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

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Planar Speaker Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more

Posted by Davy (A) on September 9, 2010 at 14:48:30

In Reply to: RE: Tweeter difference problem with 3.3Rs and more posted by Satie on September 9, 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

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

Schiit Audio

---

[ 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 ]

---