Dear friends: Final stage/step on the SR20 fuses " film/picture ".
I changed the four ML fuses ( these ones in the internal power supply stages. ). To make this task I have to open the ML amplifiers ( take out two face plates. ) because there is no acess from the top of the ML.
This could be an " easy " task on normal system ampliifers set up but my ML's are hard wired input to output at both " sides ": signal and electrical, so it is not an easy task to do it and in the other side I have to make it by my self ( stand alone. ) when each monoblock has a weight over 40kgs.
Anyway, I made it and not a single doubt: worth that job, the rewards came inmmediatly.
This last step was the fourth step and in each one the audio system received benefits with unexpected improvements for the better: not different quality performance level but a better one, always.
What happened this time: well, overall distortions gone even lower given the whole system presentation a better accurate tonal balance, transparency, better dynamics and an unherad before music detail at micro and macro levels. Both extremes of the frequency range improves given the music the " immediacy " precense that only the live music has.
The whole experience in my today system is a really NEW experience that I never had before in any of several audio systems I heard.
The level of neutrality ( near cero distortions/degradations. ) of the system is just astonishing and if you are not accustom at this very REAL kind of audio system experience maybe you could think something is wrong down there. I say this because that's what I experienced and I have to " investigate " more in deep ( through more listening tests. ) what was happening there.
I invite two of my nearest audio friends that have " difficult " ears to satisfy ( each one in different time. ). In both cases they were surprised why the quality system performance level was " degraded ", why my before system losted its " live " its sparkle performance level.
In fact nothing was losted but distortions, every music nuances are there but in a new dimension in a more real dimension in a more " live " dimension.
Today if you listen to the Nardis track on the P.Barber Cafe Blue where through the track the cymbals sound from the left side of the stage are really " busy " once and again there are times where what you heard on those cymbals grooves are a very alive smearing sound that impose to the music performance a grade of " dynamics " that we can take as " alive ". Normaly through those cymbals sound you are hearing " sound " from the harmonics more than the fundamentals, sometimes because the speed of each and the next strokes ( one after one. )on those cymbals and some time because the kind of smearing sound.
Today I can hear any single stroke on those cymbals and I mean: any single stroke and now the harmonics tooks definition too, palpability and not only smear. Now you can " touch " that cymbals system sound. I only heard this kind of music performance at live events.
That's only an example of what is happening. The system dynamic performance is today a lot lot better than before with lower " spark " but with higher neutral and accurate reality .
I made tests with both friends changing the fuses ( the ones that I can change fast. ) for they can take in count what was happening and to confirm what I'm relating here.
Today the natural agresiveness that has the live music is more real than ever because there is not only that agresiveness but a more neutral, precise and defined agresiveness and not only non precise defined " distorted sound ".
IMHO maybe all of you can't understand what I'm trying to explain because mayeb you never experienced but on live music events and translate that to a home system is something that I think we can't " imagine " till we hear it.
Anyway, lower distortions means more MUSIC and more MUSIC ENJOYMENT.
A lower distortions/neutral and accurate audio system permit to evaluate in a better way not only music but any single audio item as cartridges, tonearms and the like. You can have better and truer conclusions on audio item comparisons/evaluations.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Acman/Nandric: This is what I posted to Don in the page ( I think ) 178/177 about the 981s:
+++++++ " The 981 specs on the operation manual say that all the 981 came with this values: DC resistance 850 ohms and Inductance 450 mH. Well, my 981 calibrated cartridge comes with this values that are in the cartridge calibration chart signed by the man that made the cartridge calibration: DC resistance 616 ohms and Inductance 248 mH. Obviously that that cartridge calibration gives real advantages against no cartridge calibration. " ++++++ output: 0.92mv
in the other side my samples ( 981 and XVS5000 stylus replacement ), both are MK2 generation. Better than the MK1?, who knows.
Nandric, just enjoy it.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm/Dover/Richardkrebs/Frogman/friends:
First than all I respect your opinions that I agree/disagree on the TT/plynt subject.
For months/years I posted several times that no one can design/build the " perfect " TT ( obviously plynt inclusive. ) till understand that the TT can't be designed as a stand alone unit.
IMHO the TT must be designed around the LP/cartridge needs. All the TT and after market plynths ( IMHO ) were and are designed with not only no scientifc foundations but with out precise and specific LP/cartridge targets.
The use of Fourier analysys or other maths tools means almost nothing till we not have that precise and specific LP/cartridge targets to from here start the TT design that can fulfil those specific targets.
IMHO till today I never read/see/heard or the like no one no site/place/designer that told us ( customers ) that his TT design fulfil the specific LP/cartridge needs: NO ONE.
To say that we need a well damped TT, a fast disipation build materials, a low resonance design and the like means nothing till we know for example:
which kind of resonances/distortions/vibrations ( generated through the whole TT design ), at which frequency range and amplitude have an influence in the /LP/cartridge signal degradation? which kind of degradation/coloration could we hear if we don't " tame " those r/d/v? how can we " tame "/disappear those r/d/v?
this simple/plain example has several alternatives/answers almost an infinite number where independent of maths modeling ( that can't tell me how can we hear it: music " color " presentation. )we ( the designers ) must to hear to confirm or not the maths modeling results and this means to have a work team where some of their members have to build TT protoype after TT prototype till we even what the math model said it with what we heard!!!!!
But ( always exist this: " but ". ) that: " we must to hear... " means that we need a " perfect " audio system to make all those tests, we need it along determinated references to make those comparisons.
Gentlemans, the answers and solution to that " perfect " TT certainly is not a stand alone one man task even if this man is " Newton " with top Universities below his " command ".
IMHO, to make/design that " perfect " TT we need a team work full of knowledge persons experts in different areas and obviously with different proved skills. We need experts in live music, experts in reproduced sound, experts on audio systems, experts on LP/cartridge relationship, experts on maths modeling and maths tools, experts on build materials, experts on vibration control/transmision, etc, etc, etc.
Who can do it?, please name it. With all respect: any one of the today and vintage TT designs or TT plynth designs as Lewm or Porter or any one of us?
I know that almost all of us want to improve the quality performance level of what we are hearing at home but almost all of us are doing that with out specific targets and many times we make changes almost at random where sometimes works and many times does not works. We have not a scientific method.
Today, I decided ( example ) to change fuses and maybe tomorrow I will change speakers position and latteron room treatment changes and we all did and do this with foundation in our each one experiences and what we like. Yes, we have some range of advance but normally is not enough to be there.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lharasim: Do it a favor and make that your post be worth up. Right now you have nothing on hand " against " my SR20 fuse experienced statements I posted, so IMHO what you posted has no sense to me.
Make your work/job and test the SR20s in your system and then with your first hand experiences come back and post your experiences, I'm sure that you could be extremely happy to post here something like this:
++++ " Raul your SR20 statements are plain wrong and the worst fuses Itested, those SR fuses are a " piece of cheat " ++++++
and of course telling why the SR20s are that kind of " animal ".
Till you have a self SR20 experiences you have nothing on hand.
Anyway, your opinions are always welcomed.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric: I think that whom can give you/us a " definitive " answers about the Stanton subject should be Richard the author of the Stanton's bible.
We all appreciated if you could contact him on the subject through the lencoheaven forum/site.
My " take " on what you own and what I own ( 981 calibrated ones. ) is that are the same or performs the same but can't be sure till we can compare it.
Btw, I agree with you about that " hand selected " as AT/Signet ones.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: ++++++ " that we have radically different preferences, anyway. (Yet, surprisingly, we do agree on some things, as well.) " +++++
not really, we have more in common preferences than differences.
IMHO the speakers in an audio system always makes a difference: main differences on overall audio system quality performance level/system " colorations ". Well, my friend Guillermo bought his big Sound Lab speakers because were the speakers that sounded " similar " to my system sound presentation. So, I know you and me are less diferent that what you think.
Regrads and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Indieroehre: Agree with you, that JVC 7045 is very good/nice tonearm that always respond to the asking needs of the cartridges with aplomb, accuracy and adding/losting the less.
Yes the JVC TT-71 is " promising ". I hope can achgieve yoyr targets.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib: +++++ " Although I don't own an HZ, it didn't seem to have the same level of neutrality. I realize this answer isn't definitive,.... " +++++
if you resd my post I asked for a today first hand experiences with both 981 versions for we can compare each other experiences and try to think what I'm missing or what you are missing if we missed something at all.
The subject is not which one is right or has reason but try to be nearest a common answers that can help to other members.
So, I can't argue about in that regards comparison.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover: I agree and that's exactly what Lewm posted time ago.
In my set up I use the same footers for the TT and tonearm and same plattform even that I know it is not the ideal/perfect way but that's my alternative that till today worked fine for me.
Of course that I would like to have a good looking plinth that can works as good the naked fashion or even that beats it.
I'm not against the plinth per se, it is only that what exist around IMHO does not fulfil the targets I already achieved. No, I did not try all the plinths around and certainly I can't do it. I will wait for a better alternative.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Btw, when I propose the TT naked version people " laugh " of that idea/experience and no one took it in count.
Latter on Halcro and a few audiophiles given a try and they like it.
DD naked fashion is only an alternative that for some it works and for others like you does not works.
Anyway a different and " new " experience.
R. |
Dear friends: If I remember some one of you ask in " desperate " way for this tonearm and here it is in new condition:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Audio-Technica-AT1010-Tonearm-NOS-/221164946666?_trksid=p5197.m1992&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D14%26meid%3D4675948822589863993%26pid%3D100015%26prg%3D1006%26rk%3D1%26sd%3D221164946666%26
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: I repeat, my main target on sound reproduction is that the bass management be " spot on " and in my system at 100R that target is achieved in better way. That's all.
The darkness on the cartridge is only a different " color " or shade of color than the one in the HZ version.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel: Why do you need a plinth with the JVC TT71. I tested on naked way ( and with its own plint: wood participle board. ) and IMHO performs even better than his big brothers and tiny below the Denons. Of course is up to you, as always.
For the same money for the AT1010 you can get two tonearms that IMHO outperform the 1010: Sony PUA237 and JVC U245, in both cases you can find out versions of the same tonearms with longer effective lengt. I don't have any experiences with the longer tonearm versions but what these two tonearms are showing handling MM/MI/LOMC cartridges is just fine.
I own yout Technics and the EPA-100, today I'm in favor of the SONY and JVC.
Of course are only additional alternatives.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: As you know load impedance with low output cartridges is critical. I tested values above 100R and yes ( as always happen with this kind of cartridge designs. ) we perceived a little less darkness but in my case I don't like it the trade-of at the other frequency extreme.
I like a " perfect " tonal balance ( that even I don't know if really exist in the recording. ) and for me the foundation of the music in a reproduction music in a home system belongs to the bass management and the calibrated 981LZ performs better in this regards at 100R with out sacrifice at the other end. As I said dark is only a " color " and there are different level/tones of that dark/color.
In the other side I hope that when you made it the impedance 981 comparisons you made it with even volume in both cases because the SPL at 100R is lower than at 1k and you know that our ears perceive small differenecs on SPL but here is very important because we are making comparisons.
Anyway, I think that we really agree in the main subject about along the other Stanton's lovers.
Btw, I want to find time to test my Pickering TL4S, could be interesting.
Regards and enjoy the music, R |
Dear Frogman: +++++ " Wether that effect is audible or important enough to any one listener is another story " ++++
that's the point. For me IF is AUDIBLE then is IMPORTANT but till today I never read anywhere a single " voice " that related how he heard/identified that stylus drag and how he knows/knew that what he heard was because stylus drag it self and no for other " factors ". How could he aisle the stylus drag " fact " from the whole playback environment?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Stanton: Something curious: in the calibartion chart the numbers were achieved with a VTF: 1.0grs but on the traking capability number that states: 100 microns ( fabolous number. ) that number was achieved not at 1.0grs in VTF but at: 1.25grs.
I wonder if the other numbers could change at this higher VTF, on sound performance improved a little on detail/definition but something that I had to test again and again to be sure about.
My sample are MK2 ( even the Pickering stylus. ), which yours?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric: My mistake. My JVC is the UA-7045 and as you said a lovely looking " guy ":
http://www.vinylengine.com/library/jvc/ua-7045.shtml
the other JVC I'm aware is the UA-7082 that's a long version.
If you can try tp find the Sony PUA-237, very good and great with LOMC cartridges.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Griffithds: +++++ " states many times in that handbook NOT to mix styli with various bodies. He says you will get music, but it will not be what was intended by the disigner of the cartridge. " +++++
if you read trhough this thread and otehr threads that was exactly what I always supported, that was always my advise, but this always is not for ever.
Through the time and due to experiences on re-tipping my cartridges through VDH first and latter on Axel I changed my mind because I took in count that I could and can have serious improvements if I go against my way of thinking on this regard. The time gives me the precise answer and confirms that I was wrong but not only I experienced about but several Agoners inside this thread and other threads already experienced the same that I experienced.
That's why exist SS or Axel and many other re-tippers.
That statement I learned through the AHEE but not all what the AHEE teach to us is right an unbiased.
Griffithds, as me all of you day by day are growing up and learning " things " for the better or bad and with this kind of learning all of us are enriching our audio/system knowledge in favor of MUSIC.
I just received from Axel my Lira Clavis DaCapo and it's a new formidable LOMC cartridge a lot lot better than the original. When time permit I will speak on this Lyra re-tipped one that confirm ( once again. ) that that statement, AHEE and me were wrong.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: The Precept experiences have to wait because I just receive in amint condition a Glanz MFG-71L that was the top of the line and in theory " similar " to the Astatic MF-100 that is a well regarded cartridge by its owners including me.
In the Glanz thread and maybe in other thread too ( I can't remember if in this one either. ) I have a serious disagreement/controversy with the Glanz against the Astatic ones and against the integrated headshell Glanz versions against the stand alone version as the one I'm talking about.
That controversy was so serious that the other person involved in that controversy implied that I was lied.
So, time to leave clear the " old " Glanz/Astatic controversy by my self and no better way that with the top Glanz ( stand alone version ) " dog ". We will see, normally " the time always put things in the right place where belongs".
Btw, maybe not many of you are interested about and I say this because almost no one took in count seriously the Astatic similar cartridges that at least the MF-100 and the MF-200 IMHO are top performers. I insist, if you look somewhere any of these Astatic cartridges my advise is: buy it with no ask.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover: Thank's for your offer but IMHO in all cases the best arbitrate almost always are each one of us.
Imagine that all the cartridge comparisons in this thread could needs an arbitrate!!!!!
Fortunately things in audio are not so complicated as to have an arbitrate, at least for now and at least with persons that are not audio " rockies ".
What I can do is to put on sale for you the cartridge that was outperformed after my comparison. Just tell me.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Audiopulse: Just a good luck and patience.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lharasim; You are right, your Astatic is the " losted link " and no one can find out. Lucky you are!
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric: Dear Nandric: This is one of the MD threads I refered to:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1174270052&read&keyw&zzspu
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: There were and are cartridge designers that supported and still support spherical stylus shape.
Fulton was one of them I own one of his models that's a LOMC that from its specs goes on frequency response up to 50khz and performs really good.
Stylus shape is very important in a cartridge designs but only a part in the whole design.
I own the Denon 103 and is an average performer, many persons said that for its price is a great performer.
I don't know what Andreoli made with that 103 platform but I heard it and is a lot better than the 103. IMHO those persons that affirm that the performance on both cartridges is similar I think ( with all respect ) their audio systems has no adequate resolution for or their ears are " closed ".
About the MD price: what do you think on the 15K+ Koetsu Coralstone or other " crazy " prices on cartridges that IMHO has no quality performance justification??
Regards and enjoy the music, R |
Dear Dover: Yes, L.Walker supported that MD cartridge. The time I heard it was at a meeting of an audio association in Philadelphia when I was invited ( Spencer Banks was the persons that I contacted, a very good Agon friend as JG and many others. ) to show our self design Essential 3160 phonolinepreamp.
In that meeting attended around 25 persons including L.Walker and the meeting was at J.Galbraith. During the listening hours we were listening to the MD cartridge and no one had any single compliant about its quality sound performance level.
The MD was mounted in the Walker/tonearm rig, Essential 3160 and Kharma loudspeakers. L.Walker used that MD in his system and my friend J.Galbraith bought it because the Lloyd advise.
After that thread I linked ( is the same that Lewm linked latter on. ) there were posts on other threads where in fact the MD platform came from the 103. As I already told: what's wrong with? who cares?, the cartridge performance is very good. The merit of the MD is that Andreoli had very precise and specific targets on his design and I yhink he achieved with the MD.
IMHO,103 platform or not is not important.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lharasim: If you are willing to put on sale to me then I accept your offer, just email me: rauliruegas@hotmail.com
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: No, I was not and certainly I'm not up set because any of you comments.
You already know me and sometimes through what I post persons could think I was upset/angry but really not.
Now, I don't know how that MD sounds today but with our today systems improved I think that the MD performance could be improved of what I heard the first time.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric: Months or years ago I posted to Dgarretson something like this:
++++ " hey why you suddenly change what you was supporting " yesterday " and not today " +++++
and he gave me an answer like this:
+++ " Raul, I have the right to improve my self and improved..... " ++++
that explain per se what means our each one " audio learning curve " and where " I'm " today.
Things are that many of us read and hear and even discuss on many different audio subjects through different forums/threads. This exercise in theory gives us the opportunity to grow up the opportunity to learn and the opportunity to apply those audio learning lessons.
Unfortunatelly only a few of the persons really " learn ". " Really learn " means , IMHO , to take action or actions on what we learn to put on practice what we learn and to have an " audio attitude " according with that learning and according to that learning experiences.
Now, maybe 30-40 years ago when started the " fashion " for headshell integrated cartridge designs, the manufacturers/designers thinked that the cartridge/tonearm alignment was not so important like other factors/characteristics on cartridge set up to achieve the best of any cartridge.
My self not 30-40 years ago but 20 years ago I was unaware on the critical importance subject of cartridge/tonearm alignment and in those times I never took in count.
Even when I " arrived " to Audiogon I can't remember any one that talked/posted on the importance of cartridge/tonearm alignment through Baerwald, Löfgren, Stevenson, etc, etc. kind of alignments. Audio dealers and the " analog gurus " in the audio magazines normally never touched that alignment subject.
I was one of the first persons in Agon whom started to analize the importance of that cartridge/alignment set up. Latter on more and more persons been aware on the subject and appeared several threads in Agon where we discuss in deep the whole subject and the conclusions in every single thread was that we need to make the cartridge/tonearm set up according to any of those alignment/geometry alternatives. The subject was and is so important that started to appear several cartridge/tonearm alignment protractors to make it in the " rith/precise " way because any tiny deviation on that set up increment the sounds/music distortions on what we are listening.
In all those scientific/math alignments the target is to find out the precise cartridge offset angle and overhang for the set up. We analize how tiny deviations on overhang and offset angle or in both take the distortions to higher levels we can imagine and that we can hear.
One of those protractors was the now famous MintLP that has a lot of owners where each one of them bless and blessed this protractor and its precission because in the very first day that they maade their cartridge/tonearm set up alignment through that protractor everything changed for the better and by a wide margin. I can't remember no one that could tolld the that protractor did not improved his cartridge quality performance level.
Now, in a monolitic headshell integrated cartridge design as the Glanz and the FR ones we can't make a precise alignment and can't change an alignment according to what the carfridge/tonearm needs or according what we want.
Why is that?, plain and simple:
IN THE FR7GLANZ DESIGNS YOU CAN'T MAKE ANY SINGLE CHANGE IN THE OFFSET ANGLE AND OVERHANG ACCORDING TO THE SET UP NEEDS!!!!
in the best " scenario " with those monolitics exist ( at random ) only one kind of set up that could coincide with the cartridge needs.
Everytime that we need to change the VTA/SRA the overhang change and in those monolitics you can't change the overhang so you will have higher distortions and if you need to change the offset angle to align in precise way the cartridge cantilever in the MintLP protractor you can't do it either and this means that you have to stay in the way you are hearing/listening those higher distortions and are these " kind of distortions " what you, Desmond, Halcro and several other persons are enjoying!.
I think that all the Glanz/FR monolitic owners ( including me. ) read it or participated in those cartridge/tonearm alignment threads and learned ( as me ) on the whole subject but through the posts of many of those owners seems to me that almost no one learned about, even Halcro put his money in his monolitic retipping it: for what if those high distortions can't change because a retipping?
It is these kind of actions by several owners what makes no sense to me when I know that many of those persons ( including you ) want to improve the quality performance level on your system.
Let me to tell all of you cartridge monolitic owners: IMHO through those monolitics you can't ever improve nothing but to listen to higher distortions degrading and precluding any tiny single improvement you want to achieve.
This was happened just two days ago in other thread, please read it and LEARN:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1357321298&openflup&26&4#26
IMHO those Glanz/FR monolitics are the deepest aberration/error/mistake in analog, at least Audio Technica/Technics/ ( examples. ) designed its cartridge integrated designs with " systems " that permit changes in overhang and Azymuth but no offset angle.
Any one of you think that azymuth could be important for a cartridge can shows at its best?, yes?, well in the Glanz/FR you can't make any azymuth changes either!!!!!
As Dgarretson I learned on the subject and improved my self.
Nandric, I'm not a cartridge seller or a seller of any one like the ones that came years ago to this forum to gave their " teaching " to us " ignorant " people. Unfortunately some of you were so " ignorants " that today are in love with those monolitics and even with that kind of people. Nothing wrong with me, the real subject is that you monolitic owners be happy and if your monolitics are the cartridges that made the magic to put you happy then: good because this is what it matters and not my simple opinion.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Storyboy: I think I never posted that the MF-200 sounds like the MF-100 but both are more alike than different.
As Nandric said the stylus in the MF/Glanz line can be used in between the different cartridge models.
Good that you own the Astatic's that are very good performers. Could you share your experiences with and other MM/MI cartridges you own?, appreciated.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Sorry, must say: " this week appeared ... ". I was tempted to bid but at the end decided to let it gone.
R. |
Dear Nandric: ++++ " this true MK2 TK10ML version is IMHO the best ever AT/Signet cartridge even over the famous AT 180.... " +++
well maybe not because I never heard the AT-50 anniversary and exist that great Precept PC-440!
Btw, the stylus in the TK10ML MK2 is an improvement too over the MK1 version.
So, my mistake on that statement.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Indieroehre: Grace builded a lot of F-8 different models that was on sale only to the japanese/Asia market.
These are some of them: F8L, F8M, F8D, F8L'10, F8C,F8V, etc, etc.
as theose ones exist several F14 models including the F14Ruby and several LevelII models. No one of them where sold in America/Europe.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Desmond: I forgot, +++++ " or the other reason ( between others ) could be that the " kind distortions " of your 7 are the ones you like it more against the 100. Tha's all. " +++++
where came/comes those additional " kind distortions " on the G7 that the MF-100 or the G71L have not?
the G7 is a headshell integrated design: today, 30-40 years after the G7 design/build, exist several headshells that for sure match in better way the cartridge to performs at its best and that puts " on shame " the integrated one. Today too there are several headshell wires that are a lot better than the ones inside the Glanz that have 30-40 years old. Today too the headshell wire connectors are a lot better than the ones 30-40 years old in the Glanz G7.
All these per se, IMHO, makes that any single advantage ( that there is not any. ) that could have the G7 disappear as dust inside a hurricane. There is no way that the headshell integrated version can or could compete in any way against its stand alone similar " brother ". That you like it is important only to you.
This " brother " can be matched easily to any tonearm not only to the tonearm effective mass but in the alignment to Baerwald, Löfgren or Stevenson geometry set up.
I respect your opinion but I can't disagree more with. You can think whatever you want and of course you can follow enjoying your Glanz over other top cartridges and stay sticky with but that can't means is a superior performer than the Astati's, MFG71L or almost any other top stand alone MM/MI/LOMC cartridge. As I said: it is only the additional distortions you like it, Good!.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear griffithds: Agree, I was a little dramatic about that " average " reference.
I'm only posted in that way trying to explain that is better design and not for a tiny range/margin.
++++ " I don't feel Signet made any changes to the TK10 generator when they brought out the upgraded stylus MKII. " ++++
I can't be absolutely sure but what made it that I posted about is because I runned the MK2 cartridge with the MK1 stylus and performs better than with the MK1 cartridge motor.
Anyway, both are top performers as the 180 but the MK2 is a little different IMHO.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: I just find out in a closet two step up transformers: Denon AU-340 and Audiocraft TS-26 ( this one in new condition. ).
I thought all my SUT's were sold but was not in that way. Well due that I have on hand I tested the Denon for a couple hours with no firm/precise conclusions yet.
Now, I post this because the specs say that the Denon should be connected to the MM stage and " see " 47kohms but I did not change the load impedance and runned the AU-340 at 100kohms:
question: is there any trouble to run it at 100k? advantages? disadvantages?
Your comments and advise will be appreciated. Thank's in advance.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover/friends: Thank you. I just tested the Denon AU-340 for only 2 hours with my Spectral ( 2ohm/0.2mv ) and the sound was " so so " ( I'm using the SUT 3ohm tap. ) against my active phonolinestage.
Looking to its specs this Denon SUT measure high, it has a wide frequency response ( a characteristic that IMHO is way important especially on SUTs. ): 10hz to 120khz +,- 0.5db/1.0db and its THD is only 0.05%.
It is very user friendly because we can choose between that 3ohm or 40ohm taps ( different gain. ) and has two inputs for two different cartridges. Obviously has a front panel selectror for those inputs and additional a " pass " position.
I already started modification in the AU-340: I'm rewiring right from the input/output transformers with Silver KCAG by KimberKable, I'm connecting directly the output cable ( no more RCA output connector. ) soldering from the SUT board with the Silver cable by Analysis Plus, I'm changing the two inputs RCA connectors with WBT Silver Gen and obviously rewiring the two input wires for that Silver KimberKable.
I think today the up date will be finished and then I will test it. I'm sure there will be a differences for the better because looking inside the wires Denon used was plain zip lamp cord and RCA connectors certainly are not the WBT kind and by-passing the output connectors means more music and less distortions.
We will see, I will share my experiences about.
In the other side the Audiocraft SUT ( new unit in box. ) is a beauty from inside out as everything any product with the Audiocraft " name ". That's what we expect from Audiocraft. Right now I will be in focus with the Denon.
Here you can read something about:
http://www.vinylengine.com/library/denon/au-340.shtml
Dover, additional to your kindness information I asked here is a good article on that subject:
http://www.vinylengine.com/step-ups-and-mc-cartridges.shtml
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover: I can't say nothing at all till I finish the up date and hear it.
I owned the 320 that was the Denon " entry level ", very different from the 340 look: the 320 weight was only 700grs and the 340 over 2.0kgs. Different transformer.
Altec?, well maybe you are right but I'm not looking for SUTs only that the opportunity came alone.
What's clear to me with the Denon AU-340 is that is dead silence with my Spectral 0.2mv and this is a good point in its favor. In two-three days I will have a more precise opinion on my mods.
If the 340 " works " maybe I will build a pair of " monoblock " SUTs, who knows: seems to me is not a " big deal " but care and choosed parts. Maybe I'm wrong??
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Ecir38: Thank's for your advise. Btw, the Denon has no resistors at all.
As you said I will " play " with the spreadsheet.
Thank you again.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Storyboy: I own that JVC but I never had the opportunity to hear it, yes in theory was made by AT for JVC.
On the SUT subject for me is the other way around on what you posted. We will see.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover and SUT friends: Well time to report my first experiences after the whole Denon AU-340 up date.
The overall quality performance level against stock condition was and is " night and day ".
Yes, it is a lot better that what I was " waiting ". I'm testing it with the Spectral and Lyra DaCapo ( Axel's retiped. ).
First thing is that there is no single noise of any kind even that these cartridges use the 31db of SUT gain position.
Has very good tonal balance top to bottom with a " surprising " very good handle at both extremes and with a dynamic response that was unexpected for me.
Sound is clear, pristine and with very good overall transparency, transientes too are really fast and the SUT has very good stage layering with solid focus.
I'm very pleased with what I'm experienced through this Denon SUT.
Am I losting something against my active phonolinepream?:
just after the Denon up date I heard higher distortions that after 10 hours fortunately vanished and right now I'm unaware of that because I can't hear it.
the quality performance is so good that two " golden ears " audio friends that know very well my system not noted that what they were listening was an audio signal coming from the SUT. When I disclose it they were " surprised ".
well obviously that I know better my system than them, we made some tests with the SUT against the active unit and again here they concluded what I already did it:
even that the SUT both extremes frequency response are very good the active phonolinepreamp does a better job: the bass as the highs have more " air " and better and precise definition but you can note this only through a comparison against to what IMHO is a top top active phonolinepreamp performer.
obviously that this Denon SUT took has some advantages in my system: first is that the MM stage IMHO is second to none and second that the line stage IMHO is second to none too. Maybe in other audio systems this updated SUT can't shows the same performance level.
I'm a " rookie " with SUTs and SUTs mods. This first experience likes me and I will try to follow in this " road " to learn more about.
Thank you all for your learning posts ( please go on!. ), I can tell you that even if one of your advises goes against the " rules " I will try it anyway. I just want to learn trying to find out something " new ".
This starting experiences are very different to the one Dover had when he made it a " similar " ( his words . ) update to his AU-320 but this entry level unit is different from the 340 and in the other side I think that in those " updated old times " some items to the update not even exist as: WBT Nexgen Ag or Analisys Plus Silver Oval ICs. Maybe only the KCAG Silver KimberKable was in the market. Btw, only one pair of those WBT Nexgen connectors has a higher price than the AU320 Dover talked..
Anyway, I think that I'm on " something " and I want to discovery how good is that " something ".
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear SUT's friends: Right now I already bought two other vintage second hand SUTs to help my started " research ".
I know that the transformer ( it self. ) quality is the main subject ( as the cartridge impedance match with those SDUT transformers. ) on a SUT but I want to know if really exist to much differences in quality performance between different transformers in SUTs because the transformers inside.
Right now I'm enjoying my modified 340 with other LOMC like the Dyna XV-1s and Colibri with very good results.
Maybe I can make an improvement on what I'm hearing if I go with the input cables/wires directly to the Denon switching board becaus ein this way I will bypass the SUT input connectors, the cable RCA connectors and the KCAG KK internal wires but due that I'm on the " whole " research I need flexibility/user friendly from my in test SUTs for I can make fast any changes I want it and if I go hard wired this could be a " problem " for.
Certainly that when I finish the SUT " journey " I will do it.
Btw, if one of you can be interested in a first rate/top SUT my Audiocraft T-26 ( extremely hard to find. ) that's in new condition ( boxed. ) is on sale. I have no intentions to modify this beauty, as is is just great. I test it only to check everything is fine.
For the persons that does not knows about Audiocraft I only want to tell that Audiocraft belongs to very top hiend in Japan, not only on SUTs but its tonearms are second to none. Audiocraft builded some of the top AT tonearms and did it to other OEMs. In the japanese highend is at the same level than Accuphase ( for example. )
The T-26 has 26db of gain and works for cartridges on the 2 ohms and up. Its price was: 80K yens, one of the highest prices on SUTs. Only for you can have an idea, the Denon-320 that Dover owned had a price ( in the same time. ) of 19K yens and you can see this right now on ebay for 300.00 dollars.
Anyway, if you are interested please email me before it gone: rauliruegas@hotmail.com
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear In_shore: With a TT as with almost any other audio item is very important to what they were coupled to and I think that with DD in nude fashion it is even more important, at least is what I experienced about.
I don't own your Kenwood but I agree that the Denons DP-80/75 " fumigates " the SP-10s or JVCs DD TTs.
Obviously that maybe with different audio systems things could change.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dgarretson: Yes, seems that that 35K tonearm was something to " forget " at the CES. Here it is,browse at the middle of the page:
http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/7405-titillating-tonearms/page-16
the designer of this Vertere tonearm is the same Roksan's owner/designer.
I already ordered 3 samples!!
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " Are you trending toward SUT use? " +++++
not exactly. I'm still " sticky " to active high gain phono stages but when I found out ( at random ) those two SUTs at my place then I aked me: hey, why not? and then started today SUT journey.
This can give me the opportunity to confirm what for many years I was and am " entilted " with but I always said to other persons during a friendly " discussion ": " that it is not the same try to compare same item in the " old " system we own that in our today improved one " and that's why " I'm here ".
Lewm, what I'm hearing today on this first modified SUT is away from what I can remember. We will see when finish my comparisons adding experiences from the other SUTs I bought and that maybe in two weeks will arrive to my place.
Lewm, as we can see it IMHO: it is a learning experience, don't you think?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: PRECEPT PC440's time.
According with the information I have the Precept line was designed and builded by Audio Technica: for whom? that's something I don't know because was not marketed trhough the AT distributors.
Anyway the line started with three models: PC110,PC220 ( I own this one in NOS condition. ) and the PC-440. Differences in between are mainly stylus shape, cantilever and motor refinements on the top PC440 ( as usual. ).
Where the PC110 came with elliptical 0.4x0.7mil the PC220 came with 0.2x0.7mil and the PC440 with nude Shibata one. The PC220/440 stylus replacement fits each to the other cartridge, I don't test it yet the 440 with the 220 stylus.
FR: 5hz-45khz, output: 4.2mv, channel separation: 33db at 1khz, weigth: 5.8grs.
Sems to me ( for internet info. ) that latter on appeared the PC550 where the main difference was that came with Micro Line stylus shape and same berylium cantilever as the 440. Btw, the stylus replacement of the AT ML400 fits the Precept series but unfortunately the AT has no berylium catilever.
It is the quality performance level of this Precept PC440 similar or near to the other top of the line AT/Signet cartridges?:
no way, the Precept PC440 has IMHO no resemblance with any other AT/Signet cartridge other than its similar building parts.
From 3-4 weeks now the Precept PC440 is with any single doubt my reference/standard MM/MI cartridge to judge any other one even with LOMC.
Has a cartridge signature sounds?, if it has I did not detected yet. Its sound is just RIGHT, you don't have to ask for a different tonal balance performance or a better frequency extremes range performance or better inner deatail or more transparency or better soundstage and focus or lower distortion or fastets transients or better dynamics or, or, or, or...... it is just RIGHT.
IMHO here and today the Precept PC440 needs nothing other that enjoy it hour after hour day after day.
Do you dreamed for an ideal cartridge performer or asked your self what could fulfil your music sound reproduction targets/priorities at your home audio system?, well IMHO the Precept PC440 could be that " ideal " cartridge.
Yes, it is that good.
Acutex, Astatic, Empire, AT, Signet, AKG, Stanton/Pickering, B&O, Micro Acoustics, ADC, Sonus, Grado Philips, Azden, Dynavector, Benz Micro, Lyra, Koetsu, etc, etc, you name it are not a real contenders against this Precept PC440.
I'm running it at VTF: 1.25grs, as usual 100kohm on impedance, 300pf additional capacitance and almost parallel to the LP.
It is mounted in my JVC tonearm using our self headshell build material design and obviously with out stylus guard.
Yes, you know that I'm very satisfied with even that is not a good looking " lady ".
Of course that there are several other " things " to comment on the Precept PC440 quality performance level but I have no time right now, I have to follow enjoying the PC440!!!!
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: After both Dyna 13D versions follow the Karat Nova 17D2 but its motor is not the same because the internal Z on the 13D is 19 ohms against 39 ohms in the 17D2 and exist the cantilever lenght difference too: 1.3mm against 1.7mm
Anyway the 13D is a facinating performer.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: The Karat Nova 13D was IMHO an " assault " to the perfect cartridge performer. Till today IMHO there is no single Dynavector cartridge that can perform not only similar but even near that unique design.
13D states because the cantilever measures 1.3mm made it of diamond manterial. It is the only Dyna with that so little cantilever length but the main differences between the 13D and any other LOMC cartridge is when you hear it just from the very first recording note then you know what I mean with that " assault " to the perfect cartridge.
This is the one I own nad is the same model of my second sample too and the same Dover owns:
http://www.hifido.co.jp/KW/G0308/J/0-10/C11-60830-14311-00/
There is another version where the only difference is that instead the cartridge wood body comes with a metal one. This was the first that appears in Japan and latter came the wood version.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover: I have the answer to my 13D question to you: 99 Karat Nova 13D samples.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric: I don't have the opportunity yet to hear the Karat Nova 17D so I can't speak about.
What is a must to hear and IMHO a must to have is the 13D.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
I posted before read the Dover post.
The info I have comes from the Japanese Stereo bible of those times that comes in japanese language but numbers are the same in any language.
In that magazine states that the first model was the metal body version but Dover said he has the information directly from Dynavector so it has to be truer than a magazine one.
R. |