its been raved reviewed for 5 years now. I had a much more expensive Dynactvor phono stage and the Linn Linto but I prefer the 640P, - its very musical , but does everything else well too. And its a magic match with the Denon DL304. I would say it’s a very well balanced phono stage and up to the job in most respects. Better than the Rotel stuff I am sure. I would be interested to hear what you think of it. It has 39dB gain in MM mode and only 55dB in MC mode, but the S/N ratio is very good and the noise level with the 0.2mV cartridges in MC mode is fine, - with the gain of your preamp cranked up it should work well. Just got to get past the DC adaptor problem, - do you have any universal 110V DC adaptors with selectable DC voltage output and different output sockets, - the standard types? That should work fine with the 640P
Yes TDP designed the circuit of the Musical fidelity A1, - its criticised if I remember right as the preamp stage has a lot of gain (which many people don’t like) and the way the volume control works is unusual and unconventional too. I read the power amp section is more highly regarded and people sometimes bypass the preamp stage and use passive preamps and other active preamps. Having said that, - its does sound good, - I had one last year (a MK2 version), - you can pick them up for peanuts here. I am no electronics expert at all (I would not be able to diagnose a fault without training) but I replaced all the caps in this A1 with more modern 105 degree electrolytics, - which are meant to last for much longer in this amp than the original 85 degree caps of the time, and the 105 degree caps are much more suited to the inferno conditions of this amp. The A1 sounded very good with the cap upgrades, but I sold it on eventually, - However I might get another. It worked pretty well on my big Proacs. Of course there is no way it would come in use with the Maggies though! There is a very useful guide on the internet for servicing the A1 yourself with mods as well etc.
http://www.mhennessy1.f9.co.uk/mf_a1/index.htm
But the A1 is amazing really, - it does actually sound very similar to a small push pull valve amp (I had two to compare it too, - the Audio Innovations series 500 and the Art Audio Quintet), - a bit softtish soudning, but very musical and rich sounding, with great tone. So its amazing really that he was able to pull that sort of sound out of a pretty cheap SS amp.
I didn’t know myself that TDP designed the circuit until I read about it last year on the internet and I am sure its not and never has been common knowledge. He is not mentioned on the box!, - Like I say apparently he was a consultant who must have designed the circuit. The A1 was one of the 80s most famous amps of course, - I bet if it had been more well known at the time that TDP designed that circuit his reputation would have been enhanced even more quickly.
Funny you should mention Rachmainov, - The 4 piano concertos are some of my favourites classical pieces. I have many versions of them. I am less familiar with other Orchestral composers though, - some but there are big gaps in my knowledge, - would like to learn more. Do you have any good recordings you recommend?
I recently got into Vaughan William’s Orchestral stuff, - and I bought the box set of the Symphonies on LP (Boult/LSO) on a friends recommendation, - very nice, - but not listened to them in full yet though.
I remember when I was running the Lencos alongside the LP12 for a while a few years back they are much better suited to Organ LPs than the LP12, - the bass is so much more solid, - it does not sound right on the LP12! But still with the Lencos and LP12 alike the intermodulation distortion was a problem problem from the low frequencies in Organ music LPs.
I will definitely try Organ music on the Technics, - I am sure it will sound great. And will check the outriggers as per you recommendations. If I am able to get Organ and other dynamic classical LPs to play without mistraking I would be very pleased. Like I say my Organ catalogue has been limited to CDs, - Like I say CD is very good for reproducing it’s the low frequencies in Organ music.
So yeah don’t worry the Ittok VTF dial was really badly off which was why I was obviously noticing mistraking. The Denon Dl304 is the better tracker of these two cartridges. Its well known to be a pretty good tracker. I am sure you will find its pretty good. It was maybe not quite as good as the OC9 with the ML2 stylus (that has very good tracking) but you were using an older OC9 though, the one with the original elliptical stylus, which I guess was probably not as good tracker as the newe version.
The Denon has a very small tip that’s is called a special elliptical but I was told its more like an extended/line contact tip. The Paratrace tip on the retipped Troika is a more quite recent design and makes the Troika track much better than the original version so you hopefully won’t have any problems there. Do you reckon you’ll mount the carts in different headshells or would it be more convenient if I sent them to you in the Technics shells all set up for you just to put the tags on?
I saw a video on Youtube of a guy steaming an LP and it’s a bit shocking, - as he starts to steam it you can see the LP seriously warping but as he continues steaming the warping goes away, - a bit scary, - does that happen when you steam LPs? If you steam do you need the Discdoctor fluid as well or can you just get away with steaming and using distilled water rinses?. The solution of the Disco Antistat ruined several of my records, - its very annoying. I will maybe try using the apparatus though (it has some brushes in it and it rotates) with just distilled water as I guess that’s the safest bet! Or maybe a water and slight alcohol mix. Will try to look for some microfibre cloths. And I guess I will need an antistat gun too.
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 04:10:39 09/11/10
(22)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 10, 2010 at 04:02:48
Busy yesterday and probably most of today.
I got the Signet branded OC9 which came with the ML tip.
Re MF A1 I nearly bought one but it didn't have enough power on the JBL Centuries to cook my ears on the orchestral spectaculars I listen to (loudly). By then I had replaced the tweeters with a Yamaha NS1000 tweeter, and differences in sound quality upstream became very obvious.
Re CD - get the Trivista21 if you can afford it. If you can afford the mods, it should get new opamps - opa627 and have the caps bypassed with high quality foil caps - Underwood Hifi offer a good set of mods. On the used market the Trivista is probably about as good as digital gets without going to DCS/Theta/Wadia/Novaphysics phenomenally expensive gear. The new DAC2 from Wyred 4 sound seems to be a good one, but I don't know how well it stacks against the Trivista. It does have a discrete output stage and seems to make a good SS preamp to boot. Monarchy's NM24 is another really great DAC, but is a wee bit weak on the lowest bass - like the Cambridge 840C.
OK so the 640P should be considered as serious kit. I'll look around here, there are plenty of them, it is really not worthwhile to ship.
Re mounted vs naked cartridges. If you want me to try a particular alignment than send the cartridges in their headshels. I just use Technic's mounting guide to position the stylus and align the cartridge. Seems to work well, so I stopped trying other alignments. If you think this is ok, then nothing could be easier than mounting this way.
Re expanding the repertoire will have to wait a bit.
Cleaning solution should have at least 10% isopropanol and up to 30% or even a bit more to promote rapid evaporation. Yes, steaming may seem very aggressive, but the vinyl was slowly relaxed when pressed in the production process, so should snap back into shape
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 07:46:32 09/11/10
(21)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 11, 2010 at 04:10:39
Hi Saite,
Sorry to take up so much of your time not doubt with these long winded discussions (interesting and informative though they are!) so don’t worry if you haven’t got time to reply.
Thanks very much for the info on the record cleaning. So I’ll get off to the chemist to get some distilled water and rubbing alcohol (which I understand is usually isopropyl alcohol). I can try this mixture already with my Disco antistat apparatus which you rotate by hand, - it has two stiff brushes fitted in it. And I will get microfiber cloth for drying. Should I rinse with a further similar water/Alcohol solution after cleaning once? Or is that not needed?
My only slight reservation is that that I’ve heard load of conflicting stuff about using isopropyl alcohol for cleaning records and also for cleaning styluses. Many people seem to think it can possibly damage the record groove and leave deposits too, and if use it for cleaning a stylus tip it can apparently move up the cantilever and accumulate deposits at the suspension and wreck it is there is rubber there. I’ve read that for record cleaning that standard Ethanol or IMS is better in this regard as it leaves a lot less deposit. It is not as volatile as Isoproyl though so that’s a drawback when drying. I guess isopropyl used in your mix is fine if you are vacuuming off the solution with a machine as much less likely to leave a deposit on the record. But I will of course be using the cloths to start off with. What do you reckon?
By the way when you said to clean your stylus you wet a record and play, - do you mean just well the record a little with distilled water or a water/alcohol mix?
Ahh I see so steaming should be safe despite the warping that happens whilst you are doing it, - interesting stuff. I would need an old DD deck though. Do you need to rinse as well after steaming?
Many thanks for the DACs info, - the MF looks very nice. I will add it to my list. The Quad 99 CDP2 is supposed to very good too, - better than the 840C in general from the opinions I’ve read about it (though it’s a little more priecy) and it has the digital inputs for stand alone DAC use too which is very nice. It came out a few years ago as an upgrade of the standard Quad 99 CDP. A new Quad range is coming out soon to replace the 99 stuff so I might get one cheap. The other one people always mention though is the Rega Apollo, - not as flexible as the 840C or Quad as it has no inputs but all the views I have read say its sound slightly superior to the 840C too, and might be a very good used buy. But I do like the idea of having a DAC built in the player.
Yes you are right, there should be a lot of 640Ps around the whole world, - you could find one there very easily. Along with the 740C and 840C I bet it probably one of CAs best seller. Maybe even the best seller. I’ll see I might have a universal 12 V DC adaptor knocking around myself, possibly one used on something else, -there are a lot of adapters at my office used for printers/scanners etc! If I’m able to find something suitable it would be criminal not to put the 640P in the package for you to try too, - it will hardly add any weight to the package.
I have been reading around about the Denon AU-S1 transformer. From the limited stuff I have read it is very well regarded. Very hard to tell though as there are not more reviews but its likely to be top notch. It has big dense transformers and weighs 3.2kg. Shame there are no comparisons of how it compares to the TX103 etc. The AU-S1 has fixed 1:13 step up ratio but that likely to be useful for a wide range of cartridges. I guess its not quite as immediately flexible for testing different loading as a step up like the head unless you have a Melos to easily change the main phono stage loading! I think the Denon has an “impedance matching circuit” in it, - not sure how that works exactly but I guess it helps.
I’ve been looking up on opinions on the Denon DL-S1 cartridge too as there has been more forum stuff written about it in the past couple of years since I last looked. This looks like fantastic cartridge, - very similar to a 304 in the mid and treble but with more bass and weight to the sound but overall a bit better balanced. That really would be an ideal cartridge for me. It such a shame the prices of the DL-S1 and AU-S1 have doubled (that happened about 1.5 years ago when all the Denon stuff went up).. These two were introduced in the 1994 ( a little later than the 304) but like I say the price was also totally static until 2008! I am really kicking myself for not trying either of them before the price hike. Either of them could be had for about £350-400 from Japan on Ebay, but like I say now they are over £800 each.
I might put up some wanted ads on the off chance someone might have either of them secondhand.
Here are some interesting views on some common MCs
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oJX2iWH3rUQJ:myweb.tiscali.co.uk/daveyw/cartridges/mc-cartridges/+denon+"dl-s1"+304&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
I don’t totally agree with the OC9 opinion of course but the other opinions seem pretty accurate and very close to what I’ve heard (I’ve tried all of these, except the Dyna 17D3, and said Denon DL-S1). The descriptions of the Denon DL110, DL160, DL304, Dynavector DV20XL and SOME of the OC9 description is extremely similar sounding to my experience.
The Ortofon T5 transformers they used partly in these reviews are pretty cheap numbers though, - those tiny in line transformers. Though I’ve tried them before, - there are surprisingly good for something so small and cheap though, but I got rid of mine as they a bit prone to hum, - there is no separate earth line when using them.
The difference in the treble the guy describes in the 304 vs OC9 is very much reminiscent of my own experience, - the 304 just sounds very good indeed and very refined and capable in the treble, - the OC9 is very obviously strident in comparison and not as good up there, despite both of them having very good treble extension.
One cartridge I would still love to try is the highly thought of Denon DL103D which has an elliptical stylus and a medium compliance, - that cartridge was never release here so there are really none around on the used market which is a real shame. I see in the USA people hoard them as they are so well regarded. An Expert stylus modified standard DL103 costs £350 new when I spoke to them on the phone yesterday. The guy I spoke to reckons its as good as a £1500 cartridge. Might be, but it’s a bit of an unknown quantity. They also sell the Benz cartridges very cheap, - the ACE is £300 and the Glider is only £395 (nearly half price), - so I might try them but he reckoned the redone DL103 is a lot better.
They don’t change the low compliant suspension though when doing the 103 retip. This is why I find the DL103D stock cartridge quite attractive as it has a reworked, more complaint suspension, - more along the lines of medium compliance like the DL110. A cross between the Dl110 and DL103 would really be an ideal Denon budget MC cartridge. The better tip and medium compliance of the DL110 but with the inner workings/low output MC characteristics of the DL103. I guess the DL103D was that exact cartridge, - does seems a bit mad they discontinued it.
I set up my cartridges for Baerwald alignment, by getting the overhang on a cart to fit 66 and 121mm null points. This is supposed to give the least overall distortion over the entire record. The Technics alignment is more like Stevenson alignment and is a bit better for end of side at the slight expense of slightly higher overall distortion levels throughout the whole side. If you you’d prefer to use the cart with the Technics alignment jut let me know I’ll change it so its already set up for you.
http://www.vinylengine.com/twisting-your-cartridge-headshell.shtml
The JBLS. – not those are another big vintage speaker I want to try and have not done yet. I heard they are well regarded but perhaps not as detailed as newer designs. How did they fare? Or are the Maggies far superior in general? I guess so as you no doubt have had the Maggies for quite a while now.
I’ve always wanted to try the Yamaha NS1000 speaker. Its apparently a love or hate speaker. SOMETIMES you can find them cheap here, - and they are worth a lot reselling on Ebay etc, - I always keep an eye out for a pair. One speaker I have heard a few times which has some real kick is the Celestion Ditton 66 Studios monitors, - 12” bass driver with 12” passive radiator, HF2000 tweeter and dome mid. I do like them, - they really hold their value. There are quite a few different versions of them though but the standard MK2 is supposed to be better as the crossover has 24dB LR alignment but that makes is a bit harder to drive than the MK1. They are very efficient but are for a modern SS amp only really as the back EMF is a problem for a valve amp apparently. I’ve nearly bought the 66 several times but not yet. They are not quite as refined sounding as the Proacs and nothing close to the Maggies of course but that 12” driver and the great bass they can produce is something to behold. And they do have a good mid and treble. I held back partly because of the need to update the crossover in these ageing speakers. With my new knowledge of active crossovers (thanks of course mainly to you) when I am a bit more knowledgeable still and have the Behrginer upgraded I might well get a pair of 66s and try them active and experiment with different crossover setups using the Behringer. Then at least I will not have the expense to upgrade the passive crossover inside them.
Will try the 304 out tomorrow on the Technics, - will let you know the score.
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 16:18:10 09/12/10
(20)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 11, 2010 at 07:46:32
Cleaning:
1. There are downsides to both ethanol and isopropyl alcohol. Either can cause damage and swell the vinyl or acetate, or release the release compound remnants and most often redissolve old record treatments. Which is why you should NOT use stiff bristle brushes on the record with this solution. Use the discwasher brush, the Hunt brush or something similar. 2. Rinsing is necessary only if you let most of the material evaporate before wiping or vacuuming it off. It is a good precaution. Should only be done with deionized or distilled water alone or with no more than 10% alcohol.
3. No need to rinse after a steaming unless you have gunk left over after wiping or vacuuming.
4. Call up the manufacturer of you cartridge to make sure it is not sensitive to isopropanol or ethanol.
Damn DG pressings from the late 60s they are so thick i have only 1/2 a mm left on the vta adjustment. But oh so nice...
I guess I should bone up on the Quad 99 mkII to see where it stands in the pecking order. I'll need to find a dealer in the area or an evangelical owner. I always liked Rega stuff outside their turntables, which though undeniably musical are too wobly for me. It was a relief to have mine go after the nearly 2 years I had it. I was impressed with their ealy CD player and the ELA speaker (for nearfield listening in a small room). They also had a nice low power integrated for a while. Everything was very musically communicative but nothing was particularly high performing - not bass, not output power or loudness. So while I am sure their CD players would have little of that problem since they don't need that much output power. which would play into their strengths. The player is unique at this price level in having a memory buffer and non-standard error correction to rebuild the digital data in time and word to more perfect. Now all they need to do is make an effort to build a class A output stage.
In general, I would like to get a CD player with DAC access for other digital sources (computer based), So while I would walk away ffom an Oppo BDP83 SE because of its lack of DAC functionality, I would not let a Sony 5400 go because of it, since it gets so much closer to as good as it gets before paying up automobile like prices. But with a reasonable expenditure on modding the cheap output stage you can get the oppo to function like a true high end player.
Re - why Denon stuff went up: The Japanese yen appreciated shraply in the last decade, particularly during the crisis, and at some point prices had to rise to reflect it.
I came across the Denon stepup transformers on the vintageknob.com while researching DD turntables a few years back. Appears that during the golden age of Japanese high end they did wonders on that count, but never sold them abroad in substantial quantities. I am sure that at that scale tipping weight there is enough wire and magnetic compound to do the job well. I don't think you will find the comparison you are looking for because they are both rather rare items outside Japan and I don't see many Japanese translations though it is probably there you would find someone with both in their collection chatting up his experience.
I had come across the DL S1 spoken of as a great performer and a great deal. But I was not looking in that direction (I am looking towards trying out a Sounsmith Shibata tipped moving Iron) so I was not paying much attention. But I'll read up on it with "daves thoughts" in mind. I have not come across the 103D online in print or in real life, so I haven't a clue. But your speculation seems reasonable.
Re alignment, I don't have a Baerwold protractor or whatever those are called, I used the Oracle setup routine with their arm and others with similar effective length and I believe theirs is a Baerwald. But the Technics alignment seems fine too - at least to these ears that cut off at 17khz. So if you think these would come out better with your favored alignment, then send them mounted. If you dont't think it matters that much I will be happy to mount with the Technics standard.
Re Speakers and JBL The JBL has great bass and decent midrange, but not great group delay and a throwaway tweeter with no extension to speak of. It creates a very broad panoramic view but is shallow and imprecise. The NS1000 tweeters help alot. The greatest thing is the bass and midbass that can carry power and stay tight without eating too much power. They are nothing like a well setup ribon maggie, not even close.
I am not familliar with that Celestion. That is rather big for a Celestion product. The SL6 was great but for a lack of real bass and missing midbass power.
What you really need to come across is the old top reference speakers from KEF. The "titled" Tannoys, and the thin wood AudioNote and Harbeths. If you come across an Altec voice of the theater you can swap the bass with one of the Neo units I showed you and with new compression drivers from that same Italian manufacturer and get a hyper sensitive speaker that can be driven to room shaking volume with a couple of watts.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 04:43:47 09/13/10
(19)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 12, 2010 at 16:18:10
Hi Satie,
Thanks for the advice on the record cleaning. That’s interesting. So soft brush only with alcohol. That could be a problem as the brushes in my disco antistat brushes are quite stiff.
I rewashed several records the disco messed up. I initially used the disco solution again and cleaned with the machine. I let them air dry then rinsed using the disco apparatus and distilled water, then let them dry again for several hours.
This was much better in that the usual nasty residue that accumulates at the stylus when playing record cleaned with the disco solution alone is eliminated, so the rinsing with water seems to have got rid of the residue. But the problem left over is static, - there is a lot of it. Much more than when you just wash with the disco solution alone.
I read that the main way around the static is to vacuum the solution off without having contact with the record. Is this right or is there anything else I can do? If vacuuming is the only answer to the static issue I need to sort something out, - perhaps the Bissel wet vacuum like you suggested, - will that get rid of static with the microfibre cloth?
I am pretty sure the Disco antistat solution uses quite a bit of IPA, - so I am a bit worried it might damage records. I could get a softer brush , but the disco apparatus is very easy to use. Could I make up my own weak alcohol solution?, - say 10-15% IPA in distilled water and use that, (then rinse with water) or would the stiff brittles still be a problem?
After cleaning the records again to be free of residue I am having far less problems with the stylus cleanliness – and I am never going to use that Clearaudio stylus solution again. What a con, - it obviously dissolves the release agent in the vinyl making a residue, - meaning you have to use it literally every five minutes as your stylus gets gummed up and even a stiff brushing won’t remove it without applying more solution!
With your method for cleaning the stylus by playing a wet record,- do you just use distilled water for that or alcohol/water solution? And how much solution do you use?! A bit I guess?!
As for the Quad 99 stuff, - its is very well regarded and has stood the test of time, - its been out since 1999, - they are phasing it out now and replacing it with the “elite series” but apparently the designs/insides of all the pieces are pretty much exactly the same as the 99 series but the components are slightly upgraded. Will have to wait to see how they fare.
The 99 CDP2 is a very well regarded CD player, and it has the digital inputs too, but it’s a fair bit more pricey than the 840C. The 840C soon will be discontinued soon as well (think they are bringing out 850C/750C) so I might look for a used one then.
The 99 range was started with manufacture in the UK, but the manufacture was switched to China in about 2006 so. The 99 preamp I have is an earlier one, - designed and manufactured in the UK it says on the back.
The 99 Preamp is another well regarded item. It is a very good preamp. The only slight issue is the lack of output volts I suppose, but its not as bad as that Quad 66 I had. The phono stage on both MC and MM are very good, and it has the adjustable input sensitivity of three levels on all inputs too. It it pretty light, - if you like I can send you that to try out with the cartridges instead of the 640P, - I could put it in the package without problems. That’s if the voltage output issue of it will be OK?, - I know you like a preamp with high volts.
As for the Rega stuff, - I agree with you on the vinyl and the amps. I had a P3 for a while myself, - you are right, - its quite OK but nothing special, - nothing stands out. But I guess you right on the CD players as not much output is needed. The Apollo is a refinement of the Planet/planet 2000 and is DOES have a Class A output stage as well as the memory buffer. See here http://www.rega.co.uk/html/apollo.htm
Its had rave reviews since it came out. I am seriously tempted to get one, - all he views I have read say its much better than anything else unless you spend a lot more, - and its usually always said as being better than the 840C. Not sure how it stakes up against the Quad but that costs quite a bit more money.
There is also the Rega Saturn that has upgraded caps and stuff in it, - that’s supposed to be even better than the Apollo.
http://www.rega.co.uk/html/Saturn.htm
Again class A output stage, - looks more upgraded too.
Both players are actually cheaper new than when they came out. Rega increased the prices of them a couple of years back but then subsequently decreased the prices of them to cheaper than the original price! So yeah well worth looking at too.
The other option like you say which is very interesting on the CD front is upgrading the output stage on a cheaper player, - sounds interesting. Looking at the specs of the Rega class A output stages do you think I could still get better results upgrading the output stage of a cheap player?
The Apollo is around £300 used here so it is quite a bargain, - that’s cheaper than a used 840C (they usually go for around £400). Just like I say the only drawback is the lack of digital inputs for directly accessing the DAC. But it would be a good buy to test out, - easily resalable used for the same money if I got a used one to try.
Yes it seems the Denon DL-S1 is a very well regarded cartridge along with the 304. Just the price! But I bet its still a very good deal even for the asking price, - I am just a little uncomfortable about spending that much on a perishable item!.
It’s a real shame about the step up, the Denon AU-S1, - in that there is very little info on how they stack up against the TX103 etc. Some people do have them here though, so maybe I could try to track down an evangelical owner (to borrow your expression!) and they also do turn up on Yahoo Japan used, - as do the cartridges. I have not look for a while, - will take a peek.
When you say talk about the Japanese “golden age” do you mean the 70 and 80s?
So is that JBL Century the top model everyone talks about or are there some other vintage ones that are better that? I agree with you top that KEFs, Montior Tannoys and others would be a good bet to try if I can find them cheap (which is unlikely). Not too familiar with Harbeths and I’ve never tried an Audinote speaker.
The Celestion 66 is very well regarded, - I am surprised you have not heard of it before. What I have heard is that amps of the day when it was made (back in the 70s) were unable to control it well due to the back EMF of the passive radiator, but its having a resurgence now with all the SS amps around with high damping factor etc. And its more well regarded now that it was when it came out. I was originally launched as a studio design which is also partly why it was not so well known at the time in the HI-Fi arena. The prices are rising all the time, - it’s a similar price used to the small used Tannoy monitor golds. The 66 is a great speaker, - you are right its pretty big. I heard one once at a friends house (a MK2), - different from the Maggies of course but I would say it’s a great speaker and amongst the best I’ve personally heard, - very good, solid and powerful bass and a great mid. Top is pretty good too. Its pretty sensitive and easy to drive save for the back EMF issue. I heard once of a dealer saying he bought a used pair from a place that had been used as disco speakers!
I started on the speaker Delam repair yesterday and have done one so far! Not put the sock back yet though. It very tedious, but at least I know roughly how to do it now.
I also managed to adjust the Technics suspension, - it’s a little fiddly, - quite hard to fit the socket in the holes!
Not tried the DL304 on the Technics yet due the dealm repair, suspension adjustment and the re cleaning of the records but I am going to try it today or tomorrow and will let you know how it sounds. The Troika sounds great on the Technics in my opinion. Very well balanced. I am a little worried the DL304 might sound too light. It sounds very well balanced on my Pre-cirkus LP12 but I think that’s because the two items have extreme balances and they help balance each other out, - the Denon DL304 is light sounding and the pre-cirkus LP12/Ittok is quite big and bloated sounding
I played Rachmaninov Piano concerto NO1 (Ashkenazy/LSO 70s version) on the Technics with Troika,- With the tracking at about 1.65 grams I could not hear any distortion on the big swings. With lower VTF than this there was a bit of distortion at times.
As for the DG pressing, - sorry to hear about that problem with the VTA!, - With both the 304 and Troika they are much lower profile than the taller Garrot, - you will have plenty of adjustment left with records like these.
As for the Crossover with the 3.3R, - I found out something else, - after looking more closely it seems those two schematics for the 3.3Rs on the MUG site and because the 3.3R had a revision and the earlier ones have slightly different crossover to the newer ones.
http://www.integracoustics.com/MUG/MUG/tweaks/xover/3.3xover.html
The original one has a 53uf cap on the mid, 20uf on the tweeter and 275uf in the bass (in the crossover box).
The later version has 50uf on the mid, 17uf on the tweeter and 225uf in the bass.
How big are these differences?
The problem is, having a look at the internal crossover on my speaker (I can see it now I got the sock off), mine one has a 50uF cap on the mid and a 20uF cap on the tweeter, so its unlike the two versions posted here, - this is odd!, - is this likely to make much difference?
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 13:54:49 09/13/10
(18)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 13, 2010 at 04:43:47
Re Cleaning
If you can avoid leaving the cleaning solution on the record more than few mins then swelling is not an issue. swelling takes time so a couple of minutes is fine and if you like your brushes use them.
Static - the moisture from the record cleaning solution should keep you from having static buildup during cleaning. Same when using the microfiber on the vacuum attachment.
Playing the wet record for stylus cleaning. I use distilled water on a good record that can use a mild cleaning, or use a record that I consider trash and use cleaning solution, as none of my cartridges proved sensitive to isopropaanol.
Re Apollo, I missed the class A output stage, that should make a significant difference, that and the memory buffer would make for a great player, I never got to listen to the Apollo, so I don't know how well it went, but I loved the Planet in its time. The reviews were great and it is still highly regarded. They still go for $600 used here - it was a consideration for me too, (the saturn at 1100-1200 used here was out of the question for me) but with better DACs having so much more flexibility and my old heavily built Sony 707ES (the first single bit player and granddaddy of DSD) for transport, I was looking more for a DAC and a cheap universal player to feed it digital from SACD, DVDA, USB memory sticks (best option), and the computer. I gave up on SACD digital output, and skipped the DVDA in favor of hi rez computer audio and bluray audio (digital output) in the future. These days you can get a used Esoteric basic universal player/DVD for the VRDS transport from a prior generation for a steep but not unrealistic price and add later a good DAC, like the Trivista or the Monarchy or a new discrete output one like the DAC2 from Wyred4Sound. Still the Sony 5400 is tops in real price SACD/CD playback in an integrated unit. The Trivista DAC is still a value standout in the used market as being just one generation behind the current technology and having a killer output stage - with upgrade potential.
I was a cheapskate on the digital since technology obsoletes stuff so quickly and well executed upsampling seems to be very close to high bit formats. My Musical Fidelity HTP Pre/Proc/DAC played as well as the 840C but has better bass and endless flexibility and big 10V output and preamp functions. I found a couple of reviewers who used it as an HT pre for 2 channel too, and did not realize (or care) that their analog was being digitized and played back from digital. That convinced me to go that way, particularly as lacking HDMI made it useless for most folks into HT it was dirt cheap - one third of the cost of an 840C, 40% less than a used MF 3.24 DAC. I don't think I would but it today, as it is not really hi rez compatible - but then I don't intend to go into hi rez till discount software is available on the second hand market.
I still have not researched the Quad 99, so I don't have anything to say yet.
The Japanese golden age lasted from the late 70s till 1990 and marks the last time large scale corporations dedicated serious engineering talent to design high end audio equipment and production equipment for it. Though the latter 80s saw quality slipping, it was still beyond what any large scale corporate producer did outside of Japan. These days we see a revival effort in corporate audio producers with Marantz Harmon (Revel, JBL, Mark Levinson, Infinity) Sony ES, and TEAC's Esoteric division churning out serious high end products with real engineering content. Even Luxman is back. Old stalwart big boutiques like Cambridge, NAD and MF are coming out with a new generation of high end product to compete in the Asian High End market - now bigger than the US and EU one since noveau riche are more appreciative of high performance and nameplates than old money.
Re carts: I would not worry about how the DL304 sounds like on the technics player, you will have it on and find out. Besides, with easy VTAF, you can easily adjust to get a slightly fuller sound, and the Technics is not a light sounding table like say the Oracles. The absence of the midbass bloat will probably turn out to be a benefit.
Good thing with the Troika. Maybe you can finally get the benefit of analog classical. The opening of the Rachmaninov PC1 is really a grand test, isn't it.
I'm with you on spending on carts, though mine lasted way longer than I had ever imagined they would. I am wary of dumping significant money into a cart, so I normally buy new or lightly used, and only at a big discount to new. Never more than 50% of original street price. The Denon DL-S1 does seem attractive if you can get a good deal on it - but it goies for $600 used here, which is a little more than I would put into a cartridge.
Don't worry about the non standard crossover values, the difference only amounts to shifting the crossover point 1/2 a tone, and nearly nothing in phase. Besides, I took the more current schematic from MUG for back calculating the crossover and came out well over 10% off - which did make a difference - 2 tones+.
Good luck on the remaining repair, hopefully the repair will hold!!
Re JBL, their best stuff was the pro audio stuff under the JBL pro and Urei pro from the 70s and more recently Revel and Infinity Prelude, and the new horn loaded JBL label speakers. The vintage JBL consumer speaker to hear is the later L200, which was a modern redo of the L100 centuries. My friend here had a Revel Ultima Studio (not the bigger salon, and it was rather impressive), but I think my modded Tympani sound better. Definitely bass was tighter in my setup and midrange was significantly more defined on my Neo8 and the soundstage orders of magnitude greater.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 15:57:28 09/13/10
(17)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 13, 2010 at 13:54:49
Hi Satie,
Thanks for all the help and advice again, - really appreciate it, - I’ll have a look to see if I have any other valves as well as a Mullard ECC83 I can send you, - I think I’ve got an unused Brimar ECC83 as well knocking around. In the Yaqin phono stage the Mullard sounds too bloated and thick as it’s a very heavy sounding phono stage! The lighter sounding chinese 12AX7, 12AU7s actualyl sound more suited in the bloated sounding Yaqin!
Thanks for the info on the Crossover, - that’s a relief. I see there is a bit of difference in the bass cap value and that’s what you are talking about with the slight ½ tone change. But does my internal crossover not being exactly the same as either of these schematics matter at all from the mid/treble point on view? I don’t think so as the value change is very slight. The original schematic used 20uF and 53uF caps in the internal crossover and the later version used 17uF and 50uF, but like I say mine uses 20uF and 50uF.
Re buying used cartridges our philosophies are the same. I would not spend that much money on a cartridge. The DL-S1 would be the same price used here, - maybe about £400 and I probably would not even spend that much on a new cartridge let alone a used one. Maybe £300 for a new Denon DL304 would be my absolute limit really. The retipped Troika was the most expensive cartridge I have bought so far, - and that was £330. I did not pay for the retpping myself (which is a good job, - its cost about £300 alone now!), - it had recently been done by Expert stylus then the guy I bought it from unluckily had lost his job so had to sell all his gear. I recouped the cost of buying this cartridge by selling a used original Troika (with the original tip) for £400 and a Linn Karma for £250 (both on Ebay of course!). I had got hold of both of them thrown in with used LP12s.
The paratrace tip on the retipped Troika is the business according to Expert stylus as although it does slightly change the sound of the cartridge (it becomes slightly more analytical than the original Troika) you get more treble extension but crucially as well the cartridge tracks much better with the improved tip and lighter VTFs are possible too. The original stylus is a poor tracker. Expert used an extended contact tip for many years for retipping but switched entirely to the paratrace tip in recent years as it does everything much better. I quite liked the original Troika I had but I thought selling it and keeping the Expert Troika was a much better idea for the longer term.
Yes I noticed the the Technics has a full sound like you describe. And indeed there is no midbass bloat like there is on the pre-cirkus LP12. The problem with the Denon DL304 is it is lacking in the midbass a bit, - so the LP12s mid bass issue actually helps balance things out I think. Similarly the Troika has a prodigious mid bass (in fact the whole bass region is pretty strong) and I think it’s ironically far better suited for the Technics than the LP12.
Wanted to ask did you ever have any experience of the Benz cartridges at all? As I know a place here that can sell them nearly at half the UK retail price.
They can sell an ACE for £300 and a Glider for £400. Again I would rather not spend that much if possible but they are supposed to be very good cartridges. I know Andy has a Benz Ebony but thats well out of my price range at around £2000!
Thanks for the moral support for the repair, - its very tedious, - you need a couple of free days to do and get it over with in my opinion. I am doing it from time to time in the evenings and the first speaker is not finished yet! (have to put the sock back, staple, put tweeter back on!) and its been over a week! When I’ve done this I might have a look at the 2.7s sometime, - its tedious but at least I will be more confident what I’m doing them.
I am in two minds as to whether to laminate over the DAP repair, - I don’t have any miloxane or anything similar. Perhaps I should hold of stapling the sock up for the time being until I decide whether I need it or not. I’ve read that the DAP can hold on its own and you don’t need to laminate but I should research a bit more to make doubly sure.
The newer Rega Apollo with the class A output stage is definitely a better sounding player than the Planet (which was a good player in itself like you say). The Apollo really is the business for a budget player as far as I’ve read, - really considered to be the best thing available up to the price point of the Saturn. Your insights into getting a good transport (a older generation higher spec DVD player) then getting a good DAC and modifying it are very cost effective, as you are right things depreciate so much on the digital market. But I think the Rega Apollo or Saturn are actually great used buys as the values do not seen to depreciate much if at all with these Rega CD player, - Like you say the planet still sells for considerable money (especially in the US) and its well over 10 years old now. So a used Apollo for about £300 might be a good choice for me if I can live without the digital ins. Of course like you say the transport/DAC option would be cheaper but the Apollo is less hassle and I’d be pretty confident of it holding its value. The only reason for going for the 840C would be for the digital ins, - I read on forums here of people going to places where they sell both the Apollo and 840C and after hearing the Apollo the potential buyer asked “can I hear the 840C now?” and the general answer is “don’t bother”! As obviously the Apollo is better sounding!
Thanks for the interesting info on the Japanese Golden era. With so much decent potential used stuff over there I think Yahoo Japan is actually quite a good place to look for used kit, - you can use a service like Kuboten or Japonica market to buy the stuff on your behalf and send onto you. Though there is a fee it is not high. Really top of my list is the Denon AU-S1 transformer as if I could get one for a good price it would be a better buy than a used DL-S1 in the respect its not a perishable item. I can test it against my “head” and sell it on for similar money if its not as good. Will have to think what other kit to look for. Like we both know there are load of decent Japanese DD turntables that are highly over engineered of course. But I’d probably be a bit uncomfortable about a TT travelling that far! And teh Technics decks are very godo and readily availabel outside Japan (well obviously the 1200/1210 MK2 is at least) Do you think that some of those real battlshipe 70/80s japanese turntables - like the the top Luxmans, Denons, Sansuis etc, would offer a big improvement over the Technics decks?
Many thanks for the tip on the cleaning RE swelling with Alcohol. I have just got some microfibre cloths from a local shop. The problem with the Disco antistat solution is they recommended you leave it to air dry. This takes about ten minutes. I guess if the solution contains IPA (which I am sure it does) this is a bit risky as it could be prone to swelling the vinyl. So would a good plan be to wash in the Disco using the stock solution. Wipe off the solution quickly with microfibre and then wash in distilled water afterwards and then microfibre again and then air dry completely? Or is the extra rinsing stage in the water not needed if I am wiping the disco solution off with the microfibre cloths?
Thanks for the info on stylus tip cleaning. If I am going for the good record and distilled water approach how much water should I put on the record for this purpose?
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 15:12:09 09/14/10
(16)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 13, 2010 at 15:57:28
Re Benz cartridges, I heard the Benz Glider (or some other naked Benz), MC (the cheap one) and wood. All in the early 90s. Though they have improved their styli with Geiger cut diamonds (FGS like the Garrott MM) since I last listened to one, which reviewers have found to enhance their detail retrieval and enhance image construction, they are still thought to sound a little woody with what some call bloom and others call bloat. Some think it sounds more natural and tubey, I was impressed in the day with the level of detail and absence of screech from an MC. The cartridges do not sound thin and do not have a rising top end, but the "de-icing" of the classic MC sound is accomplished by letting the wood resonate and induce colorations - not old style LP12 bloat - but the same idea. The cartridges share strongly the family sound and differ in the degree of detail retrieval and soundstage/imaging quality, how well bass extension does and how well the woody color is applied - lumpy in the lower priced ones, smoothly and less noticeably in the higher end ones. Dynamics are good throughout the line and improve slightly as you go along pricing. Reviewers view the new Geiger tipped glider to be an actual high end cartridge. I never got that impression from the earlier incarnation. Salvatore concurs, putting the gliders of the day on par with some Denon 103 variants
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Cartridges.html
BTW he has a dedicated Denon 103 and variants page
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Denon.html
Ortofon Kontrapunkt series carts, the C in particular, seem to get the same or better detail as the Wood (L2? at the time) and not have that rising high end nor the woody warmth. One of my finalists as far as sound is concerned (the B and if I could swing it or get a serious discount then the C). The B is still a budget cartridge, the C is a true high end cartridge.
Re Denon on Technics, there is no point in worry when you already have both table and cartridge - there is only the need to try it out. After all, the 304 is not going to melt down the table or the other way round.
Listen first, and try to ignore your expectations.
You are making me think of dumping my setup for an Apollo and since it has all this error correction and buffering, it may also make for a great CD transport if it puts out a corrected SPDIF signal. I never got to hear one, but if customers who hear the Apollo never go for the 840C, then that is indeed an achievement. Outside of its bass, there is nothing to fault the 840C with as I heard it. Particularly playing high rez as a DAC. I found it remarkable that an op-amp output can sound so good without Michaelson's magic circuit.
Re Miloxane. Put it on. It serves two functions - first is to protect the wires from exposure to moisture - definitely a problem in your neck of the woods. Second, it provides minor damping of high frequencies and helps with the midrange cavity resonance.
There were significantly better tables than the Technics SL series. There were tables made for broadcast - the most successful was the Technics SP10MkII - which needs to be mounted. Prices on those have held up very very well. There is one Denon model that performs very well, it also is a plinth less drive unit that needs to be mounted. Then there are Denon, Pioneer, Yamaha (belt drive 800 and 1000 models), the top Sansui DD, and a top Sony integrated broadcast table, see http://www.thevintageknob.org/sony-PS-X9.html you should give the site a good viewing. Lots of info.
Also look at their coverage of Onkyo Kenwood and Luxman tables.
I think there is a problem in the instruction on your antistatic cleaning fluid. Though swelling is a temporary phenomenon and goes back down with thorough drying, it does make the LP more susceptible to scratching with hard brushes. So leaving the cleaning fluid on top of the LP and letting it air dry sounds wrong to me. The fluid should be mopped up or vacuumed off. Then the residue would be minimal.
The antistatic coating is a bad idea since it deliberately deposits gunk on your LP. You don't want it. If you do have a serious problem with static, just drip distilled water on the LP surface in a swirl from the start to the end and play the record wet. You can use 0.5-1 drop of dish washing detergent per liter (no more than that) of distilled water to enhance wetting (truly clean records do not wet that well and the water does not reach into the gooves). I think the line contact styli can't be used with coating products as these were designed for round tips that should press the material aside, as opposed to microlines that peel the stuff off the groove.
Re crossover values - there is no substantive difference in the mid and treble crossover values. Most commercial caps aren't even spec'd within a 5% tolerance, so magnepan decides its crossovers to work with high and low values departing from the nominal design values.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 07:01:37 09/15/10
(3)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 14, 2010 at 15:12:09
Quick update,
Waiting to hear back from Rega Re the SPDIF and the mains voltage issues.
But I rang Quad servicing, - the UK model 99 preamp definitely is configurable for 110V mains voltage as well as 240V, - you have to open up, move some jumper pins inside the amp and resolder, - I've heard about this before. So I can send you it to try if you like after you've "boned up" on it to see if you think its worth it.
I'll see if I can find the info on exactly what to do under the lid.
Cheers,
Colin
Edits: 09/15/10 09/15/10 09/15/10
- Re: Quad 99 CDP2 - Satie 09:11:22 09/15/10
(2)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 15, 2010 at 07:01:37
I was thinking along the lines of a quad 99 CDP2 you were describing before. I remember reading the review and not being struck with the description of the sound and the comparisons.
http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/106quad/
That is why it peaked my curiosity when you pointed it out as something competing with the Rega players.
- RE: Re: Quad 99 CDP2 - Davy 15:06:14 09/15/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Re: Quad 99 CDP2 posted by Satie on September 15, 2010 at 09:11:22
HI Satie,
Sorry I looked at the Quad 99 CDP2 review more closely. I see what you mean its not a stand out review like all the Rega ones are. It could be that it not that great but what I have read elsewhere would suggest otherwise, - if this is the case perhpas its just a conservative review? Like I say I'v heard the Quad is better sounding in general than the 840C.
Not sure how it compares to the Regas.
A used 99 CDP2 and a used Rega Saturn would be about the same price here (about £600) if you didn't need the digital inputs the Rega Saturn would be the beter sounding bet I am sure. And like I say the Apollo is really worth trying for less money if the inputs are not essential. I think when I have the cash I'll get an Apollo to try.
Did not hear back from Rega about the SPDIF isue and voltage, - will call again tomorrow.
There are plently of used Apollos around here (as I guess people upgrade to the Saturn) and sometimes you do see used Saturns here too, - usually when a user is upgrading to a Rega Isis.
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Re: Quad 99 CDP2 - Davy 09:15:20 09/15/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Re: Quad 99 CDP2 posted by Satie on September 15, 2010 at 09:11:22
Hi Satie,
This is a bit early for you isn't it?! Or perhaps you make it to sleep yet?!Ahh yes the Quad 99 CPD2. That's a bit odd from what about it suggests its very good and has the inputs as well, but perhaps the presentation is different from the Regas. And from what I have read although the 840C sounds good and has the inputs, The Quad is generally regarded as better sounding.
Here is another Apollo review in case you missed it (I edited my big post to put this link in)
http://www.audiotrends.com.au/pdf/Rega/Reviews/Rega_Apollo_CD_player-Stereo_Times.pdfCheers,
Colin
Edits: 09/15/10
- RE: Re: Quad 99 CDP2 - Davy 15:06:14 09/15/10
(0)
- Re: Quad 99 CDP2 - Satie 09:11:22 09/15/10
(2)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 06:48:18 09/15/10
(11)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 14, 2010 at 15:12:09
Hi Satie,
Thanks for all the advice once again. As for the record cleaning I agree with you that leaving the stock Disco Antistat solution to air dry seems a bad idea, - you can even see the residue forming in places on the LP as white patches as the LP dries. So perhaps I should just try to wipe of the solution immediately after cleaning with a microfibre cloth? Do you think that would be a good idea to do alone or should I also do the distilled water rinsing step too?, and if so should I dry with microfibre again or let the LP air dry?From all I’ve read the Rega Apollo is a very good CD player for reasonable money. And I’ve also read that whilst its very good everyone says the Rega Saturn) is amazing, and even well worth the extra money over the Apollo. (The Saturn is the replacement for the Jupiter, - it came out at the same time as the Apollo in 2006.)
I can see the prices of these in the USA are much higher than here. Like I say a used price of the Apollo is about £300 here (or even cheaper if you are lucky, - new price is £475) which I guess is quite a bit cheaper than in the USA. I will see if they are Multi voltage, - if so and you ever want to get one for cheaper then USA used price I’d be happy to look for one for you, - the cheapest/best place would be on UK hifi forum classifieds, posting a wanted ad. I am not sure if it puts out a corrected SPDIF signal, - its has digital out of course. Perhaps I should email or ring Rega and ask, - was do I ask exactly? Just is it send out a corrected SPDIF signal?, - and is there any other way to describe it.?
Here are a few reviews of the Apollo in case you didn’t see already.http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue29/rega_apollo.htm
http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/606rega/
http://www.avreview.co.uk/news/article/mps/uan/678
http://www.audiotrends.com.au/pdf/Rega/Reviews/Rega_Apollo_CD_player-Stereo_Times.pdfand Saturn
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/rega_saturn.htm
Like I say the Saturn is only £898 new here. And I’ve sometimes seen them used for about £550-600.
Here is a comparison of Apollo vs Saturn
http://www.planetofsoundonline.com/articles/apollovssaturn.html
I’ve ordered yet another Technics headshell (this time a new one that was going cheap/spare) as the other one I bought is now taken with a Ortofon MC15 Super II I just bought for cheap. I need the extra headshell to try the 304 on the Technics.
I had a MC15 Super II before for several years - it’s a surprisingly great cheap MC cartridge. Superb tracking ability, - better than both Troika and 304. It only skips up on the “torture test” 18dB 300Hz tone track on the Hi-Fi news test LP. Its sails through the next quietest 16dB test, and of course 14dB and 12dB are perfect too. The Troika can’t even make the 14dB track cleanly!, - buts its weird like I say it does not perform on test records but will track an LP with real music very well.The MC15 super II is a litter similar in tone to the Troika but not quite as refined. Though it’s a reasonably small difference. Its also different in tone to the 304 (but I have yet to properly compare all of these cartridges on the Technics, - the 304 is still on the LP12 right now until I get my third (!) headshell for easy comparisons on the technics). BUT the really strong point about the MC15 (and I remember this from before) is it has great dynamics, - superior in my opinion to both the Troika and 304. It sounds really super on this Technics deck. I had one before on the LP12/Ittok I sold (the LP12 I described as being more dynamic). I am starting to think it was possibly the cartridge I was using at the time that was more dynamic and there is not so much differences in the LP12s I’ve had since!. This cartridge is discontinued sadly but they are often available used. This one has done about 30 hours and only cost me £50. It’s a peach. I’ll send you this too to try out along with the other 2. Will be very interested to hear what you think.
The Troika still sounds great on the Technics, - is still pretty dynamic (not quite a much as the Ortofon like I say) but it has slightly better tone and refinement. However I’d probably be happy to use either the Troika or MC15 II on the Technics permanently. No idea how the 304 will sound on the Technics yet and you are right it’s a bit silly speculating until I find out for sure how it compares to these other two carts on this deck.
So SORRY again for the further delay in sending the stuff, - just want to try out the 304 on the Technics first and compare to these two other carts. I must send you this Ortofon too , - its great in my opinion for such a cheap cartridge. My only complaint is that for some reason, it’s a lot more prone to static than the other two cartridges, - you can hear just before the stylus goes on the LP and just after you lift there is load of static there, - not sure why this is and the other two carts don’t do this. And I seem to remember my old MC15 being the same. Perhaps it’s the body material which attracts static or something?, - this cheaper MC15 is made out of plastic Noryl whereas the other two carts have aluminium bodies. It differs from the 304 and Troika in that is uses 2.2g tracking weight (so quite a bit heavier). It has Ortofon’s standard FL (fine line) stylus, (which though not the highest spec) is a great stylus in my opinion. Internal impedance is 7 ohms. And it has higher output than the other two carts, - its about 0.4mV, - about the same as the OC9. And believe me despite it being cheap it also sounds miles better than the OC9…… as its not clinical, harsh, crude and nasty sounding!!I would love to try the higher end Ortofons like the Kontrpunkts, Rohmann, Cadenza etc. But it’s the price issue of course that we talked about! I’ve heard that the cheap Ortofons are still very good. It’s a shame the MC15II is discontinued, - as far as I can see its replacement, - the Ortofon Salsa, has exactly the same specs, - same body, same stylus, same electrical specs. Maybe its upgraded somehow though I am not sure, but its like 2.5 times the price the MC15 II was!. The Salsa is very well regarded too from what I have read on the internet, (though I can’t find a direct comparison of the two carts), - so its at the very least as good as the MC15II and perhaps slightly better. I might look for a used one to try as well.
One piece of news though, - I put the Audio Innovations T2 on Ebay on the off chance it might sell and it has!, - so pretty happy about that. After using the Head for a bit I would say the Head is more flexible from the loading point of view for the sort of MCs I am using right now and will be in the future. I mean it’s highly unlikely I will even buy a pricey Audionote IO with 0.05mV output which the T2 would really come in handy with.
Back for the Quad 99 preamp, - I think mine might be 240V only anyway, - am going to double check with Quad in case its switcable . Its is 240V only there is no point in me sending you it unless you have a 110-240V mains step up transformer to use with it.. If that’s the case I will look for a 110V compatible P/S for the 640P and defo send you that instead of the Quad to try.
Its MC input on the 640P works great with all these three cartridges. S/N is fine, - just a bit short on the gain front as its only got 55dB gain on the MC input. But I guess you can do your special and crank up the gain at the preamp to fix that issue!Thanks for the info on the Benz cartridges, - not sure about he wood body idea if it induces colouration!. But yeah I’ve heard too that the latest Glider with the boron cantilever and new tip really is to end for pretty cheap. So it is a cart I would perhaps consider if I could get a new one for £400.
Many thanks for the info on the Japanese turntable and the link, - gonna do some serious research and see which are the heavyweights to look out for.
Thanks for the info on the Miloxane too, - it seems very hard to get hold of. Is Magnpean the only place I can get it? I might have missed the shipping deadline (due to the freezing thing). If so I might have to put a request up on the forum to buy some if anyone has any spare! The area I have cleaned with Acetone at both ends is not that big but like you say it makes sense to put the Miloxane on and I need to do it now before stapling the speaker up, - not point in stapling up now then having to get inside to do it later.
All the best,
Colin
Edits: 09/15/10
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 20:39:40 09/15/10
(10)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 15, 2010 at 06:48:18
I had an4 MC20 go through my system a couple of decades ago. It was definitely the right kind of sound and it tracked well. I have an OM40 super MM as backup, Terrific cartridge for the $40 I paid. Got it from a batch of OEM cartridges when they discontinued, It was at least ½ off the normal street price. Dynamics are nearly as good as the Garrott but for the area where you go from loud to very loud, where it does not keep up. It sounds like a somewhat simplified version of the Garrott’s sound. If you didn’t hear more detail out of the better cartridge you would have never guessed that you are missing something. Re MC 15II – the static is caused by the noryl body. Nothing like two plastics to give you that pop.
I have an antistatic trick that sometimes works for me. Take a thin drain wire (30 gauge or smaller) and tape it to the front end of your tonearm and leave about 2” of loose wire to drag behind the cartridge. The other end is connected to your ground at the preamp/step up. Leave sufficient wire to avoid tensioning, and fix the middle of the wire to your table’s body to avoid jerking the arm if you snag the wire in the segment going to the preamp. Hopefully this works for you.
Re cleaning. Try it out. Wipe off the record and let it dry. Then do the next one with a rinse before drying. See if you get more static when you remove the Disco stuff. If not, just do it as a routine. I am very suspicious of these coatings. I doubt they would work well under any circumstances and am more convinced that they are ineffective with microline styli. In general, leave as little as possible of the fluid on the disc – whether a pure water or anything else. Use the microfiber cloth unless it is filthy.
Thanks for collecting the reviews on the Rega CD line. I’ll go over them when I get a chance, then hunt down someone to let me listen to them. I can call them myself for the question. The Dynaco is coming back from repair (blown grid resistor and subsequent tube). If you want to ask them, do ask if the SPDIF output is taken from the error corrected data from the memory buffer or directly from the CD reading.
BTW If I didn’t answer before I have many little transformers to supply DC. If I don’t have exactly the right voltage one, I can build a battery power supply. The 640P is dirt cheap here, $100-125, really a waste to send it over.
You are really very kind to send me this stuff to learn about, please don’t apologise for the delay. Its actually a relief to find out the T2 is gone, off to a new home. I was beginning to worry of being overwhelmed by the number of combinations of step ups carts and phono stages, I was going to put together a combinatorial calc spreadsheet for the number of combinations.
Re Benzes, I don’t know that the woody color comes from the wood, because the lower end glider and MC had no wood components and still had the same tone. In any case, I stopped looking at Benzes a long time ago, so I am not current in my personal listening to these carts. The reviews are uniformly strong, so it may not be as distinct a coloration as it used to be. And, for what its worth, it is not a bad coloration to have, as it does fill out some of what the recording production chain takes out of the music starting at the microphones on to the mic preamps, mixing console and effects, A/D and digital processing with too few bits or multiple copies from one analog tape to another. Finally the mishaps of production.
I spent whole weeks at the Vintage Knob, it was very interesting and opened my eyes. These classics are now so expensive as to make the megalithically priced modern tables seem like values on the used market.
I don’t know where else you can get miloxane, but I can suggest the chemical lab supply companies. I don’t know the British ones, but here we have Sigma/Aldrich and Baxter, among others, and Granger.
BTW some of my posts are done at one time and posted later on when time allows me to get a glimpse of what I wrote and finish it. Part of it is that I use 3 different computers through the day- though there is no more than 30 feet between them, they are dedicated to different functions and are in different rooms that are used in different times of the day. Often I start writing in the post window of one and move on to work on another, and don't have the text there to continue writing, so I only get back to it some hours later.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 09:28:13 09/16/10
(9)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 15, 2010 at 20:39:40
Hi Satie,
So you had an Ortofon MC20, - I guess that was on a very different deck, - was going to ask you how it stakes up against the OM40 but I guess it would be very hard to say if it was a long time ago. Sounds like you got the OM40 for a nice deal, - it has a very good stylus I gather, so makes a good backup cartride for you.
Thanks for the tip Re the static with the MC15. I will try you suggestion if I can find some suitable wire. So do you mean you drag the wire on the record behind the cartridge (coming from the heashell) or have I misunderstood (as usual)
Will try it but I guess this static problem is the downfall of cheap Ortofon MCs. The Performance of the MC15 is very good though, - the tip is very good and the generator decent, so it seems they have just cut costs on the body. The MC10, Samba and Salsa use the same Noryl body, so I guess i will avoid them too in the future as in hindsight its it would preferable not to have to try to get rid of this static.
It might be a good idea for me to look for a MC25FL, MC20 or MC30 Supreme. There is a shop in Australia called “Speakerbits” who have an Ebay shop. They have recently been selling some older Ortofon MC like this that have been actually recently made by Ortofon to finish off using old parts they still have. I might try to get a MC25FL or a supreme, - they told me some more are coming up for auction the week after next. Then even had some MC2000IIs.
Back to the MC15, I guess it might even be possible to rebody it or nude it, - I might well have my old broken one someone, -if so I will have a closer look at it to see if its possible.
But yeah I would say the same for me as well, - The Ortofons do have the right sort of sound for me, - far nicer than the crude OC9 but a little more dynamic than the Denon DL304. The DL304 has a bit more transparency, transient response and delicacy but I think the dynamics are not quite as good. But when I get this new headshell I will be able to say for certain as bear in mind I have not heard the Dl304 on the more dynamic sounding Technics deck yet.
The MC15 though is certainly making me think about getting a pricier Ortofon. Not the current range as they are too expensive, - will have a look around. Might buy one from Speakerbits if I can and also I’ve seen used Jubilees and Rohmanns come up here for quite cheap from time to time, which are both good cartridges. Will keep an eye out. Used Kontrapunkts turn up here too.
Not tried a Benz but I might do in the future. I guess it possible the naked Gilder does not have so much of this coloration as its not got a wood body. It does seem a good buy to try sometime.
Wanted to ask, - did you ever try/hear a Koetsu? Do the wood bodies they use on those have the same intention of adding this same type of coloration as the Benz or are the Koestus different?
Will try out the cleaning and this time wipe both the fluid and water off, - I guess I better at least rinse the records I’ve already done in distilled water again and wipe off as well.
Like I say I might well buy an used Apollo quite soon anyway to test out, - If I do get one I will find out if its 110V compatible/switchable, - if so I’d be happy to send it to you for a listen if you can;t find one to try there. BTW I know the 840C is multi voltage, but the 740C is not for example. I will ask about the SPDIF directly off the disc or from the buffer. When you say “corrected” is preferable, - which of those two scenarios is that?!
I have ordered some 30NF adhesive from Magnepan, - they told me they do not use Miloxane anymore. I gather 30NF is very similar. So I will use it just on the ends where I’ve removed the original miloxane and 3m. I guess it would actually be better to rebuild the whole of the bass panel,- removing everything with acetone and using DAP and 30NF to redo it. But that would be so time consuming. I am hoping my repair at the ends will hold up!
T2 has been sent off, - The head is much suited better for the MCs I have anyway. I emailed sent an email to EAR to ask TDP what the exact step up ratios for the inputs on the Head transformer are, but I had no reply yet. I am sure two of them are 1:10 and 1:20. the other must be between 1:13 and 1:15. When I have time I’ll calculate the loading values for you before you receive the carts! Its works out to be a lot of different possible values if you factor in the various loading options on the Melos too! But I guess the best thing to do anyway is just try the options and write down which combos work well. I guess the MC15 would work fine straight into the Melos if the output level is similar to the OC9.
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 13:15:43 09/16/10
(8)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 16, 2010 at 09:28:13
On a Rega3- MC20 was spectacular, but I "upgraded" from OC7 to OC9 MC20 went back to its owner. What the OC9 did is put dynamic snap into the Rega and extend it to the extreme FR more pronounced way. Resolution of the speakers did not allow the crude nature of its sound to come through.
Re drain wire idea has to have some experimentation as to where to position it for best effect. you can try a tiny tab of adhesive tape on the side of the cart, the headshell, or end of the tonearm. Yes, the wire should be dragging behind the cart.
BTW always wipe the record on the platter with a carbon fiber brush before playing while grounding yourself or the brush.
Finally, if all fails, use distilled or RO water on the record while playing. It kills the static. When I was doing that, the PITA was getting the played record to dry without collecting dust. so I took two 12" squares of cardboard and stapled microfiber towels to each, and placed the played record between them (horizontally) to dry. When flipping sides I had not had a problem on the plastic mats. Even the sticky Oracle mat didn't mind the water.
Ok What is a cheap Rohman or Jubilee? $1000? $500? Wasn't the 2000 II predecessor to the Jubilee? I'll check out the old Speakerbits auction. I found some of its pages quoted on other sites. But quite frankly, though I am not at all current on MC carts, I like my Garrott too much to seriously consider anything else, here is one review - the version I have:
http://www.stereotimes.com/cart081402.shtml
http://www.decibelhifi.com.au/prod135.htm
The new version:
http://www.decibelhifi.com.au/prod474.htm
Quite frankly, the combination of dynamics and detail are just out of this world considering what they cost, when you take out the need for a stepup the effective cost of using them is tremendously low compared to low output MCs. The Garrott with the high output and particular immunity to surface noise and artifacts and spectacular tracking makes me doubt I would ever move away to an MC. My very limited recent comparisons show up Ortofon and Lyra cartridges costing more than double. I am blanking out on the Ortofon, but it looks like the Kontrapunkt series without being one. Noise was the first most obvious advantage to the Garrott, dynamics were better, and only the highest frequencies were on par or had a slight edge to the MCs. Since I would categorically reject anything over $1000 used/demo and only go beyond $500 for something special - like a newer version of the FGS.
From
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/ms/ms2_2.html (Merrill Scillia TT)
" As mentioned earlier, I had on hand the same Hadcock 228 Export arm outfitted with both a Garrott Bros. Optim FGS Cartridge and the Ortofon Kontrapunkt H. As I swapped arm tubes in favor of the much less expensive Garrott Brothers Optim FGS cartridge, it was easy to separate the contributions of the thrice-the-price Ortofon and MS2. The Ortofon is certainly the better cartridge. It excels at smoothness and musicality, making the Garrott Brothers sound rougher, grainier and less fluid. Still and for its asking price, the MS2 elevated the inexpensive Garrott Bros. cartridge to unanticipated heights. The combination had the same gravitas as the Ortofon and while it was grainier and a little rougher than before, it still sounded awfully good, exhibiting the same list of strengths, albeit to a slightly lesser degree. Only after a direct comparison was I made to (almost) feel as though I was suddenly slumming it with the cheaper Garrott. And when I dragged into the room my highly modified AR and installed the same Hadcock and Garrott Bros. cartridge to remove the MS2 from the equation... well, suddenly I wasn't feeling so good about the AR. Even with the Ortofon installed, the AR's bass suddenly sounded thicker, slightly congealed and opaque. The soundstage shrunk dramatically and everything on that stage became less illuminated as musical presence was greatly diminished."
I think a little arm damping goes a long way to tame the roughness of the
minimally damped Garrott, because there was not that sort of roughness on my setup compared to the other carts. It is an order of magnitude smoother than the OC9 (which is a very low standard) besides, I would not give up the quiet, dynamics, or detail for smoothness.
Re MC15 I would definitely not look to alter the MC15 because of the static problem. It is way too nice a cartridge to risk ruining. Even the extreme solution of using water takes just a minute - and it is after the play.
Re Rega CDs, the preference is to have the memory buffer feeding the SPDIF to get the best data, as corrected by the Apollo. Though it seems the output stage is rather good so a DAC might not be uch of a benefit. But the best playback I know of is from CDs ripped to computer with perfect copy software (exactcopy?) and copied onto USB memory sticks plugged into a dac or a DVD player feeding a dac.
I do not know anything about the 30NF adhesive, I can look it up, but considering it is now Magnepan's choice compound, I would simply use that regardless of what else I might learn about it.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 16:39:13 09/16/10
(7)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 16, 2010 at 13:15:43
Ortofon?, Now you asked for it!, - this is going to be long!
There are a LOT of different models!, - so I am not surprised you are confused!.
They line up was reasonably stable from about 1995 to 2005.
It consisted,
Noryl bodied: -
MC10 super II, MC15 Super II,
Al bodied: -
MC10 Supreme, MC20 Supreme MC30 Supreme (same heavy aluminium body, same generators, just different styluses),
Rohmann (introduced around 1996).
Jubilee (Introduced in 1999).
This was for the UK, - in the USA and elsewhere the MC10, MC20, and MC30 Supreme models were not available and instead the, MC20 and MC30 Super II models were available.
Differences between MC20/30 supremes and supers were that the Supremes had heavier Al bodies (11.7g) and higher output (0.5mV), whereas the super IIs had lower output (0.2mV) and a lighter 9g Al body. Also the MC20 and MC30 Super IIs seem to have higher spec styluses than the MC20 and MC30 Supreme. WHY on earth some were available in certain countries and some elsewhere I am not sure.
Its confusing too as the budget MC10 super II and pricier MC10 Supreme are two different cartridges that share the same elliptical stylus, but one has a plastic body and the other a heavy. aluminium body.
As for stylus types: -
Plastic bodies carts: -
MC10 Super II had elliptical stylus
MC15 Super II had the basic Fine line stylus
Al bodies carts
MC25E had an elliptical stylus
MC25FL had the basic fine line stylus
MC10 Supreme had an elliptical stylus
MC20 Supreme had the basic fine line stylus
MC30 Supreme had a super fine line stylus
MC20 Super II had a FRG80 stylus
MC30 Super II had a Nude Replicant stylus
Kontrpunkts had super fine line (A), FRG80 (B and C).
Rohmann had an Ortho line sylus
Jubilee had a Shibata Stylus
The Kontrpunkts were introduced in around 2001, - then discontinued quite recently. The Supremes ran alongside the Punkts for quite a while, but the Kontrpunkts were slightly higher spec than the Supremes.
It seems the MC2000, MC3000, MC500 MC7500 were pre 1995 or so they are older, - they were the top models. The Rohmann effectively replaced them as the main top model. Looking a the output level of the MC2000II its not a viable option, - its like a Audionote IO, - 0.05mV output!. The MC3000 is 0.1mV output so pretty low too. MC 7500 is better at 0.2mV.
The Rohmann was introduced in 1996 and was named after Ortofon's former MD who past away around that time. It was based around the top previous MC7500 model,, but it was priced cheaper. Output was a reasonable sensible 0.25mV so more practical than the previous top models. Then in 1999 the Jubilee was introduced and was run alongside the Rohmann for many years. The Jubilee was the higher spec model though, better stylus/tracking and higher output at 0.35mV. It cost $1850, £1200 in the UK. It was also the blueprint for the Kontrpunkt models, - indeed the body looks the same as the Kontropuntks. Rohmann was about £1000 new in the UK, - I guess about $1400-1500 in the US.
Anyway the top Rohmann and Jubilee were available right up to about 2008 so they ran for many many years. The Windfeld replaced them as the top model. Now there is also a new top “A90” model as well.
In around 2005 the MC10, 20, 30 Supreme series was discontinued and the Rondos (Red. Blue, Bronze) were introduced, - effectively replacing them. Similar specs. The Kontrapunkts continued to run at the same time as the Rondos. The Rondos are still current.
At the lower MC end the Noryl bodied MC10 and MC15 super IIs were replaced by the Samba and Salsa in 2005 but these were double the price! Like I say I couldn’t see any spec differences! The Samba and Salsa have recently been discontinued and replaced with the Vivo red and blue models!
Recently the Cadenzas have replaced the Kontrapuntks!
So as you can see its very complicated, - they don’t seem to phase out all products and replace them at the same time, - some are kept and other ranges replaced! Very confusing indeed.
I have often seen the Rohmann and Jubilee for sale used here, - for around £300-400 quite oftehn which is a good deal. I will keep an eye out for one. Either would be a good model to try as they were the top spec ones. I suppose it could always be retipped by Expert stylus in the future.
I think a MC20 or MC30 supreme would be a good cartridge to try too, - sometimes they go very cheap. And the Chepaer MC25FL would be a good model to try too, - ran for many years and a lot were sold. All of these three and others have recently been available brand new at Speakerbits on Ebay for very good prices.
MC 25 FL
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220649416825
MC30 Supreme
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220644603943
MC20 Supreme
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220649008586
Kontrapunkt C
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250689258620
Rohmann
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220640297754
MC15 Super II
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220661500445
I think these are very good deals as like I say they are new, recently manufactured by Ortofon from spare parts they had..
Here is where I found it out, - when I was looking up on google about the MC15 Super II I recently bought. The OP in this thread rang up Ortofon and they confirmed they have been re manufacturing these older MCs from unused spare parts.
http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=228706
These newly manufactured “old” MC carts are much cheaper than the current range, - I mean the MC30 Supreme is selling at speakerbits for £250 or so but a new Rondo Bronze is £650. And I THINK its virtually the same cartridge. If I was to get one my eye would be on a MC25FL, either MC20 or MC30 Supreme, and the Rohmann. Any of them are a great deal. The cheaper MC15 super II is excellent sounding too like I say (and has the same stylus as the MC25FL and MC20 Supreme) but the plastic body/static issue would prefer me buying one of the higher spec aluminium body models in the future, - starting with the MC25FL as being the cheapest one. The MC25FL and MC20/30 Supreme have higher output too at 0.5mV.
I would avoid the ones with Elliptcal syluses personally, - the MC10 Super II and MC25E. Only going for fine line or better.
If you look at speakerbits feedback you can see how many they’ve sold recently
http://feedback.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback2&userid=speakerbits&&iid=220649008586&ftab=FeedbackAsSeller
I asked them for a heads up on when the next ones will be up for auction and they said not this Monday but the Monday after.
So yeah loads of Ortofon models, - same goes for the Ortofon SPU models, - the old and the current ones. I have no idea about them but they are supposed to be very good as well.
Which MC20 did you have as there are at LEAST 4 different versions?! Was it an aluminium body type like either of these three
MC20 Super II http://drspark.dreamwiz.com/c_spark/d11/ortofon-mc20-super2.jpg
MC20 Super II black model http://i7.ebayimg.com/05/i/001/30/a0/ef9b_35.JPG
MC20 Supreme http://www.asm-audio.de/WebRoot/Store3/Shops/61684291/4BF3/651E/35DF/4AC9/A5F9/C0A8/29BB/78A9/Ort_MC_MC20_supreme_89mm_300_m.jpg
Or a plastic blue body type MC20 like this?
http://www.vinylengine.com/images/cartridgedb/ortofon_mc20.jpg
This one is very old now! Must be pre 1990.
So anyway I do not know about all the models myself no doubt but I have a reasonbly good idea having kept a reasonable interested in Ortofon carts over the years, so I hope this gives you a reasonable outline. Let me know if you need any more info. . Looking at your situation I think a newly manufactured model like the MC25FL or MC20/30 Supreme from Speakerbits would be a great choice as a very good MC to have for cheap. Decent output 0.5mV (so you could run into the Melos straight) and very cheap price for the quality you are getting. I wonder if these carts are selling elsewhere at all or only at Speakerbits?
In the meantime, - if you can put up with the static issue, I’ll send you the MC15 Super II to try with the other carts. For the money it’s a real peach. Slightly different from the ones I just mentioned above as it much have a different generator as the output is slightly lower, and noryl body of course. Though like I say the Fine line stylus is the same as the one on the MC25FL and MC20 Supreme. The MC30 Supreme has a slightly finer fine line stylus and a slightly more extended top end (though we are talking from extension from 30Khz to 40Khz here)!. The Jubilee extends to 60Khz with that Shibata stylus has a very good tracking figure. Kontrpunkts and others with the Fritz gyper styluses are somewhere in between these figures.
Anyway the Garrot does look very nice from the links you sent me, - thanks for that. So did you buy this FGS version new?! (quite pricey) or was it lightly used?
I can see how a top spec MM would have several advantages over MC, - better tracking, very low surface noise etc and better dynamics too. The crunch would be the top end I guess, - the MCs most probably having an advantage in linearity and extension up there. So there is a balance of extension, dynamics, traking, surface noise and other factors going on here.
See how you get on with three MCs which are significantly cheaper than the Garrot. I will be very interested to hear which of these 3 MC you prefer and if still prefer the Garrot over them. I guess the Garrot will be more dynamic, have better tracking etc so it will be interesting to see if the different strengths of the MCs appeal to you or not. I would say for sure these MCs do sound more dynamic on the Technics DD turntable than on the belt drive LP12 (and I guess the belt drives you’ve had too I guess). So the Technics will help the MCs on the dynamics front I am sure. I know the Garrot is very detailed but I am sure you will find the Denon DL304 (in particular) highly detailed too and possibly more so, - and likely more extended and transparent but not as dynamic and a bit more prone to surface noise. So I’ll be interested see how you get on.
Thanks a lot for the wet record tip, - sounds good!, will try it - and thanks for the info on the drain. So when you say try adhesive tape, - do you mean with the drain wire or is this something separate?!!
I have yet to try the damping foil!, - will do at the weekend, - so how many foil layers do you use? One, or more? And what sort of tape do you use to hold it on? I have not got the silver cables yet, - will install them later when they arrive.
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 20:40:03 09/16/10
(6)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 16, 2010 at 16:39:13
I got the garrott at 50% off or better as a Demo from either the Needle Doctor or another online retailer - maybe Audio Advisor. I got the full warranty and the associate said they didn't get to play it much because nobody knew about it.
I had (long term loan) the original MC20 Super and it was tried on the Rega which I had in ca 1989-90.
The one I heard recently I don't remember its name but it looked like a Kontrapunkt series, but I know it wasn't a Kontrapunkt. The owner kept referring to it as "the Ortofon" or "the Ortofon MC". It was metalic and did not have "Kontrapunkt" printed on its broadside. The table was not in good lighting and I could not even tell if it was a gold tone or a silver tone to the metal and the Ortofon name was on a color I could not distinguish. It was on a VPI Scout. It was a low output cartridge.
Re drain wire, I was referring to attachment with a small bit of adhesive tape - with a dog ear to cover the adhesive on one corner so it can be more easily removed.
Thanks for the Ortofon Roundup. My mind is stuck in the early 90s and the mid 2000s as far as cartridges go, since those were the times I was in the market for something serious and new.
I heard a Koetsu Black on a VPI Aries but it was hooked up to a hodge podge of equipment in the used room at the dealer's so though it had a musical and communicative gestalt, it was not terribly good at anything so far as what that system could portray. So members of my jury are not prepared to go for a vote.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 06:37:44 09/18/10
(4)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 16, 2010 at 20:40:03
Hi Satie,
I’ve got the new Technics headshell, - will try with the Denon 304 and compare to the other carts on the Technics on Sunday for sure. Really look forward to it and I will try the damping on the arm too, - how many sheets of Al foil should I use?
Will then pack the stuff up and ship to you sometime next week.
The other news was a found a very generous guy on this forum (John Plummer) who has some 3.3Rs and was not using the passive external crossover as he got a Marchard and went active with them. He was willing to sell the crossover boxes to me for very cheap which is great, - they are already on their way to me. So they will be good for comparisons and setting up my active setup and for convenient, eay single amp use. He only charged me $90 for them inclusive with shipping!, - much better than the $450 it would have cost me from Magnepan! I don’t think you could even build them with similar quality parts (even though I know they are cheap parts) for $90 and those inductors are unusual values anyway, - it would have been very hard to get accurate values for them.
I am so glad you steered me towards proper record cleaning and away from using the Clearaudio elixir stylus cleaner, - that stuff is sin, - I had given up using my Turntable as it was so annoying, - having to use that solution on the stylus every five minutes!. The high frequencies went after 5 minutes if you didn’t re use it, and using the stiff brush on its own after 5 min did not make any difference – you had to use more solution to get the high frequencies back.
Your method of cleaning and using water for a dirty stylus with brush are far better, - so much longer lasting! I can now enjoy records again! I had been using the Elixir for about 2 years +! I can now start buying records again!
Any ideas about which Ortofon you heard recently?
I contacted a guy who had the MC15 II and upgraded to the MC25FL, - he said both are very good but the MC25FL is definitely a bit better and well worth the extra, - so that’s the one I will try to go for if I can get one from Speakerbits if the Ebay price is OK. Would dearly love to get a Supreme instead but will probably not have enough cash at the time! The MC25FL should be nearly half the price of a Supreme and a real bargain.
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 07:35:58 09/19/10
(3)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 18, 2010 at 06:37:44
Re damping with wire in shielded tape.
1. one layer of foil is used on top of the double sided tape. The cld effect (damping) comes from having 4 - 6 layers (depending on whether you seal with a non-conductive top layer).
2. the tape is white - not transparent, the transparent double sided tape should not be used since it has no backing material and is composed entirely of acrylic adhesive.
3. The tape is integrated with the wires!! and the adhesive does not work as well a second time, so wait for your wires to come in, and then prepare the integrated wire/damping tape.
4. there is no need to spiral wind the tape around the arm, it was overkill and looks a mess. Just measure the arm and score the tape to allow application along the line of the tonearm.
I am sorry you got into a product that didn't complement your usage habits, good riddance to that. I hope the simple method I gave you provides you with sufficiently good results and you get to keep your high frequency content.
Congrats on the acquisition of the external Crossover. Very nice of him to give it to you.
I was going over pics from the Ortofon site and the super/supreme pics you showed me on the other computer so will delay a reply to a time I am using that one. But so far I have not seen anything that is exactly right. It occurred to me that they may have sold OEM Monster sigma cartridges without the markings on a model switchover. If they did that then it would have come out like a kontrapunkt without any color or marking.
I will look at those carts on the UK ebay - which I assume they will use again. BTW, I do purchase stuff from LPgear great online store.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 11:46:40 09/19/10
(2)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 19, 2010 at 07:35:58
Hi Satie,
I'll let you know when the Speakerbits Ortofons are back on Ebay, - they will probably be visible on Ebay USA as well.
Thanks for the info on the arm damping/rewire, but I appear to be a bit lost again. When you say
"1. one layer of foil is used on top of the double sided tape. The cld effect (damping) comes from having 4 - 6 layers (depending on whether you seal with a non-conductive top layer).
2. the tape is white - not transparent, the transparent double sided tape should not be used since it has no backing material and is composed entirely of acrylic adhesive."
So do you mean first put some white double sided tape on the arm? and then put one layer of foil on top. But if thats so I am lost when you say the bit about 4-6 layers? How do you put the tape on, - in long strips down the arm tube or wrap around it circularly?!
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 01:22:09 09/20/10
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 19, 2010 at 11:46:40
Not that easy
First cut a sheet of Al foil 2" longer than your intended cable length, stretch it out on a flat surface, vertical or horizontal. If you want an extra drain wire, measure out a length about 3" longer than the aluminum foil, and tape one end to the surface on which the Al foil is affixed about 1" above the end of the foil, and run the drain wire to the end of the aluminum foil and tape it in place with a small tab of tape.
Then unspool the necessary length of double sided tape leaving the waxy paper on.
Align the tape with the stretched Al foil 1" from the top of the foil - rouhgly 2/3 of the tape on one side of the drain wire and 1/3 on the other, and and glue them together, smooth the tape out.
Prepare two twisted pairs of fine insulated wire 30 gauge or smaller to use as the tonearm wire. Solder or crimp on the cartridge tags at one end. You will need 30% more wire than the required final length of the finished cable. Make 6-8 twists per inch
Peel the waxy paper off the double sided tape. Do not discard it yet.
Stretch one twisted pair over the tape holding one end 1-2" beyond the top edge of the tape, and align the twisted pair about 1/8" from the tape's edge. The cartridge tags should clear the edge of the tape by 1.5-2". Glue them together and go on to the next twisted pair, which will be affixed 1/4" further into the tape. These are placed on the Plside of the tape opposite the drain wire.
Place the waxy paper back on the sticky side of the tape to cover the wires too. With an Al foil cutting knife or sharp scissors carefully cut the excess Al foil from the sides of the tape. This is easier if the tape is still mounted and with angled scissors.
Unmount the tape assembly.
On the tonearm - Measure the distance from the base of the cartridge pins to the bend of the arm closest to the cartridge, and the distance to the second bend.
On the cable - Measure the distance from the ends of the cartridge clips to the measure of the bend, add 1/2" and cut into the tape up to the drain wire. measure up to the second bend and make a similar cut. These are preliminary and may need to be adjusted when the tape is glued onto the tonearm.
On the end of the cable intended to attach to the RCA plugs:
Rearrange the twisted pairs to run 1/4" from the edge of the tape from either side for the last 6-8 inches of the tape. Cut in the middle along the tape to 6 inches into it to split it into two twisted pairs mounted onto the two strip of tape.. Take hold of the drain wire and pull it out of the tape so that its last length of 8+ inches is free of it. Fold the separated tape halves over their respective twisted pairs.
At this point, attach the RCA plugs to the ends of the wires in the twisted pairs. You will need to arrange some strain relief at the RCA entry.
Adjusting the tape and gluing it onto the tonearm.
At the cartridge end
The excess aluminum foil and the drain wire should be trimmed and folded back onto the wire side of the tape. The cartridge lead portion should reach to the end of the heasdshell collar and the aluminum foil should allow a non sticky strip at the end of the tape to allow turning the collar and moving it a little backwards.
Now we start gluing from the first segment -between the headshell collar and the first bend, peel back the wax paper to the first cut and position the tape roughly symmetrically, and glue the cable down. Smooth the tape out and test the fit of the next segment between the two cuts - adjust the cuts and the position of the wires . Peel back the wax paper and glue the segment onto the arm between the two bends.
Test the fit of the tape to the small tonearm segment from the bend to the bearings. Make a cut up to the drain wire at a location equivalent to 1/2" in front of the bearing. Peel the tape to the cut and glue the tape onto the tonearm wand and bearing housing stub.
Lay out the cable so that it can be folded conveniently. Remove a 2-3 inch segment at a time from the tonearm onwards, align the edges and fold the tape so the glue sides attach sealing the wires inside. Continue to the split of the RCA jacks and their leads.
At this point the cable is complete and we attach it to the turntable body.
Arrange a segment of the cable into an upside U shape from the bearings to the a spot on the back of the turntable body about 3-4 inches down from the tonearm. It should be just tall enough that the lid does not squash it significantly. The cable should have the minimal twist possible. Using a strong adhesive tape fix the cable to the back side of the turntable at the chosen spot.
Select a spot on the cable about 1" up from the tonearm and make a small cut at the spine of the cable. Manipulate the wires inside the tape close together and cut some more of the tape to increase the cut's length. If necessary, make a loop of sewing thread and tie it in the cut to keep the wires more tightly together.
Now turn the antiskate to 0, put on a record, raise the arm cue and let the arm down onto the record (power should be off) and watch for the arm to fall down without any sideways movement. If there is movement towards the center, deepen the cut slightly and tighten the wires together a bit more. Make sure that the aluminum backing remains continuous.
Now attach the RCA plugs put on a record, set up the tonearm in the holder and turn on the turntable. Play the record and note how the arm is moving, whether you are getting skating or back skipping. If you do, then the notch in the cable is probably still too stiff and you may want to tighten the wires together a bit more, and increase the extent of the cut. .
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 07:25:47 09/20/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 20, 2010 at 01:22:09
Thanks a lot Satie,
Wow thats a long guide. Gonna have to study this hard before my arm cable comes.
Started on my second 3.3R delam repair and am half way through.
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 07:25:47 09/20/10
(0)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 01:22:09 09/20/10
(1)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 11:46:40 09/19/10
(2)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 07:35:58 09/19/10
(3)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 21:07:46 09/16/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 16, 2010 at 20:40:03
Hi Satie,
Just a quickie,
Hoep the ortofon roundup helped you out/gave you some ideas of the range over the past 15 years.
Maybe the cart you heard was a Cadenza?, - the recent sucessors to the Kontrapunkts, - did it look like any of these?
http://www.ortofon.com/products/cartridges/moving-coil/cadenza
The only other two Ortofons that have the Kontrapunkt type body are the Jubilee
http://www.ortofon.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=100
and the more recent top of the range Windfeld.
http://www.ortofon.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&Itemid=101
Did the Ortofon you heard recently sound nice?
Like I say for bang for the buck a MC25FL or MC20/30 Supreme from Speakerbits can't be beat I reckon, - I for one will be keeping an eye out when the next lot are listed week after next./
Thanks for the drain wire/tape info, - Doh!
Wanted to just PM you about something too, - hope that's OK.
Those online USA cartridge retailer can be very cheap, - I got the OC9 very cheap, - for like £150 or something, - from LPgear I think it was.
Cheers,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 06:37:44 09/18/10
(4)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 20:40:03 09/16/10
(6)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 16:39:13 09/16/10
(7)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 13:15:43 09/16/10
(8)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 09:28:13 09/16/10
(9)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 20:39:40 09/15/10
(10)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 07:01:37 09/15/10
(3)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 15:12:09 09/14/10
(16)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 15:57:28 09/13/10
(17)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 13:54:49 09/13/10
(18)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 04:43:47 09/13/10
(19)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 16:18:10 09/12/10
(20)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 07:46:32 09/11/10
(21)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 04:10:39 09/11/10
(22)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 04:02:48 09/10/10
(23)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 03:14:34 09/10/10
(24)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 20:50:35 09/09/10
(0)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 11:16:11 09/09/10
(27)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 04:23:36 09/09/10
(28)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 23:01:23 09/08/10
(29)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 05:04:26 09/08/10
(30)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 01:31:01 09/08/10
(31)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 21:13:02 09/07/10
(32)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 20:24:33 09/07/10
(33)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 14:37:48 09/07/10
(34)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 12:26:32 09/07/10
(35)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 10:21:17 09/07/10
(36)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 09:25:53 09/07/10
(37)
- Aah, Msieur Satie ... - andyr 04:21:15 09/07/10
(4)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 07, 2010 at 03:57:00
You listen to vinyl? With an LP12? :-))
Now you said: " the fuller (to the point of bloating) sound of the LP12 ".
Sorry, my LP12 with Graham 2.2 arm and Benx LP cartidge is nowhere near "bloated". But it does not have the stock subchassis. I installed a Cetech about 6 years ago (with a CF-composite armboard that I had made up) and I assure you, there is no "bloat"!! :-)) And I have had quite a few people who have come round to listen (basically because a) they have never heard Maggies or b) they have never heard an LP12) and have had comments like " That's one of the best vinyl systems I have ever heard ".
And BTW, my cartridge is a LOMC - the 0.28mV Benz Ebony LP (the first LP). Which I am currently using at 47K loading. I also have a Grado Platimum Reference MM but that is my #2 cartridge.
Please tell me more about cermet vs. PEC carbon pots. Are these PCB pots? Or chassis-mount pots? Why I ask is that I have used Bourne, multi-turn PCB pots for the output buffers in my active XOs and if I can find better PCB pots for the ribbon output then I will use them! :-))
Regards,
Andy
- RE: Aah, Msieur Satie ... - Davy 06:09:52 09/07/10
(2)
- In Reply to: RE: Aah, Msieur Satie ... posted by andyr on September 07, 2010 at 04:21:15
Hi Andy,
No it me that’s the LP12 junkie (well maybe “was”, - will see). Satie uses a Technics 1600MK2 DD deck. I’ve just bought one too (based on his recommendation) and very good it is for the money too. I intend to mod it (mainly the arm). I’m strating to believe a deck like the Technics is a better starting point for an a more netural and more dynamic source than the LP12, - then you can add some euphonic processing later in the chain if needed to with a tube buffer on your pre amps tape loop (Saties idea, - not tried it yet though)I can’t say for the Cetech as I’ve not heard it, but all the stock Linn upgrades I tried, - Ekos arm, Lingo power supply, and Cirkus subchassis) changed the sound of the 80s Valhalla Pre Cirkus LP12/Ittok I had for sure, - the upgrades gave more detail, tighter bass, and more neutral sound, but all of them caused the musicality to decrease over the original pre-cirkus/Ittok deck I had and the sound lost its charm. So after a lot of buying and selling of upgrades, and a few different LP12s as well (4 of them passed through my hands in the past 3 years) I’ve ended up back with a pre-cirkus/Ittok 1987 deck with Hercules PSU.
I did have a Naim Aro unipivot for one time and that was very good, - but IMO it strictly only works well on a pre-cirkus LP12 as its sounds too thin and clinical/cold on a cirkus deck (I tried that, - I had two LP12s at the time, - one cirkus, one pre cirkus). The Aro/pre cirkus LP12 combo sounded very good, - it makes the pre cirkus LP12 more neutral sounding (it balances out well the bloated tendencies of the pre-cirkus LP12 as the Aro has a lightish sound) but crucially none of the musicality is lost, unlike the Linn upgrades. So yeah the Aro was on of the best upgrades I tried. I am guessing its possible your Graham unipivot (very nice tonearm indeed) might have similar characteristics beaing from the same type of arm family.
HOWEVER I found the Aro a bit limiting as it can only really be used with Linn or Dynavector cartridges (or the Denon 103) due to the fixed overhang/alignment of the headshell (just fixed holes!, - no slots). And compared to a pivoted arm it did lack a touch of extension at both ends and had some dynamic losses too, which bothered me a bit in the long term. But it had a great midrange and was a real music maker. I used mine with my retipped Troika and also a Linn Karma, - good match in both cases (it was designed for use with them), but in the end I resold it as my favourite cartridge, - the Denon DL304, despite being a good technical match does not sound good with the Aro, - the combo is too thin sounding as both components are on the thin side. The 304 sounds a lot better on the fatter sounding Ittok IMO despite it not being as good technical match.Benz Ebony LP?, - that’s a very serious cartridge. Much more expensive than anything I’ve tried! So yeah Satie these MCs I’m sending you to try are not bad but there are not in the same class as Andy’s MC!
I heard some conflicting stuff on the Cetech so I decided to give it a miss in the end. And I hate changing subchassis on the LP12 as I am terrible at resetting up the suspension. My current deck’s suspension bounces nice so I’ll leave it be. There was a time about a year ago I thought about buying either the Cetech or the Sole subchassis. I had leaned towards the Sole as you can use it with either a pre-cirkus or Cirkus bearing (Cetech is bearing specific), so the Sole is more flexible in that regard, but I decided to leave them in the end. Mainly because the Aro sounded very nice on the pre-cirkus LP12 I had I felt the subchassis upgrade was not needed (but I might have been wrong!). I do kind of regret selling the Aro as it was one of the best pieces of kit I had and worked well with the Linn cartridges, but I needed the money from reselling at the time. In an ideal world I’d like to have been able to kept two LP12s, - one with the Aro and a Linn or Dynavector cartridge on it, and another LP12 with Ittok/Denon Dl304 on it, but you can’t have everything I suppose. Another reason for selling the Aro is I trashed two cartridges with it! (a Denon 103 and a 110, nothing too pricey fortunately!). Make the wrong move with a unipivot and you can be in trouble!
So yeah I think its possible your (I guess pre-cirkus) LP12 does not sound bloated because you are using a unipivot like the Aro, - what arm did you use before. Did you have the Graham on the deck as well before you installed the Cetech?
All the best,
Colin
Edits: 09/07/10
- No, my LP12 had the Cirkus installed as soon as it came out. ... - andyr 16:16:43 09/07/10
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: Aah, Msieur Satie ... posted by Davy on September 07, 2010 at 06:09:52
Then I went to a Lingo1 in about 1993?
Yes, I had the Graham on my LP12 before I installed the Cetech (G2.2 went on in about 2002, Cetech was installed in 2004 or 5). Before the Graham 2.2, I had a DV505 from new (1978) as the Linn/Naim dealer here who I bought the deck from, thought it was a much better-sounding arm than anything Linn had at the time.
I never considered the Aro because of its no-slot policy. That is madness ... IMO you want to be able to experience non-Linn cartridges. :-))
The trouble with the Cetech is that it was designed to have the armboard bolted to it (to take out the "play" in the connection which the 3 little screws have, with the stock subchassis - which are needed, BTW, with the pressed-steel subchassis). However, the nuts on the bolts needed to be tightened "like Goldilock's porridge" - just right! :-)) Winding them up too far causes the bolt heads to stress the top skin of the armboard, which queers the sound. So I had a CF-composite armboard made up and epoxied ss collars into it, so that the bolt heads press down on the top of the collars (instead of the top skin of the armboard).
However, I'm very interested in the new "Rubikon" which has just come out in England. At some stage, I'm hoping they will be able to produce one for the G2.2 (and other arms) - but, naturally, the 1st cab off the rank is for Linn arms and the next, the Aro. The Keel is permanently out for me, given I have no interest in an Ekos.
Regards,
Andy
- RE: No, my LP12 had the Cirkus installed as soon as it came out. ... - Davy 17:44:32 09/07/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: No, my LP12 had the Cirkus installed as soon as it came out. ... posted by andyr on September 07, 2010 at 16:16:43
Hi Andy,
I’m not surprised your LP12 is not bloated sounding with a unipivot arm, cirkus bearing/inner platter and Cetech chassis and Lingo PSU!!Your combo with the Graham unipivot sounds very interesting. That’s obivoulsy not a typical LP12 setup. I wonder if the Graham sounds fuller/more weighty than the Aro?, - most likely I guess so as the Aro is well known not to work well on the Cirkus LP12, - the pre-cirkus is the LP12 of choice, -that’s what the Aro was designed for and it’s the only combo that sound right, - like I say the ARO is too thin and clinical sounding on a Cirkus deck. Perfect tonal combo however with a pre-cirkus LP12.
I tried the Cirkus and Lingo upgrades when I had both an Ittok and Ekos. I didn’t like either the Cirkus or the Lingo, - both makes the deck more neutral and detailed but IMO they removed the much of the musicality and charm the pre-cirkus/Valhalla LP12 had, - that I though was the "classic" LP12 sound. I found the Lingo makes the sound thinner and more CD like in sound. Bass is tighter and less bloated yes but I didn’t like it. The Cirkus really added more detail and also improved neutrality, - but I found it also presented the music in less musical way. It’s a subjective thing, - some people seem to prefer the pre-cirkus LP12 sound, - others far prefer the Cirkus very strongly. But I am definitely in the Pre-Cirkus camp though and the anti lingo one too!
And the Ekos is a not a great arm in my opinion, - it puts an unnatural over emphasis on dynamics and I far prefer the more refined and natural sounding Ittok which is under half the price on the used market.
The one exception to the upgrades I tired (though it wasn't a Linn upgrade of course), was the Aro unipivot tonearm, - I really did like it a lot on the Pre-Cirkus LP12 like I say. The Aro is an exceptional arm on that deck despite the drawback with the headshell situation, - I would buy an Aro again in the future, despite this limitation. To me, that says something for its sheer quality.
The cart limitations are not as bad as you might think, - as you can use Dynavector cartridges as well as Linn, - all the Dynas are near to spot on right Geometry.The Aro had fantastic midrange and very fluid and musical sound. And of course (after all its a Naim product), it somehow miracsouly gives a lot of pace too along with all this! Shame the operation is a bit fiddly but that’s unipivots I guess. And its a shame it did not sound good with the Denon DL304 cartridge (which is an expectional cartridge for the money IMO), like I say thats another reason why I sold the Aro, - I couldn't afford to buy an ultra expensive cartridge right now to make the most of it.
Geometry with the Denon DL304 and DL103 are both fine for the Aro, - but the Denon 110 and 160 are wrong, and other cartridges like Ortofons and many other brands are the wrong geometry too. Its a shame the DL103 has a rolled off treble, - despite its usual appetite for a high mass arm, it worked incrediblty well on the Aro in my opinion (tried it and was VERY surprised), - the weightly heavy sound of the 103 complemeting the light nature of the Aro and balancing things out nicely. Just the lack of top end with the DL103 is a real major problem in the long term for me. I could have got the 103 retipped with a paratrace tip from Expert sylus though, - that might have been an ideal solution for a good sounding well suited MC to use with an ARO that had some top end!. Might revisit this if I ever get an Aro again.
So yeah your LP12 combo looks very nice, - my experience of the Lingo and Cirkus upgrades was with different tonearm and cartridge combos, - I bet your LP12 sounds superb though!These third party subchassis have really taken off haven't they!, - Cetech, Sole, Greenstreet and Rubikon too (didn’t know that one existed!). The Rubikon looks very good,- perhaps you should look into the Greenstreet too, - not sure if you have seen it? (most likely I guess) its cheaper and they can make it custom for your arm.
http://www.greenstreetaudio.com/pages/subchassis-custom.html
It basically a Keel clone and from what I’ve read it does sound very good at a nice price. Not sure about the Rubikon though, - will have a look myself.The Radikal motor and Urika P/S are also supposed to be very good too, but very pricey like all the Linn upgrades!
Cheers,
Colin
Edits: 09/07/10 09/07/10 09/07/10 09/09/10
- RE: No, my LP12 had the Cirkus installed as soon as it came out. ... - Davy 17:44:32 09/07/10
(0)
- No, my LP12 had the Cirkus installed as soon as it came out. ... - andyr 16:16:43 09/07/10
(1)
- RE: Aah, Msieur Satie ... - Satie 05:59:39 09/07/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Aah, Msieur Satie ... posted by andyr on September 07, 2010 at 04:21:15
I was wondering if anyone was still following our thread now that it has gone way off topic.
I do not use an LP12. I never liked the thing. Our friend Colin does. I used Oracle tables for nearly 20 years, used Lenco and Rega 3 before. My sister had the Lenco repaired after I gave up on it and it can not be pried from her hands. Have come around lately to Technics suspended DD decks (1600MKII, and 1700MKII, 1800MKII). Working on a Lenco replinth too. After a full year without use, I am going to do the once unthinkable and sell my Alexandria. Retaining my motorless Delphi for now.
I am using a Garrott FGS MM for a couple of years now. It is one killer cartridge, tracks anything, very dynamic, very very quiet, great extension, great detail, and great soundstage. Often mistaken for HiRez digital. Makes my old AT OC9 sound downright crude and nasty.
Well, the K series of the PEC RV4, a high performance piece if there ever was one, only comes with hole terminals. Designed for front panel mounting, which is what I needed.
http://media.digikey.com/pdf/Data%20Sheets/Precision%20Electronic%20Components%20Ltd%20PDFs/MIL%20Style%20RV4.pdf?cshift_ck=null&client_id=5042
I am sure there is a PC mount version. I suggest a search of Digikey.
- RE: Aah, Msieur Satie ... - Davy 06:09:52 09/07/10
(2)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 06:08:40 09/07/10
(38)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 03:57:00 09/07/10
(44)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 09:47:52 09/06/10
(45)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 05:40:23 09/06/10
(46)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 18:52:21 09/05/10
(47)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 23:52:22 09/04/10
(48)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 07:11:41 09/04/10
(49)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 19:46:41 09/03/10
(50)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 15:05:42 09/03/10
(51)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 14:12:36 09/03/10
(52)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 04:58:32 09/03/10
(53)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 20:38:31 09/02/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on September 02, 2010 at 19:21:35
The heavier rated resistors were for the Behringer's output which can go to 22 dbu which is BIG. The wirewounds and heavier grade metal film resistors can sound better, but its not that big a difference, in this case it was not necessary.
more later
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 01:19:41 09/03/10
(54)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 19:27:58 09/02/10
(1)
- MGIII crossover setting - MaggiesAndCats 13:14:18 09/02/10
(1)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 18:07:36 09/01/10
(62)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 14:35:20 09/01/10
(63)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 03:34:03 09/01/10
(64)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 20:35:25 08/31/10
(65)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 15:45:48 08/31/10
(66)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 14:23:34 08/31/10
(67)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 17:21:39 08/30/10
(0)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 10:07:31 08/30/10
(70)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 19:48:55 08/28/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 28, 2010 at 19:41:51
Thanks Satie!,
Cool, - don't understand the I V phase issue itself but I know what you were referring to now, - thats good, - it would makes sense then with the 2.7s (for example) to use a PLLXO or active XO on the bass LP section so you don't have to use a passive speaker level 2nd order LP crossover that can cause the amp problems.
If you could find anything more elementary that would be great, - but only of course if you have time to look!
Ceers,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 19:29:51 08/29/10
(71)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 19:41:51 08/28/10
(73)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 19:26:00 08/28/10
(74)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 16:48:22 08/28/10
(75)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 12:29:21 08/28/10
(76)
- Musical joy and other priorities - MaggiesAndCats 11:27:44 08/27/10
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 27, 2010 at 07:48:02
Hi Colin,
Well... Your success, enthusiasm, and enjoyment bring a smile to my face! I never had issues with my stock Behringer like you are. It's always possible that with my equipment, in my listening room - which is also my living room - and with my ears, I just can't hear what you are hearing.
I am VERY happy with my system sound right now. I'm really not much of a tweaker and tend to keep my gear for a long time. Heck, I've had my MGIII's since I bought them brand new around 1983 - 1984. I had them rebuilt by Magnepan a couple of years ago and am happy as a pig in poop. I have another pair of MGIII's that are in excellent cosmetic condition but pretty much need to be rebuilt beneath the socks. I'm working my way to having them as a winter project. I have a friend who is a woodworker that will make new frames for them. I intend to rebuild the bass and mid panels, replace the ribbons, use high quality wire, connectors, and fuse holders (if I use fuses), use better quality components for the crossovers, etc. Actually, I'm happy enough with the modded Behringer that I am considering getting a small tube amp for the highs and triamping. I have been gathering ideas on what to do and how to do it for a while and letting the ideas procreate in the back of my head. Maybe incubate would be a better word... Anyway, they will be my DIY project, and quite possibly the last major change to my system. I initially planned on just rebuilding the bass panels and using them with my factory rebuilt MGIII's, but the plans keep evolving. The person who modded my Behringer also offers stepped attenuators that I could use in place of my preamp. Quality sound reproduction is both a destination and a journey. Who knows when - or if - it will end?
Regards,
Steve
- RE: Musical joy and other priorities - Davy 15:15:58 08/27/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Musical joy and other priorities posted by MaggiesAndCats on August 27, 2010 at 11:27:44
Hi Steve,
Nice to hear from you. Your MGIII restoration project sounds very cool. Look forward to hearing how you get on when you eventually do it. I guess when you say they need a rebuild they have delamination problems etc? the MG3.3Rs I bought have banana peel at the ends on the bass voice coils. I have ordered some DAP to fix it, - just curious have what you are going to use to glue any loose coils down?
I really like the MGIII, - my Dad had a pair and I loved them. From what I have heard so far I say I would preferred my Dad’s MGIIIs to the MG3.3Rs I have now. But different rooms and I’m not sure these 3.3Rs are 100% in the tweeters. The drivers are near to the same I think so maybe I just prefer the different crossover config in the MGIII.
If you ever did decide to try the high pass PLLXO with your MGIIIS, - its so easy, - just a capacitor as its 1st order. I have to use 2 caps and a resistor as the HP on mine is 2nd order. You idea of triamping sounds good, - but Satie covered this in the recent MGIIIa thread, - it is not completely straightforward to triamp a 3 series Maggies like that with one active crossover as the stock crossover design is asymmetric. It would work for sure but its possible the driver integration might not be as good as the stock alignement (according to Satie).
And from what Satie tells me about driving the tweeter directly, you need a good near impedance doubling power amp that is happy with a 2 ohms load, preferably a class A. A suitable low powered tube would work but it I am not sure, - it might clip unless you like your music quietish?. I am guessing a 100W solid state pure Class A pass labs or something similar would be more suited, but I might be wrong!
I would not mind trying the MGIII crossover setup in my MG3.3R actually to see if I prefer it, - I can easily program MGIII type 3rd order LP and 1st order HP from the Behringer but the internal crossover in the 3.3R obviously has different values form the MGIII, Not sure if it would work?, - perhaps Satie (if you are reading!), - do you have any ideas whether this might work or not?
Anyway Steve look forward to hearing how you rebuild goes! Looks like a bit no compromise job!. Just wanted to ask too *if you can remember), - what setting do you use on your Behringer? I am guessing around 350Hz 3rd order Butterworth Low pass and 1st order 800Hz high pass.
All the best,
Colin
- RE: Musical joy and other priorities - Davy 15:15:58 08/27/10
(0)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 08:56:08 08/27/10
(4)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 27, 2010 at 07:48:02
Wimas are very good, improvement over that will be more costly. You did good.
It seems to me that you are liking the second order crossovers better than the 3rd order butterworth - which sounds "heavy" to you. I take it to mean that you are getting bass overhang at higher crossover frequencies, and a gap in the midbass when using lower crossover frequencies.
So I suggest you take the second order as a starting point, and figure out how you want it aligned and then we can calculate an equivalent PLLXO with a volume control - I would suggest a Bourns cermet for best bass (there is also a series of cermets made by a Vishay subsidiary who's name escapes me but might be easier to get a hold of in the UK), or a wirewound pot (these are normally multiturn and are less convenient but sound just as good if not better). The next best thin are PEC carbon pots. Do not get log (audio) tapers, but linear ones, they sound way better. But you will want to keep the Behringer to optimize the next room or position.
Resistors, for bass - stick to metal film or wirewound. The 0.6 Watt are likely to be just fine, but I would only use them where a higher rated metal film or wirewound are not available. After all, this is a pro audio device and can output 20 volts - most of which you are intending on burning (93.6%).
The problem with the moth is the audio taper pot, which is a variable resistor, and does not sound good with significant attenuation. It also has contacts that are subject to oxidation, but are internal, so can not be cleaned. Making a successful log taper pot is very difficult because of the necessarily variable width of the trace.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 13:59:44 08/27/10
(3)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 27, 2010 at 08:56:08
Hi Satie,
Sorry for the delay in replying, - had to get a bit of afternoon emergency shut eye again!
So that’s great about the Wimas, - had no idea they were decent. I look forward to putting those in my PLLXO on Sunday, so I have all Wima caps in it.
Yes you are dead right about the 3rd order Butterworth, - at higher crossover freqnecuies, - by that I mean up to about 250 Hz, the sound is too heavy and not right, like this the mid/treble sounds shut in and not transparent, - and looses air etc. And when you put the freq down there is hole in the midbass liek you say and also the lower mid start to become a bit too absent.
Using second order Bessel at about 205-215 Hz and a higher volume level really does blend better to my ears, - the highs , transparency, sparkle and the midrange are all better. Maybe LR might be even better – I did not try it yet. Butterworth 2nd order was no good, too heavy again.
I still have to test out the parametric EQ properly on the 3rd order Butterworth, - I might be able to get it to blend a lot better using that, - there is potential there for sure.
I find it odd the 3rd order Butterworth does not sound right as this is the filter Magnepan recommend in all the manuals I’ve read with these type of 3 series (I read the MGIII, MGIIIa, and MG3.5 manuals). The 3.5 looks very similar to the 3.3 (the passive crossover design looks the same schematic, - just slighly different values used). And in the 3.5 manual it says to use 200Hz LP 3rd order and 200Hz HP 2nd order when using an active crossover, and the stock passive crososver freqs are quoted at 200Hz LP 3rd order and 300Hz HP 2nd order at the end of the manual. I am not sure if the 200Hz HP 2nd order is a typo, - it could be. In the MGIII and MGIIIa manual the active and passive crossover freqneucies the manual says are the same so it could be a typo in the 3.5 manual,
Anyway, I’ve asked Magnepan if they have the 3.3R manual or can let me know the settings it states, - just in case they are quite a bit different from what I am using. Perhaps if they don’t have it I can track down another owner that can tell me the settings the manual says so I can make doubly sure!
Will try out the L-pad using the wirewounds after I’ve got the right values!, eventually! Looking forward to that. I am going to aim for aournd 12dB for use with the Quad on the bass. and about 6dB for using the NAD on the bass, to eliminate any hiss.
Thanks again for that. Did not reaslise it was so easy to do an L-Pad.
The idea of building a 2nd order LP crossover with a level control sounds very cool, - will do more testing but I am sure it will work as the 2nd order already Bessel sounds good and I didn’t even try LR yet. That’s good I could use the higher gain Quad 606 on the bass with attenuation and the lower gain NAD going straight through to the mid/treble, and adjust the level on the bass only to get it to match.
The question is would the Butterworth 3rd order be better with a bit of tweaking with the EQ?, - not sure but I’ll see, - I understand 3rd order is not viable to build a PLLXO with ease though!
When you say I should figure out how I want my LP 2nd order PLXSO aligned do you mean Orthogonal and all that stuff?! How do I go about that and test with the Behringer what’s best, - is it the phase I have to adjust?
There is a high end audio parts store online here called hificollective,
http://www.hificollective.co.uk/
They are a bit pricey but I’ll see what they have with regards to pots etc. They do flashy resistors like Shinkos and Audio Note Tantulums, and they also do Black Gates etc.
A Technics SL1600MK2 is finishing on Ebay Germany pretty soon (one with a broken auto mechamism but is sound otherwise), - I am going to try to get it. There is also a SL17000MK2 which might go very cheap as the guy says it doesn't even spin (and the Auto doesn't work either!) Should I give the 1700 a miss if it doesn't even turn or do you reckon it could be easily fixable?(probably not I guess, - by me anyway!)
Goona get one of these for sure though, I want some dynamics from LP!, - thanks again for leading me to these decks!
All the best.
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 15:04:58 08/27/10
(2)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 27, 2010 at 13:59:44
Part of your problem matching up with the Behringer sounds like a phase problem. Remember that unless you adjust phase the Behringer will be at 0 while the phase ON THE PLLXO changes from -180 below the crossover frequency to about 0 an octave or two above it. That means you will get cancellation at some point around the crossover frequency. So try the 3rd order again and adjust phase to match the PLLXO as well as you can along with the crossover frequency. So yes, we are talking phase, polarity and orthogonality.
The LR is steeper than the Butterworth, so you will probably have a similar problem - but perhaps more of it.
Magnepan often suggests using second order crossovers as an alternative to the third order low passes when using an active crossover. I think this is in part because the bass is always set up as third order LP because of the great demands it puts on power amps and that it is easier to drive a third order than a second order since the odd order crossovers (at speaker level) position the current phase at 90 degrees to the voltage phase, so that the power envelope is less likely to be breached - and you have less of a chance of clipping.
For cermets and wire wound pots, in linear taper, you need to look to places like digikey, molex or Arrow electronics distributors since these are not used in audio but in instrumentation.
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 15:35:52 08/27/10
(1)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on August 27, 2010 at 15:04:58
Hi Satie,
Thanks again for the great info, Many Thanks for the phase explanation, - makes sort of sense to me! (for once), - Yes I need to adjust the phase then when using the 3rd order Butterworth LP to get the crossover point to sound right, and play with the freqnecueis. So when I adjust the phase do I just try all the way from 0 to 180? It works in steps of 5 degree inrements. Should I test at like 0, 45, 90, 135 and 180 or just tune by ear? Never done this before.
The LR I was taking about trying with the Behringer was for 2nd order like you suggested earlier today, - not tried it yet, only Bessel and Butterworth. Bessel worked better.
So is this why the 2nd order LP seems to blend better with the 3.3Rs at the moment? Is the phase setting less of an issue with that, - I guess it is easier to blend 2nd order LP with a 2nd order HP, than using a 3rd order LP with 2nd order HP.
Thanks as well for the very interesting explanation of why Magnepan use 3rd order in the bass as its easier on the amp than 2nd order. Is this mainly true in single drive speaker level passive mode?, - if you hook the bass amp directly up to the panel in active or PLLXO is a second order LP crossover less of a problem? I understand now why the stock 2.7 is hard to drive as its 2nd order in the bass.
Thanks for the info on where to look for pots, - will get on it.
Cheers again,
Colin
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 10:35:51 08/28/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Davy on August 27, 2010 at 15:35:52
Missplaced post
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 10:35:51 08/28/10
(0)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 15:35:52 08/27/10
(1)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 15:04:58 08/27/10
(2)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 13:59:44 08/27/10
(3)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 10:04:10 08/28/10
(77)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 07:48:02 08/27/10
(85)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 21:05:30 08/26/10
(86)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 17:12:54 08/26/10
(87)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 15:13:40 08/26/10
(88)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 08:00:33 08/26/10
(89)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 06:58:06 08/26/10
(90)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 05:32:24 08/26/10
(0)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 21:32:43 08/25/10
(94)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 17:08:39 08/25/10
(95)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 16:28:09 08/25/10
(96)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 14:31:00 08/25/10
(0)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 12:09:15 08/25/10
(99)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 09:50:54 08/25/10
(100)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 09:33:15 08/25/10
(101)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 03:25:15 08/25/10
(102)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 19:56:05 08/24/10
(103)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 14:01:07 08/24/10
(104)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Satie 13:48:36 08/24/10
(105)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more - Davy 12:52:02 08/24/10
(106)
- RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs - RickeyM 06:48:09 08/24/10
(0)
- In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs posted by Davy on August 24, 2010 at 06:38:58
I suppose if you're very carful you can not use the strips all the time.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
-
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:
[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]