Sgmlaw
There are many questions I would like to ask you as I do agree with much of what you said.
I can't say for the Fishers as mine are all unrestored.
I can say that I have owned the Klispch for 28 years and they had the original foil in oil caps and NEVER sounded like they do now. The Duelund in the tweeter caps is so massively better it is not even funny. I have never heard Duelund in electronics but do find it hard to imagine they do not still sound super natural there to.
I have no problem saying that sometimes a cheap part is the best one but (in Duelund's case) their expensive part was worth every cent to me.
I am confused about the tube comment. My Fisher x101d is my favourite (the one that blew up) and it had Russian EH 7591's output tubes in it. Stereophile really like the Russian tubes? (saying in that case)
I have and am running right now a 6BQ5 x101st and it does do some things better than the 500c and x101d but prefer then 7591's. I do admit many do feel the way you do about the 6BQ5 amps. It might be mine? I also have a x202 that I am going to get checked out.
The x101st is running Telefunken tubes and Mullard rectifier and 3 of the 4 outputs are Raytheon's.
Any recommendations for the amp? I find it good but not near as good as the x101d and am looking for a output transformer for the x101d I found the x101d the best most natural sounding amp I have heard. There is not the dead silence between voices and instruments that the x101d has. Any idea what could be done to the x101st? The x101st is more aggressive and doesn't not have the interplay between musicians. More of a wall of sound.
All this being said I can see your love for the old Fishers. The x101d said Professional Series but that is just a name that Fisher was using at the time correct? |
Dave confused by your statement? Do you mean Tempo should not say A is 3x better than B because what is 3x better? Or do you mean the 6x price might or might not be realitive to what value one person places on money to another?
I agree statements like Tempo's do re-inforce the notion of dimishing return. 3x improvement 6x cost. (so the smart person buys A) It is that notion of diminishing returns that had me skeptical on CAST. When I put them in I was getting ready for the difference to be like when I got 12 guage wire (30 years ago) something that was better but only on direct comparison. To my surprise the difference was huge! to them amount I did not think possible. This is not to say that I would not be perfectly happy with VSF's.
I think Stormen and I would agree there is a fundemental change in the Duelund caps. (or foil in general) Everything sounds way more real. The CAST do not go into a new direction just the same one with noise reduction. |
Whatever one thinks of the Tempo review, I completely dismiss statements like A is 3x better than B relative to a 6x difference in price. This way of thinking has nothing to do with making objective assessments of high end andio products. |
olleyguy,
Yes precisely, if you read the Tempo Electric review he states the Duelund VSF is 3 times better than the Mundorf. (Threefold improvement)
Which I agree with.
Personally, Im done with plastic, and I truly suspect the reason why we do plastic caps today is solely based on cost and size. I mean would you want to use 99% plastic speaker cables? |
I did hit one wrong key above. The 6BQ5 is obviously the output referred to above. Good luck finding a "6BQ6". |
I will chime in here very late to the OP.
While I have enjoyed the interesting discourse about the high end capacitors, I think you would be very surprised to find out what is typically in the Fisher tube instrument that is feeding the whole thing.
I've restored more Fisher tube instruments over the years than I can remember at this point. These instruments are full of inexpensive, dried out electrolytics. And the coupling caps are not hand-rolled fancies or anything other than very inexpensive General Instrument polyester films. The few imported ero-fol coupling caps sometimes found in the output stage are silimarly polyesters, and prone to leakage, creating a bias collapse and serious output damage.
I've used plenty of capacitors in Fisher rebuilds over the years (including some very expensive ones), and the one that sounds the best in the post '62s is the CDE DME, a 50 cent metallized polyester from Mouser, and Sprague Atoms for electrolytics. A far cry from the mega-buck Duelunds. But much more in line with the original design. More importantly, they sound RIGHT. And when a Fisher sounds right, it sounds as good as anything ever made.
That is because Fisher voiced its designs to the parts and technology of the day. If you do this long enough, you will find that tonal voicing is the touchstone. The best designers voiced around the limitations of the available components and technologies. Sometimes, a cheap part is the best part.
People playing Dr. Stereo with their Fishers, and loading it up with designer passives often sterilize the timbre and tone out of them, and it is like staring at a glacier. The hunt for more detail and resolution can be the devil's lure.
Nevertheless, the FAR far bigger determinant to the Fisher's sound is not the passives, but the tubing. People throwing hundreds of dollars in passives at a vintage Fisher (or elsewhere) and then tubing it with JJs or Russians or other new production completely miss the point.
I do not know what you are doing to your Fishers. But it would be shortsighted to dump many hundreds into these speaker capacitors and not invest in a quad of Westinghouse 7591As in a B or C series amp section, and make the effort to roll either Amperexes or TFKs in the pre stages to fine-tine the timbre. The difference between a Valvo, Holland Amperex, Sylvania black plate, and an EH can make a hugh difference. That difference, you may find, will be far more profound than the x-over capacitor changes, and at a fraction of the cost. And you will notice that is where Avery did freely spend his OEM money. TFKs weren't cheap in 1963 either.
I recommend a recap of the Fisher, but with modest passives consistent with the original design theme. And there are things that must be done with the power supply at this point, if only from a safety perspective.
For more details, check over at AA in the vintage asylum archives, where you will find a wealth of information on the older Fishers and how to recondition them right.
One last tip. If you're a midrange fan like me, then you will prefer the B series topology over that in C. The C amp topology can be a little over extended at times. The B series and pre '63 amps and integrateds do the middle a little better. Of course, running horns, you are probably best off with a 6BQ6 model, which were the best sounding Fishers of all. |
Stormen glad to hear I am not alone. I think does hit on the differences of Duelund making things sound natural compared to the plastic caps but Tony does not go far enough (at least for me) on what it means to have instruments sound real. For me it was huge! I could believe what the VSF did. Other caps just sounded fake in comparison and I (for one) enjoyed the "real" sound.
Tony also on the CAST rates them 13.5 compared to 12.5 and I for one still have a problem with anything being better than 10?? I think CAST are 10 and VSF are around 9 (maybe 8.5) and Supreme's or Silver in Oil are 5 to 6 at best and the cheap caps like what was in my (Linn) speakers are around 2! (Bennic)
Rating a Mundorf Supreme at 10 is just not right. 10 sounds like perfect and a Supreme is HUGELY lacking from even the VSF. If I had not done this myself I would have thought a 10 (Supreme) was good enough for me as I "thought" it would be small improvement after that. It shocked me (in fact I was confused by the CAST at first) on how big the difference as even from the VSF to CAST level. I do not think someone reading Tony's review would think the difference is a big as it really is.
I think a better review would be to say the only the Duelund's (that I have heard) and have good reason to believe one would need similiar construction meaning all natural to make music sound natural.
Duelund VSF (wayyyyyyy more natural sounding than the competition)
Duelund CAST takes the super natural sound of the VSF and makes what is a hard to believe MASSIVE reduction in noise level.
Is this more like what you would say Stormen? |
Volleyguy,
I would definitely rate them a lot higher also. In general I dont understand either why the Mundorfs are anywhere near the Duelund VSF let alone the CAST. To my ears, the Duelund are head and shoulders above the others. |
Stormen I guess partsconnexion says they lent Tony the caps if I read that right and are glad the CAST is the new king. I really think it should be more than 13.5 though as 1 point over the VSF does not really show the difference.
Real rating 15 or 16 would be more like it! |
Thanks a lot Stormen I would love to hear that pre-amp! |
Volleyguy,
I know these guys use them in their tube equipment. www.electrumaudio.com |
Wow Stormem
Just got back from holidays and read the review. In my mind they are much better than VSF. I still think 15 or 16. But at least Tony made them reference grade.
For me having the VSF and CAST in series is working very well.
The vinyl I traded in to the record store is selling mostly for $29 to $75 used that is how good it looked and the Duelund's revealed the wear so painfully.
I do agree that the CAST image better as they are sooooo much quieter than VSF but still super natural. I love them both! You do not tire of them that is for sure.
Do you know of anyone who has tried them in electronics? |
Humblehomemadehifi tested the CAST:
http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/Cap.html
Sound: The CAST capacitor has all the same characteristics as the VSF but with added top-end clarity and together with that, more spatiality. They are (like the VSF) super natural, smooth, clear and open. The tonal balance is extremely neutral, especially audible with good recordings of acoustic instruments and the human voice, so maily with classical music. Like the VSF the separation of the individual instruments is very good and in an orchestra, the string section is a group of individuals rather than just a group. Soprano's have clarity without becoming hard to the ear, wind instruments (especailly the copper section) have that nice "metal" edge without becoming rough. Where in the past you had to choose between a Mundorf Silver/Gold/Oil (very good depth and imaging) or a Duelund VSF (very neutral presentation) you can now have the best of both worlds in the form of the Duelund CAST-Cu. I did find they needed a couple of weeks use to fully come to bloom, so give a chance to burn-in. My current reference! |
Sorry Dan slow reply.
Thanks I have gained some appreciation for digital. It's long lasting and how these caps have revealed so much of my vinyl to be in poor shape. (wayyy more than I could imagine)
The local used record store was thrilled when I brought the vinyl in. They are asking $50 for many of the pieces yet there was clearly wear there. Many of those pieces looked almost new.
Digital is in huge supply and very cheap. (redbook)
Before I did this crossover rebuild I did not like digital at all. (at least mine?)
After a few months with the Duelund's I do not know if one could go back? Before I wire them in for final I am going to put the originals in just hear. I already know I am going to think how could I have listen to that! |
Looks like your guy Aurthor S. recommends the Krell Standard SACD Player which can be found for about $2K used. |
Volley, as I said earlier, I do not listen to LPs anymore. But here are my observations on CDs as a source.
First, you need a good player for standard (redbook) CD playback. There are many out there, but it does make a difference. As a direct example, I have a cheap Sony CD/SACD player for SACD and I also have a Musical Fidelity 3DCD for redbook. When I first bought the Sony, redbook sounded flat and lifeless. It was not enjoyable to listen to any CDs. SACD sounded liquid and engaging - analog like if you will. Something was clearly wrong so I sent the Sony off for audiophile upgrades. When it came back, SACD still sounded great, but the biggest change was redbook now sounded almost as good as my MF 3D CDP. Right there, was a world of difference between CDP players that no change in source CDs could negate. So first you have to find a good/great disc player. There are lots out there, but I don't recall Linn being one of them.
Next, as we've just discussed, there are differences in source material. Buy some CD and SACDs that you know are good and use them as your reference source material. Now you can compare the sound of CD/SACD to LP.
One word of caution is that SACD is pretty much dying. Still lots of Jazz and Classical material available. So I while it clearly sounds better, I wouldn't spend to much more for it and focus on the redbook sound. My experience may not be universal, but it's harder to find a great sounding redbook than SACD CDP. |
Volley, as I said earlier, I do not listen to LPs anymore. But here are my observations on CDs as a source.
First, you need a good player for standard (redbook) CD playback. There are many out there, but it does make a difference. As a direct example, I have a cheap Sony CD/SACD player for SACD and I also have a Musical Fidelity 3DCD for redbook. When I first bought the Sony, redbook sounded flat and lifeless. It was not enjoyable to listen to any CDs. SACD sounded liquid and engaging - analog like if you will. Something was clearly wrong so I sent the Sony off for audiophile upgrades. When it came back, SACD still sounded great, but the biggest change was redbook now sounded almost as good as my MF 3D CDP. Right there, was a world of difference between CDP players that no change in source CDs could negate. So first you have to find a good/great disc player. There are lots out there, but I don't recall Linn being one of them.
Next, as we've just discussed, there are differences in source material. Buy some CD and SACDs that you know are good and use them as your reference source material. Now you can compare the sound of CD/SACD to LP.
One word of caution is that SACD is pretty much dying. Still lots of Jazz and Classical material available. So I while it clearly sounds better, I wouldn't spend to much more for it and focus on the redbook sound. My experience may not be universal, but it's harder to find a great sounding redbook than SACD CDP. |
Thanks Dan
I am a so so Stones fan. I did find out that my Beatles Bluw box set was not as good as I thought. I can for sure tell the previous owners favs. At least that is one thing you do not have to deal with in digital. (physical wear)
I do still prefer vinyl over digital. (at least what I have heard) Dan do you find there to be a difference in the way you feel listening to digital vs. (good) vinyl? I still find vinyl more relaxing although I do not have a SACD player and my digital reference may suffer from lack of information. With the Linn guys I hear them say the new Klimax DS is very good. Then the next guy (who owns one) says still not close to their Lp12? |
Funny I was listening to a Rudy Van Gelder CD: "Red Clay" by Freddie Hubbard as I read this and yes, it sounds very good. Agree that you have to be selective with your source material with a highly resolving system. I also recommend Chesky, Mapleshade, and Stereophile (Rendezvous is a good jazz album) modern labels. I've enjoyed the ABKCO reissues of some classics like the Stones and Sam Cooke: these sound great in Redbook and SACD. Volley, since you're a Beatles fan you may like the Rolling Stones reissues. To be honest, I am meither a Stones nor a Beatles fan, but the clarity of the ABRKO reissues in SACD has let me enjoy these songs for the first time - really they are that good! Sam Cooke will be in the room giving you a private concert - it's amazingly life-like. Finaly, I'll plug DMP and GRP as maybe the best of early digital recording. They have some issues with metalic sounding highs, but they really like to play with the dynamic range on their albums and it can be a fun work-out for you and your system. |
No don't be sorry for the "rant".
I just did not know that CD's that were done from the era were good. It makes sense though as the vinyl was excellent from the same listings you mention. The only problem is finding vinyl from that ear in good shape.
I had always suspected that not all of digital's problem were the media. In fact I think most of it is not the media and what you are saying is the great recordings from the era transferred well to the digital domain.
So many recordings since (that great era) of great music have been ruined in the studio and always we be lost. |
Volley...late 50...early 60's....anything done by Rudy VanGelder or Orin Keepnews. A good demonstration disk is "Inside Betty Carter" Half the disc is totaly awesome...probably done on a Ampex and the other half is kinda flat. Another point is during this period using Ampex with custom mixing boards was the hot ticket and the bandwith was big along with orchestras and vocalists on the same stage.....Sinatra & Basie,Tony Bennet,Jack Jones,EllaFitzgerald,Miles ect....classical all the living stereo,mercury,london phase4....Have these enormous soundstage and dynamics.....One of my favorites is a Marco Polo Cd "captain blood" with music by Korngold and others...just a beautiful piece....In fact I recently started collecting older soundtracks on CD....Koch has one with Miklas Roza's El Cid the organ music is spectacular. There's a lot of great CD stuff out there...
All this dubbed crap stinks....I like the older recordings they knew what the hell they were doing. Back in the late 50's and 60's most of the big strars wouldn't go near a studio if it wasn't tubes....The word was out SS didn't have the bandwith...sorry for the rant... |
Wavetrader
When trading in the lp's I picked up a few Cd's from the era you are talking about. Muddy Waters, Theloious Monk and Miles Davis. I did not have any CD's from the era. I just wanted to see if they were better than modern CD'. |
Indeed the CAST do have a profound effect. I can not imagine owning speakers without at least VSF in them. (prefer CAST)
If money was an issue I would cut other areas of my system first before crossover caps. I totally believe Steen now that the crossover will always be the weak link in any system. (just the difference from VSF to CAST)
In fact I now think it is crossover then source material itself. The only so called "downside" to CAST (and VSF) is they start to run the show demanding a excellent source or they will let you know the defective garbage you are feeding them. You become adjusted to what they can do. They have also changed my impression of what a balanced system is to something I never would have believed. |
Volley...I'm sorry....I meant your experiment seems to have had a profound effect on your system. I have made many changes....low esr capacitors to my electronics but no changes yet to my crossovers. I'm using a NBS Professional PC on my Accuphase C200 pre. My buddy's system is not at the same level...very good but...could be better if he upgraded his cabling....his electronics aren't voiced correctly IMHO...but he has modded the amplifiers to lower the noise floor....Always a good step. |
Wavetrader I have been doing some new vinyl reviews.
For me I feel it is the only route right now. I will turn my used vinyl into some new ones with store credit.
Does anyone have any recomendations on which label?
I had read Michael Fremer'r reviews are his accurate? |
Wavetrader
How would you describe what the CAST have done? When you say some of your recordings sound good on yours and not on your buddy's. Are both systems of similiar level of quality and style? and is this difference pre or post CAST?
I have found the Duelund in general either the lp sounds fantastic or worn out. I have very little in between.
I think this may sound silly but what is the PC on your pre-amp?
I can easily believe you on the best CD's being of that era. ('58-'63) |
Sorry Stormen for the confusion. My crossover is 2 2uf caps in series. I have of course only 2 (CAST) and 2 VSF caps. So I have to go one of each. So I am not bypssing just figuring out which cap should be first the VSF or the CAST. I currently have one speaker set up each way.
It seems having the CAST last in the circuit works best. I too of course would just have CAST funds permitting. |
Your Blue note recording from '58 was probably recorded on a Ampex 3 channel. I find my best CD's are recorded around 58-63?....Verve Porgy & Bess with Ella and Louie A. is just a great recording. These Cast Duelunds have had such a profound effect....I recently switched the PC on my C200 preamp from a NBS master to a NBS pro..the difference was jaw dropping. So there are many things to do to bring "pop" to recorded music or remove the recording from the music. Funny thing I have a lot of the older fantasy recordings on CD....on my system they sound great...on a buddys system they sound embarrasingly bad... |
Volleyguy,
I dont know, I find the Duelund CASTs to be so good, I dont see the need myself.
If you insist, I would bypass a CAST with a small VSF.
Or ask Duelund if they would do a CAST with a VSF dielectricum. Perhaps, that is your meal ticket
:) |
Dan
I came back to vinyl around late '90's. I went to buy a CD player a Linn Karik and the store said what about a Rega Planar turntable. The Rega was much better at $750 then and the CD player was $3500. At the time I was in a state of shock how the modest turntable (on an obsolete format) sounded better?? I did not buy either put it on the list to do and friend later sold me his Lp12 for around $600 that was when everyone was just getting rid of their vinyl and tables. (my first Lp12)
That is a common thing the ticks and pops comment my lp's mostly have none. Vinyl was so cheap a few years ago if it was not perfect I got rid of it. But what I am finding out (thanks to Duelund's) is that even the very clean looking vinyl has much more wear than I thought.
I use a wall stand in the basement where my stereo is now. It drove me nuts in the livingroom and walking gently etc..
My opinion is vinyl is much better! A big pain but better sounding although buying tube gear (I admit) took a lot of the digital edge off. My opinion on vinyl is that has much to do with the recording process. The "loudness wars" were not going on when vinyl was the most common form of stored music. It is almost like the recording engineer is afraid to left the sound go quiet. So I feel a lot of digital's faults happen right in the mixing. Also the average persons stereo is worse today than 30 years ago. (according to my high-end dealer) So the poorer the average stereo the less need for quality source. Let's face audio nuts are just not that important in the $ sense.
I was visiting my Uncle once and at the stereo store his buddy had a friend who used to work in a recording studio. He said they would run songs through what he called the "shit box" and what that did was compress the sound to the middle freq.. They wanted a sound that could be played on cheap stereos or in the car. It was very interesting hearing him talk. The guy used to work for Oracle. (turntable manufacturer) He also said a audiophile release would be a joke in a way because all they did was sell the "non compressed" version. (they knew the audiophile would have the gear)
My best vinyl (for sound quality) is the 1958 Blue Note album. It was never made for the car no doubt recorded on tube mic's, likely using tube lathe cutting machines and on very thick vinyl. |
Regarding the era of poor CDs, I mean that the CDs published in the 80s and early 90s of bands from the 60s, 70s, 80s, generally sound very bad. As you noted with albums, there are always exceptions, but they are typically not mainstream labels.
Overall, I enjoy my SACDs as they have a nice analog sound to them. Of course, the format can't make bad source material sound good, and I have some SACDs that just make me want to cry because the songs are great, but they sound like you're listening to them on a cheap AM radio. No matter, the SACD format is dead and I suppose Blu-ray HD is the next thing to try. You should be able to catch this wave and bring some high res digital to your horns.
Volley, I haven't played a record since the early eighties. I made the mistake of selling all my records for next to nothing. Not sure if it's the nostalgia, or it's for real, but I do recall analog sounding better on much less expensive equipment than I have now :) Of course, I do remember the hiss, the scratches, alignments, the rumble, and hearing footsteps as people ran through the house. No perfect solution I suppose, just an endless series of trade-offs.
|
Thanks Dan they are singing like they NEVER have in the 28 years I have owned them!
I am the one who is writing in to Arthur's site about the caps (CAST and VSF) and my feeling is if he had moved the Khorns down to Class C (upper) from Class B there is NO comparison to standard Khorns. I am not sure if they are again best in the world but they are MILES better than any stock Class C ones! I did invite him to hear them. If one likes Khorns they are going to love them with Duelund.
I do agree Dan on the Cd's I do not have a ton anyway. Now as for CD era and '70's?? Was it not early '80's that they came out? Do you mean '80's and 90's?
I now know without a doubt my old gear was mid-fi. What I once struggled with wondering was it the Lp or amp or speakers when sound was not good is now child's play. I can not believe how easy it is to hear record wear.
I have 150 records to go to the used record store. He is very excited about them as mostly they "look" new. Likely 100 of the will be the best in the store. The thing is I could not tell for sure they were worn out (before) now it is just so easy!
I have a original Blue Note Lp Somethin' Else from 1958 (stereo version) and it sounds AMAZING! Mine must have been played 1000+++ times (maybe 10k times) has noise but you can tell the level of the recording is just mind boggling. To think they did that in 1958 and then the garbage from the early CD era. What you can tell is that those old heavy Lp's stood up wayyyy better than later era vinyl. Much harder and heavier. I really can not hear any wear in the record, noise yes but no wear.
The only thing I am struggling with is to get a handle on the CAST vs. VSF and everyone wondered if one could even hear the difference. That could not be farther from the truth they do not even sound close to VSF. Biggest difference from any cap I have heard.
On the noisy Blue Note record it is the CAST that cuts noise by 90%? I know that is shocking but true. I can listen to either the CAST speaker or both but not the VSF in comparison.
The VSF though do seem to give air around the instruements better. The VSF's are looser the CAST the ultimate in detail and noise reduction. The air from the VSF does make things come alive more.
My ideal might be some combination of the two. I am hoping (praying) the mixing will give me both the air and noise reduction. Maybe the best of both world's.
I have put a request out to Stormen to see if he has ever mixed and which should go first? (in series) I remember reading someone said it was like cooking a little of this a little of that for best results. I am going to mix today and see.
I hope the sum of the two is better than each seperate.
Well here goes a CAST for noise reduction and a VSF for a bit of air. Please! |
Glad to hear that your horns are singing again and that you're more than happy with the CASTs. Thanks again for sharing each step of the way - really enjoyed it :)
I'll bet that when you get a good digital source, you'll end up either throwing out or never playing the vast majority of 70s and 80s CDs. This was my experience as I upgraded my system. You will hear the compression and the editing in most CDs of the that era. Not to mention they just don't sound very good. At first I thought it was my CDP. But eventually came to realize it was most of my CD collection. Bummer :(
The good news is you can always enjoy them in the car where they sound just fine :) |
Wavetrader I am very glad to hear that about the Black gates. I am going to do the re-capping the Fisher. That Stereophile article compared the Fisher against a $42k amp as well. The Fisher was not better but I think shocked even Stereophile that really amps have not come that far.
I was schooled when the guy showed up to buy the Klipsch with old Fisher. I kind of chuckled at first when I seen it. An hour later I was humbled and big time!
Made an app. to sell the used vinyl. I think close to $1k worth of store credit. My vinyl that I am getting rid of will be the best they have almost to a piece. Vinyl of course is better than digital but digital is better than worn vinyl.
One thing I did notice on the vinyl purge was how poorly mid '70's onward vinyl stood up. I know they changed something in the vinyl to make it softer. My older Sinatra, Ray Charles, Louis Armstrong etc stands up wayyyy better overall.
Vinyl quality itself went down after the first oil crisis. (early '70's) Older recordings on Columbia's top label or Decca or Reprise sound amazing and even the ones I did not keep were not so much from wear but noise. Newer records (meaning mostly mid '70 and '80's) are just worn out.
To me it is not surprising (now) that the Fisher stands up. The '60's recordings were just astonishing as well. Arthur talks about this in his site as well. I find his site to be very good and now follow it much more closely. I remember not seeing my amp (Linn Klout) on his list and thinking it must be that he had just not heard it. He had all these old '60's antique amps but not mine? Why not? Now I know why! It is just not that good. |
You might find this interesting....Kevin Hayes being interviewed in Stereophile had this comment on the Fisher....
"I've been an audiophile since before I knew what the word meant, going back to the mid-'70s. I had an epiphany when I first heard a piece of old tubed gear, a Fisher X101, that simply blew away a highly touted receiver that I happened to own. It was a 25W integrated amplifier, using 7591s on the output, and except for sustained organ-pedal notes, it was far better than what I had at that time."
Now I can really relate to what you have experienced with the Ultra low noice caps...I have the same expience with my SS electronics using black gate caps. I now use the BG preamp with the rest of my system. I continue to upgrade all my components except for my Vac's....but will do eventualy.
I am trying to get my system ready for a assualt on my speakers....I have upgraded all my IC's,PC's and speaker cable.....the backgound is the blackest I have heard my system sound....Everything litterly pops out and there is no longer any imbalance in the sound....plus my CD's sound remarkable. On the Chinatown soundtrack even "I can't get started with you" sounds great.
I continue to follow your saga....To recommend a amp the 300B Vac's are certainly dead quiet and highly linear. The only downside if there is such...tubing these are expensive but the used market seems to reflect this in the pricing....good luck. |
Stormen any experience in mixing VSF and CAST?
Thanks |
Gone through 120+ pieces of vinyl to be traded in.
The noise is not from the vintage amp these caps let you hear any defect in the vinyl. Excellent vinyl sounds amazing. It is not a negative of these caps as they are so precise you know when (without a doubt) your vinyl is worn.
Last year I went through my vinyl as best the system I had then could a sort out worn stuff. I can now hear so much more it is incredible. There was more wear than I had any idea of. It comes across a noisy and stands out.
Sonic differences from CAST to VSF. (and they are MUCH bigger than I thought)(but for some odd reason they are much bigger on vinyl than CD?)
My turntable still sounds wayyyyyyy better then (my) CD player that was just a wish for great digital. The Duelund's just need great vinyl. (or maybe a great digital source)
VSF noisy and washed out in camparison to CAST. VSF almost sound broken in comparison. CAST have much better texture and sort things out much better.
CAST will tilt the sound downward which is a good thing for me as I have bass shy horns. They do this by the huge reduction in noise. CAST is much easier to track bass lines.
VSF might have one slight upside. The electricity in the room is bigger on VSF. I guess this could be caused by the reduction in noise with the CAST. CAST might be slightly tight.
That is very slight and if I could do it all again I would just get the CAST for the midrange and Tweeters.
I am hoping with crossoved fingers that one CAST and one VSF gives me most of the difference in both speakers or maybe even gives a little of the VSF electricity and the stunning CAST low resonance.
Some audio nuts are organizing a get together. I was inivited to the first one but next time they are going to have a tube based theme which I will go and put the speakers to the test of others. I also want to hear a selection of SET amps and how they compare to the vintage. (refurbished or course) |
Thanks Matrix All clear
I am leaning to the new SET as well. Maybe I just had a fluke Fisher. You are right though the other ones have not been that great. I do though think the vintage can be very good amps. As Arthur says amps just have not come that far in 40 years and anyone who says they have is trying to sell you something. Now I am not a vintage person as other than these old speakers none of my gear was vintage.
The fire/smoke of the output transformer does scare one for sure on vintage. One thing for sure I agree on not all vintage is equal and you guys may be right to spend on newer amp. I am going to try one re-cap (electrolytics) on a Fisher and if no good dump most of them.
I really have had enough of fixing gear. If I had the money maybe one of those new $40k horn systems would be the way to go. But they are out of my league. |
No doubt my post was not very clear..
**First I totally agree, horns from then or now are the way to go for effective and cheaper alternative than several of the so called "esoteric" speakers..
Never would I or could I dispute.. By the way I was not directing a finger at your choice of gear, as
S.E.T is absolutely the way to go!! But I think the cost and time put into such Old tube gear you are trying to accomplish at these price points you will in fact find much newer SET amp designs to be quieter, and much more dynamic, with all the goodies you seem to feel comes from your CAst caps being the main "Quieting and distortion free" culprit.
Point being as I see above you took us on a journey of old vs. new, or technology being inferior.. That was not my purpose here... I appoligize, as the old horns spruced up with mega quality crossovers is in fact my favorite way to short cut and be very cost effective too :-)
My opinion is that you can do much better with thousands on new century tube equipment which is much more designed toward silent and consistent operation with good quality caps in mind already than trying to Retro grade everything in the system at the levels you are starting to exhibit here was really my point...
For example I can tell you right now VSF or Cast no matter putting a fisher amp on it vs. a good newer version tube amp such as a Class A SET for a good deal on Audiogon will probably help you sleep at night knowing you did the best you can with that kinda money, only as I see above you mentioned maybe going in and putting another 2000 in crossover on the speaker, I also see you decided to not go that far, so I understand. Hope this helps...Trust me you don't need to prove to me the value of some vintage designs over new costly crap :-)
Good luck |
Matrix I am not spending more on caps.
CAST are much quieter than VSF by a magnitude I would have never guessed.
As for mono blocks? vs. very old distorted equipment? The Fisher x101-d blew away my modern Linn Klout. (which was $4k and I had two of them) Linn guys feel that the Klout is almost as good as the Klimax which is $25k. The amp was dead, dead, dead in comparision.
That comparison was done on both my "old distorted raspy horns" and my modern Linn speakers. Now horns are not for everyone as they are all about finesse speed and do not need much power. The downside to horns is noise. The Fisher has 99% less noise than my modern SS amp.
I should explain even the Fisher (500c and x100) that I am saying is not as good (as the x101-d) is STILL much better than my SS amp was. The one Fisher is the quietest amp I have EVER heard.
CAST caps do take vinyl to a higher level. If the vinyl is good. CAST are so quiet they reveal so much that you can hear the very defects in the vinyl itself.
I use a VPI 16.5 RCM and often steam if needed.
I would have agreed on the VSF could not possibly sound distorted. If you check back in the thread I could not imagine better than VSF and tought I was likely wasting my money.
The CAST are ASTONISHING! The CAST make the VSF sound vintage. The detail is incredible! What I am saying is they cut out soooooo much noise you can hear groove wear. I can not see how this is ever going away with vinyl.
Matrix I am not so sure horns are from the last century as they for sure seem to be making a revival.
Here is a clip from Burt's site where a custormer is using my exact bass bins.
http://www.bd-design.nl/index1.html
There is a whole site of people stuck in the past with horns and mostly tubes.
http://www.bd-design.nl/index1.html
This is Johnk's system who has posted on this thread.
http://www.bd-design.nl/index1.html
So Matrix in the horn world you may spend on caps but you don't need a mega powered amp. A lot use flea powered SET amps. (which is for sure on my radar)
Most of the horn guys will talk about getting rid of noise being most important. Hence my back flips over CAST as they are MADE for horns. (literally)
I would love to compare a set of old Khorns (with a modern CAST crossover) against a new set of horns. I can not say which would win but can say a set of Khorns with CAST is of NO resemblence to the vintage ones.
|
Now it explains it... Well I see where your true issues lie...
Your in need of some real electronics my friend no offense.. Your simply trying to pry some very old and distorted equipment back by now "covering it" with good filtering..and re-capping it. This includes your speakers and old vintage gear.
No doubt your cast caps are good, but the VSF's are just fine in a system with the right amps..
You need to seriously consider not wasting another 2000 to 3000 on more caps to cover up raspy horns driven by mediocre equipment to get this "Magical vintage sound"
To me it sounds that your money will definitely take you furthest with a minimum of getting PURE Class A Mono blocks Solid state or good stereo amp class A, Yes one made in this CENTURY!
I think your fighting a difficult battle on several fronts, not just reviving your old speakers or gear with all this re-capping exercise..
As for vinyl thats almost silly, not sure if your cleaning and setting up everything correctly.. As a matter of fact the Cast caps will take most vinyl to a Higher level not the other way around. Cleaning machine, good vinyl rig, and nice amps to actually drive your speakers will cost you at this point what you want in bandaid approach of capacitors!
Don't get me wrong the right mix of caps especially in the right crossover is great for really getting the most out of your system, but I think you need much more work up front if the VSF cap sounds distorted!!! Ha, thats just insane, or that speaker is really very colored being older horns. Most that do this stuff, amature or professional reading this thread I believe would agree at this point, so please save yourself before coughing up such ridiculous amounts of money on more caps when it can get you a first class system instead of all this shot in the dark hopes of re-viving more! |
Stormen the CAST are AMAZING!
They are dark and quiet when you first get them though. Also they are hard to get a handle on.
A friend was by tonight and I did not tell him which speaker had the CAST in. At first he did the same as most do. He liked the VSF. After awhile he changed to the CAST. Which makes me think we like resonance at first then once our brains can process what is going on we like prefer the low resonance.
He said it was like the speakers were "full range with the CAST and noisy with the VSF".
The downside to the CAST is and there is a downside in my mind. They will not cover up your amp or source!
I will end up getting rid of at least half my vinyl. The CAST are excellent as they are ULTRA low resonance.
The strange side effect to me is I may end up selling my turntable not because there is anything wrong with the Lp12 but the CAST have revealed that my vinyl is MUCH more worn than I thought.
What the CAST have shown me is maybe vinyl is not the way to go at this level. My very good vinyl sounds fantastic! My less than good vinyl is torn to shreds by the CAST.
There is no hiding and pretending that the vinyl is Ok.
My Karik has finally quit opening so I have only an old CD player and the CAST tears it to shreds as a piece of garbage. (which it is!)
For horn speakers (which is of course what mine are) the CAST are miles better! The VSF sound all washed out by comparison. Everyone who has heard them wondered if the speaker with the VSF was broken! No kiddding.
The CAST tilt the sound downward by the MASSIVE reduction in noise. So if you get CAST be expecting that because you will get it. It speaks volumes that given a choice with one speaker on VSF tweeters and one on CAST I am very content to always listen to the CAST.
I agree with Stormen and although I have not traded the VSF's away I can easily see why one would consider them one of the biggest upgrades one could do going from VSF to CAST. Who would have thought??? Not me!
So much for the theory of dimishing returns.
Another interesting thing is many say horns do not have bass. I think by nature horns amplify sound. Since most noise is in the high freq the horn will exagerate that freq. So the horns sound like lack of bass. The CAST through the huge reduction in noise change the tonal balance down. The CAST have given a side benefit and that is correcting a weakness in my speakers.
I am going to have to hear Burt's modern horns. (not buying anything soon but am curious)
I feel the CAST tweeter caps very good value but the midrange with out hearing it that is a lot of coin! For my speakers it would be $2200 plus tax and shipping for mid range caps. Silver CAST would be $15k for the pair! Holy Crap!
After hearing CAST I must admit it would be haunting to know how much noise they get rid of and putting coin some where else in the system. If your caps are noisy (and even VSF are noisy) how can you get the most out of your system?
I want to thank everyone who has helped along the way.
After looking at those CAST prices I do not want to even contemplate. I am going to put one CAST and one VSF in the tweeters and finish the rebuild and wrap this up.
I am moving on to tweaking up the amp and maybe a top notch digital front end and no vinyl. Maybe.
Thanks for all the help! |
Volleyguy,
Yes, arent the CAST just fantastic? I was shocked myself
I consider them the best upgrade I have ever done.
Happy listening. |
My experience is that with these ultra low noise caps...they are real sensitive to power quality. Maybe a hard wired component will suffice....but I have converted all my vintage to IEC 3 prong receptacles. I would not use a hard wired component....Now Mac users would disagree but with my vintage Accuphase....made me a beleiver... |
Thanks Dave. Those new SET's are looking better.
Thanks Wavetrader good review. A Fisher adventure is not what I am looking for?! The only upside is replacing caps that are almost 45 or 50 years old is not a waste. Of course this lowers the value of the amp not raises it. The 500c is for livingroom anyway and I do not like the way it sounds so not a waste.
My problem is now simple too much high freq noise blocking enjoyment. When you have a amp that is pitch black and you can hear around a instruement that is addictive! |
Here's another cap shootout....I agree totaly about the BG's and the Nichicon...as far as the Elna's I haven't tried the cerafine or silmic's yet. Recapping a Fisher will be a adventure... http://highend.projektas.lt/?tipstricks/6 |
I wouldn't pay too much attention to that URL. Perhaps the results were application-specific-- who knows what quality of other parts were in his test preamp or what compensations he needed in a filtering cap. I've used Elna Silmic(admittedly original non-II version), BG, Nichicon, and Rubycon ZL interchangeably in the PS of highly modified CDP. I would turn his list almost upside down. The Rubycon ZLs he places at the bottom of his list, particularly when placed in parallel arrays, surpassed Elna in my set-up and were approximate to BG NP. The Panasonics are also very well respected with tube DIYers. I would not be critical, had I not heard for myself how good the Rubys sound in a high end application. |
Now that I have found out what crossover caps can do I am replacing the electrolytic caps in the old Fishers. They are far too noisy in my opinion. I have found a review on electrolytic caps. I want to push these Duelund's to the limit and need as quiet as possible amp.
Any comments? One seems to take almost a Duelund view with silk.
http://tech.juaneda.com/en/articles/electrolyticcapacitors.html
http://www.elna-america.com/tech_audio_series.php |
Stormen did mention the break in with CAST being dark. He thought and so does Duelund that the break in was around 17 days?
For me the CAST came exactly when the cap went so a change of amps. It was VERY disorientating. The CAST is a bigger change from VSF's than ANY other cap I tried (except maybe from the worn out vintage tweeter caps)
A fundemental change for my speakers the Lascala's are known to be bass shy. They are NOT. They seem it because of the horn design amplifies all noise. So the mid and highs noise tend to give less bass.
I will be spending the money in the future to replace my VSF's for CAST for the tweeters. (I have one of each) It is THAT big.
Every person who has heard the speakers is confused as I was at first. The reaction of everyone seems to be pick the more resonating caps first then after a period of time they all switch to less resonating and can't believe the difference.
Same thing again yesterday by the guys buying the Linn speakers.
Duelund warned of break in with CAST and DO expect it. To me they are VERY dark at first like they are masking something after awhile you realize (and they open up) that they are a HUGE reduction in noise.
Listening to Sinatra yesterday the violins were much stronger out the CAST while background wayyy quieter.
The downside to this? Maybe a top notch digital front end is the only way to go. The caps have a much lower sound floor than vinyl might be capable of. Don't get me wrong it sounds astonishing but you have no doubt when you have worn vinyl on. |
Stormen you are not kidding. When I first put the CAST in I thought something was wrong?
Leaves you confused. I never thought the VSF's noisy?
I am still trying to assess this. I never in a million years thought this much difference.
What frustrates me is I keep going back to one speaker with the one with CAST tweeter caps. The problem is I will have to go one VSF and one CAST.
Which one first? The CAST or the VSF?
I am ticked now I did not wait for the CAST mid caps!
The difference (to me) is almost as big as from vintage to VSF.
The VSF's smear a lot! I can not believe this. You really under played the difference before I bought these. I understand why as never good to get someone hopes up to high. So did Burt. I see why he uses these in his horn speakers. He thought it not to be the same kind of jump as from vintage I am not so sure! They give my speakers MUCH better freq range. They take out a drone. Funny I noticed the same thing when the VSF's went in. The midrange drone went way down.
If Tony does not give these a 15 I will be shocked! They are out of the league of the VSF's. I was all hyped up before I got them expecting to get into some ideal condition to hear the difference. I never thought it was going to be massive.
I keep saying to myself these make the VSF's sound like the vintage did in comparison to the VSF's. The difference is THAT big!
My rating is if VSF's are 12.5/10 CAST is at least 15 to 17/10! Sorry to go on like this but Wow! |
