Let me be clear that I do not advocate substituting one tube type for another when the two are of different types, like 12AX7 vs 12AU7. To do that you have also to be willing and able to change resistors and/or capacitors to suit the new tube choice. I was referring to choices a designer makes. Sorry if I was unclear.
|
Lalitk, upon re-reading your “drive” statement, I now see that it should have been obvious to me what you meant. My bad. As far as tube rolling goes, and I’ve written this many times here, keep in mind that tubes age and can change character, even get noisier, as they age. Especially in the first 50-100 hours. So what you fall in love with on day 1 may not be lasting, and two, having spent big bucks on a rare or selected tube, we all have an expectation bias that inevitably colors one’s judgement. No one is immune to that. What I do agree with is selecting the best possible tube for a given job. This means for example don’t use a 12AX7 as a cathode follower if you expect it to drive even a middling load, and don’t use a 12AU7 for gain. There are several inherently better sounding tube types with near identical electrical parameters, no matter what exotic brand of 12AU7/ECC82 one cares to name. Unfortunately there are many preamps and amplifiers that commit one or both of those sins.
|
12AX7s provide plenty of gain but actually not much "drive". Drive is a term associated usually with current output, and the 12AX7 is puny in that department. In any case, gain is what you need and what you get with a 12AX7. Just as well you did not find a Leben; nice as the Leben may sound, it does not have enough gain even for a low-ish output MM or typical "high output" MI (which usually makes about half the output V of a typical MM). It’s fine for a cartridge with at least 5mV output and provided you also use a linestage with added gain. For a typical LOMC cartridge, even with a SUT, the Leben is problematic.
|
On the Black Swan, the capacitor loading switch on the right (per the photo on the website) is labeled in uF (microfarads). That means if you select 0.22, for example, you are loading the cartridge with 220,000 picofarads (10 to the -12 Farads). There is no way that would be advisable for any type of cartridge, so I assume the label of the control is just wrong OR that is not a control for phono load. The capacitor load selector on the left makes sense for an MM type. Also, with all the gain options, it's too bad that 60db is the max phono gain for an MC, and I am kind of curious why so many load options for MM, but no 47K option, although 50K is close enough.
|
Atmasphere, Since your MP1 is inherently a high gain phono section with no need for a SUT, when have you heard it with a SUT? I know there is an option to convert the dual differential cascode input stage into a simpler dual differential input stage, in order to reduce phono gain. Was it in such a set-up that you then inserted a SUT?
|
Atmasphere, I know that Raul is not the engineer of the Essential phonopreamps, I never felt the need to point that out. But I think he is the motive force behind their existence and the design philosophy (dual mono, balanced circuit, very clean PS, etc). Nor has Raul ever claimed to be an EE or a designer of the gear. I also "feel" that the 3160 is the first SS phono/linestage that ever made me forget I am listening to SS. Dare I say it's very similar in SQ to my modified MP1 (which might upset Raul but which I mean as a compliment). I love them both. As you know, this is coming from a tube OTL guy. This is purely a subjective judgement made driving my modified Atmasphere amplifiers into my modified Sound Lab PX845s. Granted also that I have never had an uber-expensive SS preamplifier in my home system.
|
Raul, I never owned a Supex. I heard it at my neighbor’s house when he first bought it, probably in 1974-5. I was not impressed, and it was a few more decades before I ever bought an LOMC cartridge, after having experimented unhappily with HOMCs. By the time you initiated your thread on MM cartridges, I was operating in the belief that LOMC cartridges were tops. Thanks for stimulating me to re-think the cartridge issue.
|
dogberry, "I'm just a gal [guy] who can't say no", so I will acquiesce. I was going strictly on my musical memory of that show. Actually, this morning in the twilight of wakening, I wondered whether the lyric was "cowhand", rather than "cowman". Cowhand is more likely correct. Curly had issues. Anyway, the corn here is as high as an elephant's eye.
|
Guys who favor SETs often use SUTs, in my experience. Maybe it's about the similar acronyms. Anyway, I apologize for questioning your logic. I started 50 years ago by realizing I love ESLs, then worked backward from the speakers to what amplifier drives them best, and etc.
|
Never seen a Modwright phono stage, inside or outside. I am guessing you think it is more complex than an Aric MM stage, about which I also know nothing.
|
I think that's a direct quote from "Oklahoma", music by Rodgers and Hammerstein.
|
The farmer and the cowhand can be friends.
|
Keep in mind that I have chosen to use high gain phono stages for LOMC cartridges, but not based on principle, based on listening to the particular phono stages I've chosen.
flattire, I am not sure what is your point in saying you will choose an MM phono stage plus SUT over your Modwright as a form of "simplification". Were you using the Modwright with no SUT previously, owing to its high gain? If so, I fail to understand why the conversion to an MM phono stage plus SUT can be viewed as a simplification. You may prefer it, and all that, but why is it simpler?
|
I think I posted earlier that the first time I became aware of MC cartridges was in the mid 70s, when the Supex cartridge came into the US market. The problem was that few of the existing phono stages had sufficient gain. Within no more than a year of the introduction of the Supex, Mark Levinson (and John Curl) introduced the first ML product, the JC1, which was a pre-preamplifier or "head amp". It was a little solid state box that simply added gain to boost the output of the Supex and I suppose other LOMCs that may have already been available. In my memory, living in Connecticut at the time, I had not yet heard or read about any SUT, but I am sure that the Japanese were ahead of us in that department, at that time. ML was just a kid then based in Woodbridge, CT, outside New Haven where I grew up. That’s the way I remember it. The Supex was highly praised by TAS and Harry Pearson. When later I heard one, I thought it was mediocre at best, certainly not as good as my favorite MM and MI cartridges, at that time.
I have never owned a SUT, but I have heard some systems of very high quality that incorporated SUTs, really good ones designed and built by Dave Slagle of EMIA, that were very satisfying. Nothing to criticize there.
|
Someday when you have a moment, read up on the trade-offs associated with using a transformer to increase signal voltage. In this thread alone, others have alluded to colorations related to the choice of wire used to wind the transformer, bandwidth limitation particularly in the bass which is just in the nature of an audio transformer, and distortion due to hysterisis and core saturation, not to mention the issues of impedance matching. There is no free lunch. If SUTs were perfect, they would all sound the same, and there would be no need to spend big bucks for a well engineered one.
|
I can’t think of anything nice to say to either of you but particularly to Pinhead. So I will say nothing.
|
Yes, you got me. I am in cahoots with Raul to tout the Essential 3160, of which there were maybe a dozen ever made and which were all sold out 5-10 years ago. Lalitk, I am surprised at you. I brought up the 3160 in response to your own question asking whether I/we knew of any other phono stage that incorporates separate discrete circuits for MM and MC cartridges. Furthermore, you are engaged in a quest for a new phono stage by virtue of this thread. To accuse one who responds to your thread of "product placement" (parroting one of Pindac's tortured metaphors) by naming one candidate unit, which you correctly noted is perhaps too unobtainable to be considered, is kind of a double-cross. I also named the DSA phono III; was that also a cynical example of product placement?
Pindac, you wrote, "As stated for myself 'I am not part of a Covert Advertisement Strategy or hoaxed into a Product Shill' ". You are certainly not either of those things. You are usually blowing smoke instead.
|
What would anyone here thank you for, Pindac? In most cases, you reveal nothing about whatever it is you are praising, as above, and by revealing no names or details of the product, no one here can benefit from either knowledge of it or the purchase of it. Perhaps the audiophiles in your immediate circle in the UK do benefit and would have reason to thank you for bringing a phono stage, a tonearm, a cartridge, a speaker, or whatever it may be, to their attention. I do see that you invited inquiries. OK. I am hereby inquiring. Please tell me more about the new phono stage. If there are proprietary secrets, just tell me, and others, as much as you can without violating any confidentiality agreement.
|
I think Raul here quotes the words of Huber from FM Acoustics, not touting his own products. So relax.
|
Was it stolen, or did you lose $11K between buying it and later selling it? If the latter, as I am sure you realize, audio gear is not a good way to invest. Also, if you choose carefully and like what you buy, you will keep it for many years. Those many years of listening pleasure are compensation for any long term cost of ownership. In any case, you cannot lose $11K, if you pay $4K (what I paid for mine) or less (if you believe Pindac) for an Essential 3160, and a DSA phono III can also be had used for less than $11K, I would think.
Wait! I thought of a third possibility for how you could have lost $11K. The unit malfunctioned and because it was "boutique" or a one-off, you could not get it serviced. Is that it? If so, neither the 3160 nor the phono III fall into that category. Good service is available on both.
|
One never knows, does one? I hadn’t mentioned the Essential 3160 previous to your question about what stage has separate MM and MC circuits, because of its rarity. But if you can find one, I can recommend it very highly. Actually, Raul may be able to help you acquire one, from someone who is moving "up" to the 3180. Another company that makes phono stages with multiple separate RIAA circuits is DSA. Their Phono III, which offers not one, not two, but three discrete RIAA circuits that can operate in balanced or unbalanced mode and with very flexible gain set separately for each circuit. Nothing tops that for flexibility. I heard an early version in my home courtesy of Doug Hurlburt, the designer. Very good.
|
My point was merely to correct you as regards the current exchange rate between pound and dollar. First, you estimated that a used Essential 3160 can be found for $2500, and then you estimated you could find one in the UK for only 1200 GBP, which is much less than $2500. US$2500 is more like 1950 GBP. I now see that you simply mis-estimated the exchange rate. There is also a question whether the 3160 can run on 240V. Possibly it can do so; I think there is a switch on the rear of the PS chassis or inside the PS chassis, for that, but maybe not.
No matter what most of us say, most of us (including you and I) at least occasionally fall into the trap of equating cost with level of performance, which is nearly always misleading if not plain wrong.
|
1.2K GBP is about $1.5K these days.
|
"Modernize" the 3160? The original is barely 10-15 years old. Not much has happened in audio electronics in those years. In fact, the bipolar transistor that Raul et al use in the MC gain stage is out of production and was not replaced by anything as good or better for the purpose, probably because transistor evolution is not motivated by the design and build of phono stages. To tube-ify it would be an absurd notion. Let me know if you find one for sale in the UK for 1200 GBP.
|
Pindac, Please show me where to buy an Essential 3160 for $2500. I see that there was one on US Audiomart for $3K and sold. I'd actually consider a second unit. They are quite rare, probably more rare than a Vendetta by John Curl.
|
Lalitk Yes, Raul’s 3160 (which I own) and his current 3180 phonolinepreamp both contain entirely separate and discrete MM and MC stages. The 3160 is the finest SS phono stage I’ve ever heard in my home. And the 3180 is said to be better. Both are dual mono and true balanced designs as well. And as the name implies, a built in balanced linestage is part of the package. So the phonolinepreamps are not “just” a pair of phono stages that differ in gain.
|
I cannot think of any phono stage that does not operate in Class A. It should not be a bragging point, but manufacturers do it anyway.
|
What Raul says is correct to the best of my knowledge. The first Levinson product was a pre-preamplifier, a small active gain box to boost the output of any newly arrived LOMC cartridge in order to drive a phono stage, at a time when all phono stages were designed for MM or high output MI cartridges, and there may have been a SUT on the market, probably in Japan, but they were rare in the US. I think JC designed that unit, and Mark Levinson marketed it. This was around 1975. The advent of the ML JC1 (I think that was the designation) was timed to coincide with the introduction of Supex cartridges in the US, an early LOMC.
John Curl is highly regarded because of the Vendetta phono stage and for a part in developing the CTC Blowtorch phono stage, neither of which I have ever heard. Both of them are rare and very costly if you can find one. I have heard some of his other stuff. The amplifiers are great. The small signal stuff is meh, in my opinion.
|
Scar, now that you’ve provided more detail in your past history, I would say you have about as much data as many of us have to support our convictions. At some point one wants to stop experimenting and move on to other audio dilemmas. But after I found that some of my most closely guarded biases did not hold up to new experiences, my motto has become never say never.
|
scar972, Your thinking is a good example of faulty audiophile thinking. Because you bought one SUT and compared it (evidently) to one high gain phono stage, you are drawing a universal conclusion that SUTs are superior to high gain phono stages (or at least that's how it comes across). Suffice to say you like your new SUT better than your old high gain phono stage. That's fine.
|
More to the point, if you are investing in an outboard SUT, you can make the case that you don't need the H6500, because in paying for the H6500, you are buying its built in SUTs, which will become superfluous. The words that Raul quoted led me, and probably also Raul, to believe you had already purchased an H6500. What you say here suggests you borrowed one, albeit you seemed very happy with it. In my opinion, there is no trick to making a very good sounding MM phono stage these days. As a result there are many good choices, and if you select a reputable one, you almost cannot go wrong, except where your personal taste comes into play. And for personal taste, you ought not to be relying upon the opinions of a wide variety of audiophiles who own a wide variety of systems and who may hear LPs quite differently from the way you hear LPs. This may mean just take a shot at something. If you prefer the Accuphase phono section to the H6500 (and it's not entirely clear that you do feel that way), that suggests you may prefer a solid state device. Beyond that, all bets are off.
|
As Raul pointed out, you seemed delighted with the H6500 barely more than a month ago. What changed? If you can figure that out, it might help in making your next purchase, more than accumulating subjective opinions voiced by strangers on audiophile websites.
|
What do the sales data say? Do Allnic components sell used at a bigger discount off the retail cost, compared to other major high end brands?
|
Why do you say Allnic has poor resale value? Not based on my perusal of the for sale ads here. I guess it depends upon how you define "poor".
|
