Slowhand,
If you have already posted your speaker impressions, I missed them. I am in the market. Could you please tell me what you heard that impressed you and what disappointed you.
Thanks,
Warren |
Arkio,
You can simply replace the coupling caps with V-Caps and replace the stock pot with a DACT and you will be amazed at the improvement in your Chard. It ain't subtle!
I would love to compare my stock Chard to a stock Sauv or a Cab. I suspect it may be closer than you would expect for the price difference.
Now if the Sauv or Cab had V-Caps and a DACT as well, I'm sure it would be no contest. |
Oops, I mistakenly said my "stock Chard."
I should have said, my Chard with V-Caps, Dact and wired from the RCA input, by-passing the selector switch, straight to the DACT using gold alloy wire. |
Ethifi,
I used the CT2 (stereo) - 100K Ohm
http://www.dact.com/html/attenuators.html
It is not really hard to install. You will have to use a file to make a small slot in the attenuator hole of the Supratek chassis. The DACT has a small ear on the side of it to lock it in place in the chassis. As I recall, I think all I had to do to get the DACT to fit was to file a notch in the side of the hole for the DACT ear to fit through. I don't think I had to enlarge the hole, but I can't remember for sure. Either way, it wasn't really hard.
The soldering was rather straight forward. You simply need to make sure you solder the right leads to the right pins. Very little soldering to do, just take your time and be careful. The DACT pins seem somewhat fragile.
The only downside to the 100K Ohm attenuator is I can only turn the DACT up 2 or 3 clicks before things get too loud for my 98db speakers. However, I am changing speakers to a much less efficient speaker so the problem will be a non-issue soon. |
Ethifi,
There is no doubt that the`V-Caps made the biggest difference. However, I did the DACT first and months later did the V-Caps, so I am sure I heard more of the V-Caps due to the added clarity of the DACT. Had I done the V-Caps first maybe the difference wouldn't have been so great. But in the order I did the mods, the V-Caps made a huge difference. |
As much as I respect Mick's work, my ears strongly disagree with him on the V-Cap upgrade. The difference was immediately apparent the instant I fired my Chardonnay back up. And I don't mean by a small margin. I think there are others here who installed the V-Caps after I posted my results and I think they had the same impression I did. I went from the Auricap to Mundorfs which was a nice improvement, but the improvement from the Mundorf to the V-Cap was substantial. There is no doubt in my mind that the leap from the Auricap to the V-Cap would be huge, unless the Auricaps have been changed since I used them. V-Caps are now used in many of the highest-end crossovers, amps, preamps, etc. and the reports from listeners and manufacturers alike are all the same. The V-Caps are stunningly better.
To be honest, I think Mick simply tries to discourage owners from modding his preamps because I am sure they can be easily screwed up. I have read anecdotal reports of modded Suprateks for sale that apparently sounded like crap. Ultimately, the blame falls on the Supratek name and not on the person or modder who screwed things up. So if I were Mick I would also recommend leaving the preamp in it's stock form.
As far as which caps and what values to change, the coupling caps are the ones to change. Sorry I can't give you the values in your particular preamp because Mick may have changed the values in the Chardonnay since I purchased mine several years ago. It should be easy enough to look on the Auricaps and discern the values. |
As an aside, Audience is now making a Teflon cap that they advertise here on the 'Gon as the "fastest cap ever made".
Either Audience realized that the V-Caps are far superior to their own Auricaps and they were getting killed in the marketplace or they just wanted to make more money on a new Teflon cap from knuckleheads like me who think they can here a big difference in the Teflon V-Cap :) |
Slowhand,
No, I would not say the V-Caps changed the tonality of the Supratek in my experience.
Yes, I would say the V-Caps are considerably more detailed. That does not mean analytical and cold, but rather much more invisible. It seems to me that whatever the signal is in front of the V-Caps, it comes through much more pure. If you have warmth in the signal path prior to the V-Caps, you will get a cleaner, less congested warmth and I am sure if your system is cooler or more analytical, you will get a purer sense of that, as well.
I think "invisible" more accurately describes the V-Cap. |
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you Tom!
May you find much joy and happiness in the true meaning of Christmas during this holiday season and in the year to come.
Aloha,
Warren |
Not my experience at all with V-caps. I love them, but who am I to argue with Mick.
I find the V-caps get rid of a lot of fuzz. Yes, they do seem increase detail, but I would rather describe them as more invisible. And don't forget, the upstream components have a lot to do with what one may hear from their Supratek.
As much as I respect Mick, he is one opinion. There are a lot of high-end manufacturers that have gone exclusively to V-caps.
So I guess to each his own, but I can't stand the fuzz of the Auricaps nor the haze of the Alps pots. I believe both components add a more diffuse sound to my Supratek and I don't like it. I prefer cystal clear detail that is still musical. And I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive. If the V-caps were brittle or harsh in my system I would take them out in a heartbeat (since I was the one who put them in). I just haven't found V-caps to be a negative in any way in my system. But I do have a Forsell Air Reference Transport (noted for it's analog sound) and an Audio Note DAC in front of my Supratek.
Clearly, the system as a whole has to be viewed in the context of what one component may do to the sound. If your system is smooth, I believe V-caps will give you more smooth, if there is any harshness anywhere in your system, I believe V-caps will help expose that. YMMV |
Here's what I don't get. It seems that some here think that one shouldn't change caps, pots or even tubes in Suprateks simply because, "Mick didn't build 'em that way."
I think that is just so much nonsense. As much as I respect Mick's work, he's not God. I clearly happen to disagree with him on the DACT and the V-Caps. That's okay with me that we disagree, I still respect his opinion, I just have a different one.
Ralph Karsten of Atma-Sphere also has a different opinion. He offers an expensive cap UPGRADE on his preamps to guess what ... V-Caps and I think Ralph has a pretty good reputation in the business.
I find it ironic that while some believe that Mick's preamps "shouldn't be tinkered with", Mick offers this on his website:
"The Cabernet Single uses 6SN7 and 101D tubes , but can also be ordered with your favorite DHT tube. Choose from the 45,300B or 101D (standard) or if you would like to hear the lush smooth tones of a genuine 1930's NOS tube we can supply the single with 6SN7 and 33 tubes..."
Well, what the hey! That's some major tinkering.
To some it's heresy and just short of a crime to change to a cleaner, clearer, better defined, more musical cap (V-Cap or Mundorf) or better attenuator (DACT) because, "That's not the one Mick uses." However, I'd bet these same people would find it perfectly okay to change to a 45, 300B, 101D or a lush 33 all in the same preamp simply because Mick says it's okay on his website!
Hey, sorry for the rant, but it's silly to think that four different tubes can be chosen for the same preamp to alter the sound to one's preference, but heaven forbid one should change a stock tube, cap or pot!
Don't get me wrong. I think Mick's preamps are works of art, but I'm still going to trust my own ears no matter who may have a different opinion. |
Don't feed the monster. It only encourages off-topic posts when we respond to the irrelevant intrusions. |
Zachzdb,
I think everyone here would welcome comparisons of the Supratek to any other preamp if the poster has actually compared the two, but to just come in and try to hijack the thread by rambling about another product is a different kettle of fish. |
Stevem1960,
Did you just have deja vu?
Wasn't this cap rolling link just discussed, with you participating, just a little higher in this thread?
I don't get it. |
Stevem,
I guess this is why I am confused.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1016931418&openflup&3285&4#3285
The link that you provided is the exact same link we all discussed last time. You actually posted in the cap rolling discussion that several of us were engaged as a result of the article.
Memory is the second thing to go :) |
Thanks for the good times Mick! Best of luck to you. If you are half as good with grapes as you are with preamps, the wine wiil be world class. |
Throw a little red meat on the ground and watch the dogs run in.
As a business owner myself, I can tell you horror stories about customers who completely make up stories to support their own self-interest. Just last night we had dinner with another couple who also own a local business and we were telling war stories about customers we have had to deal with. It is truly unbelievable to hear what human beings are capable of when it comes to the truth. Prior to owning a business, I would have never believed half the stories I have heard from other business owners if it weren't for the fact that I have experienced mind-boggling whoppers in my business.
At this point we know nothing but Maril555's side of the story. From personal experience, I can guarantee you that there is another side that may possibly paint a very different picture.
The truth is that there are many, many happy Supratek owners who have had nothing but glowing experiences with Mick and the sound of his preamps. More often than not, I tend to go with the odds and in this case, the odds are over-whelming in Mick's favor based on the entirety of this thread. Does that mean that Maril555 is lying? No, but until a few others chime in here to offset the over-whelming numbers of satisfied owners, I'm going to give Mick the benefit of the doubt.
And to the Asylum thread knocking the internal layout of Micks preamp, I would venture to guess a good percentage of them have never heard a Supratek. Just look at their comments about how a Supratek couldn't possibly survive shipping or about how noisy a Supratek would have to be. Well, they are clearly wrong on both counts, but the facts don't matter to them. The only thing that matters is their own self-interest (read: manufacturers whose products got their clocks cleaned by Suprateks) or the others who blather-about online because, like Zack Mayo, they have "no place to go". |
Maril,
What?
You're not to be questioned?
How was Pjwd disrespectful? His post was clever and succinct, but not disrespectful. It sounds like you've spent too much time convincing yourself and probably your patients that you are special. Relax. Doctor or not, you ain't special and no one here is impressed.
Pjwd makes the excellent point; how did sibilance turn into coloration all of a sudden? Those are two completely different diseases.
And it begs the question that if a doctor caught "syphilance" from Supratek once, why would he possibly go back to the same well two more times?
--------------------------------
What's the difference between God and a doctor?
Answer: God doesn't think he's a doctor! |
Glad you're enjoying the Mundorfs, Jeff |
I have been auditioning new interconnects and in the process I was forced to move my Chardonnay due to differing IC lengths which forced me into a new quest for isolation for my preamp.
What a fortunate turn of events. I previously had my Chardonnay on DH Labs ceramic cones, points down, sitting on a Neuance platform. I have been fighting an upper mid-range glare that I suspected was coming from my Berning ZH270 amp. Frankly, I didn't suspect that my Supratek was the culprit.
On my Chardonnay, I had the DH Labs cones attached to the underside of my chassis with two cones mounted beside the screws where the original feet were installed and one cone in center-rear of the chassis. Initially, I removed the Neuance and replaced it with a Lexan shelf supported four Herbies Tenderfeet, one under each corner of the Lexan. I placed my Chardonnay back into the system and the imaging immediately became much tighter by removing the Neuance shelf.
I then decided to cut another 1/2" thick Lexan shelf and I placed it on top of a piece of bubble wrap, sandwiching the bubble wrap between the two sheets of Lexan. Wow, much more clarity and better imaging still. The mid-range glare was still present so I decided to move the cones in front of the unit out to the very edges of my preamp underneath the wooden frame of the unit. Much better yet.
On a lark I decided to turn the front DH Labs points ups beneath the wooden frame and now things really popped into place. Midrange glare still present, but the imaging and clarity were magnitudes better. I then moved the center-rear DH cone to one rear rail, adding a fourth cone to the other rear rail, making it one cone under each corner of the wooden frame. What I immediately concluded was the metal plate on the bottom on the preamp was a source of fuzzy imaging (which escaped me before) and also the source of the slight upper mid-range glare in my system.
I have concluded that using the bottom plate for support with either the stock feet or with cones is a major mistake in my system. I did find however that using cones under the four corners of the wooden frame imparted a very analytical quality that became too much of a good thing. I subsequently replaced one cone beneath the rear-center of my preamp; point up on the very rear edge of the unit with a Herbies Big Fat Dot between the tip of the cone and the plate on the bottom of the preamp. This brought the warmth back to the music without losing any of the clarity and focus. It was a home run solution in my system.
I will spare you all of the experiments in between with maple blocks, metal cones, damping materials, etc. that I tried in between the "home run" recipe and my initial Neuance setup. In the end, anything added or subtracted to my home run recipe was a step backwards.
Incredible clarity, separation of massed violins, separation of voices, even more holographic imaging and a more expansive soundstage in all directions are the results of my experiment. If you are like me and are constantly looking for that bell-like clarity without the often associated sterility, I would highly recommend experimenting with getting your Supratek off of the stock feet or any other type of foot that rests on the bottom plate of the unit. Try the edges of the wooden frame for isolation and see if you get similar results. I can't believe the sheer amount of information I am hearing now compared to before.
I do realize from earlier posts in this thread that some like the more romantic, diffuse sound of the stock Supratek unit. (Not me - I installed V-Caps and a DACT attenuator which removed a great deal of the diffuse imaging and haze in my unit.) So, if you are happy with the way your Supratek sounds, leave my isolation ideas in the dustbin of history. If however, you feel like experimenting, I hope you enjoy similar results in the end. I do have some Sorbothane coming from McMaster Carr that I am going to substitute for the bubble wrap as an experiment. After reading the Sorbothane website and their design "guide", I realize that I have used the wrong implementation of Sorbothane in the past. If anyone has any further interest in the Sorbothane results, I will post them here.
(To make it easier to follow my final recipe, I will recap it here for simplicity.)
On top of my Salamander Synergy cabinet is:
four Herbies Tenderfeet, followed by-
a 1/2" Lexan shelf, followed by-
a sheet of bubble wrap, followed by-
another 1/2" Lexan shelf, followed by-
two DH Labs Cones, points up beneath the very front corners of the wooden frame of the preamp and one DH Labs cone, point up, in the center of the back of the unit on the very edge of the metal frame/plate. Between the point of the cone and the bottom of the metal plate is a Herbies Big Fat Dot
(By the way, I have all of my components on a Lexan shelf now with Herbies Tenderfeet beneath the four corners and Lexan has given me the best results yet of any isolation material I have tried. My other components did not respond to the *additional* isolation tweaks of my Âhome run recipe like the Supratek did. |
Snopro, I tried iso-cups previously and they weren't as good as the cones, but that was using them under the metal plate. I currently use them under my amp, but I may have to try them under my preamp now that I have changed my preamp isolation setup. |
Jtgofish,
LOL.
I'm not asking anyone to believe it. Just relating my experience.
If you have a Supratek, easy enough to experiment.
And I think my sonic memory is good enough to last about 5 minutes from one change of footing to the next. Chair in the exact same spot. Exact same music cuts that I have listened to a hundred times.
The difference has been rather significant. And if you know the chassis design of the Supratek, it makes a lot of sense if you think about it.
But I don't expect you to take my word for it. It's easy enough to try.
And believe me, I am not one that falls easily to Audio Nervosa. If I clearly hear a difference, I will say so. On the other hand, I don't try to kid myself either if it's not obvious in my system, no matter how much everyone else is raving about something, I trust my own ears.
As an example, I just auditioned the much hyped Synergistic Research Apex and Precision Reference ICs in my system. The Audio Metallurgy ICs that I have been using were better in every respect except the mid-bass and there it was still close. That's $6,000 ICs against $400 worth of ICs. I can easily afford the SR ICs and if they were better, even modestly so, I would purchase them. But they weren't in my system. Regardless of what the over-whelming consensus has been in the Synergistic thread.
I realize many guys from the Synergistic thread here will find it inconceivable that I found the AM cables better, but once again, that was my experience. I have auditioned a lot of gear in the last couple of years and I haven't made that many changes. I try very hard not to let myself be fooled by the hype of reviews or the popular opinions here that seem to often to be nothing more than hype or Audio Nervosa.
If someone constantly posts positive results about everything new that they audition, (and there are many here who do) that simply sends up a red flag to me. I find it laughable that every 3-6 months some here move on to new components or cables. To me, that's a sign of someone who easily falls prey to Audio Nervosa...and trust me, I ain't one of them.
Think about it, how often to you see guys post to a thread like the Synergistic thread that the "newest and latest and greatest" cable design is "jaw droppng". Well, search their posts and you will see a pattern that EVERYTHING they try turns out to be stunning. If it's a new component or cable, it always turns out to be better. And I believe that's simply nonsense.
So back to the topic at hand. If you have a Supratek, play around with it. It may or may not work in your system, but it is a rather cheap experiment. But more importantly, first examine the chassis of the Supratek and I think you may find rational reasons why the thin, poorly supported metal plate on the bottom of the chassis may be a terrible base to support the preamp to begin with. Simply tap the bottom plate and listen to it vibrate. |
Jeff, you might try Lexan first. There are some high-end companies that make isolation products who use Lexan as their material of choice.
If you can't find it nearby, I will cut you a couple of 1/2" shelves to try under your Supratek. I have plenty to spare. |
Jtgofish,
"If you have to make physical changes which take more than about 20 seconds you cannot recall accurately the sound prior to the change.That is as long as our sonic memory lasts.
You are just being silly or you have terrible hearing.
By memory I can tell you on any number of cuts where exactly in the soundstage that the guitars, cymbals, typanis, voices, etc. are located with perfect accuracy in relation to the furniture, paintings, windows, speakers, etc. in my room. And I suspect most members here can do the same thing with their systems with music they are intimately familiar with.
Oftentimes a cable change, component change or speaker placement change will definitely alter the soundstage placement of instruments or voices that a three-year-old would notice. And if your system requires that you need to keep your head in a vice because the sound changes that dramatically; you need to rethink your choice of speakers -
"And as I said shifting your head position is likely to change what you hear so unless you have some sort of head clamp then you cannot asses changes properly either."
I would not argue that my aural memory may not be able to recognize or differentiate tonality or pitch changes very readily after a time, but I suspect many musicians might be able to due to their trained ear.
But I can assure you that the glare that was present before changing my preamp isolation is now virtually inaudible. Things like soundstage width, heigth, depth, muddy bass, glare, brightness, etc. all can be easily remembered from one listening session to another. Are you really trying to tell me that you don't think you could recognize glare, hardness, brightness (or however you would describe it) and then not hear the difference if it was absent?
A classic example of aural memory is the accepted "truth" by virtually all accounts that most systems sound better at night due to cleaner power. If we couldn't remember more than 20 seconds how our systems sound then we would never have the experience that our systems sound better at night. We simply couldn't remember the more dry, flat presentation of the daytime as compared to night.
And if you can't remember how a system sounds longer than 20 seconds, you may as well by a Bose surround system and be content. Using the 20 second rule, you should be able to play your current system and 20 seconds later play the Bose system and not tell them apart assuming volume levels are the same.
Hey, I'm ecstatic with what I am hearing since I altered my preamp isolation. If I am simply delusional, so be it. I'll just continue to enjoy my delusion. |
Maril, if I criticized you unfairly at any point for your characterization of your Supratek, my apologies.
Prior to my most recent posts, I never suspected that the glare I heard in my system was from my Supratek. I assumed based on the posts of another member here who complained of glare from his Berning that the glare I was hearing was coming from my ZH270 also. He sold his Berning due to this reported glare.
I continued to chase the glare in my Berning with tube changes, power cords, isolation efforts, etc. all to no avail only to discover my Berning wasn't the source of any glare.
The good news is the glare from the bottom plate support of the Supratek was easily remedied and I can't believe the difference. Listening for hours is a pure joy now. The frustration that I experienced trying to the rememdy problem is now just a forgotten memory (ooops, what am I thinking - my memory isn't longer than 20 seconds anyway :)
(Oh, and one more thing. Now I realize that by installing the DACT attenuator and the V-Caps I only exacerbated the glare since my Chardonnay became much more transparent, open and detailed with the modifications.) Now that glare is no longer a problem, I consider the DACT and V-Caps a major benefit with the additional clarity and detail they impart.
|
