Hi,
Thank you.
I decided to follow Thomas' suggestion: D3a transformer loaded -> 600R LCR -> D3a.
I've finished considering options for 1st tube.
Thank you.
I decided to follow Thomas' suggestion: D3a transformer loaded -> 600R LCR -> D3a.
I've finished considering options for 1st tube.
I haven't got the phono schematic here at home, but should have it somewhere at work , will try to forward it & post when I get chance .
Pieter doesn't always list what he makes ; he has been supplying these units for a while though .
They are 1:10 ratio but Pieter can probably adjust, as none of his stuff is exactly 'off the shelf' .
Mine cost about Eur180/pr about 8 years ago ! No idea what that means nowadays ;o)
They replaced S&B Tx-103 units which were not as good in the mids and treble - although very good in the low bass .
May be of interest too : here is my plan on the new LCR unit - using an E83F>6N6P aikido to drive the LCR , and a C3g( triode ) on the end. Power supply ( as existing phono ) uses a Pimm CCS and a pair of OD3 gas tubes to produce a shunt-regulated 300V . Very easy and effective way of getting solid bass and improved transparency .
audio-talk :: View topic - New LCR Phono : Pentode Aikido, Slagle 1.5k, C3g
On the other hand, anything Thomas recommends will be entirely suitable.
Hi,
Thank you.
I decided about LCR upon the listening evaluations of few people whose taste and preferences in sound quality I trust.
Indeed, physics shouldn't be ignored, yet:
1. It is necessary to look at all physical aspects relevant to any particular application;
2. At times there are no widely-accepted physical, or engineering, explanations for differences in sound between similar components. This is why I rely upon both accepted engineering practices and listening evaluations. To my view, in the light of my experience, both measurements and listening evaluations are needed in order to attain top level sound quality.
I have my own reasons to assume that Thomas took good care of all the technical aspects relevant to those LCR units and that those units are good enough for my intended application. By good enough I mean better than RC RIAA equalization network.
This is my stand, as long as I wouldn't be convinced by both measurements and listening evaluation, that RC RIAA equalization network may perform better than Thomas' LCR units – either with identical architecture, or with a different one.
Thank you.
I decided about LCR upon the listening evaluations of few people whose taste and preferences in sound quality I trust.
Indeed, physics shouldn't be ignored, yet:
1. It is necessary to look at all physical aspects relevant to any particular application;
2. At times there are no widely-accepted physical, or engineering, explanations for differences in sound between similar components. This is why I rely upon both accepted engineering practices and listening evaluations. To my view, in the light of my experience, both measurements and listening evaluations are needed in order to attain top level sound quality.
I have my own reasons to assume that Thomas took good care of all the technical aspects relevant to those LCR units and that those units are good enough for my intended application. By good enough I mean better than RC RIAA equalization network.
This is my stand, as long as I wouldn't be convinced by both measurements and listening evaluation, that RC RIAA equalization network may perform better than Thomas' LCR units – either with identical architecture, or with a different one.
Hi Thomas,
Is there a fairly affordable tube tester that tests bot Gm and mu, or Gm and rp, accurately enough (at least between different tubes of the same model)?
Is there a fairly affordable tube tester that tests bot Gm and mu, or Gm and rp, accurately enough (at least between different tubes of the same model)?
Hi,
Thank you very much.
Thank you, there is no need for me anymore for that schematic, since I decided to follow Thomas' advise.
Thanks again. I'll ask him about the price once I'll have the money for it.
This is (to me) the most relevant piece of information I received so far concerning comparisons of different SUT's. To me it's good news, indeed.
What made you decide upon that particular architecture?
Yes, it looks to me this way.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, there is no need for me anymore for that schematic, since I decided to follow Thomas' advise.
Thanks again. I'll ask him about the price once I'll have the money for it.
This is (to me) the most relevant piece of information I received so far concerning comparisons of different SUT's. To me it's good news, indeed.
What made you decide upon that particular architecture?
Did you compare the above HT regulation with other HT regulations, and/or with no HT regulation, with massive LCLCRC filtering?
Yes, it looks to me this way.
Regarding tubes and interestages plus LCR something influential on resolution can not be diminished to SS standards. Loop area.
Did you ever consider what acres of construction area and kilometers of wire do to the signal at such low levels?
Easy answer, they mask it. All those splendid half ton 100k$+ artisan beasts we see some times, have a common ground. Angelic tone and limited resolution. Sad but true.
Did you ever consider what acres of construction area and kilometers of wire do to the signal at such low levels?
Easy answer, they mask it. All those splendid half ton 100k$+ artisan beasts we see some times, have a common ground. Angelic tone and limited resolution. Sad but true.
You can do whatever you like to but the timeconstants of rc riaa is much, much better. With a chokes inside your riaa it will be fluctuating.
Hi Salas,
What you say does make sense, a least in a way.
Yet, the sound quality may not be determined only upon the length of the wires used in a piece of gear – not necessarily, not always. There may be some other factors that have impact on the sound quality.
What may sound better we may know only after listening comparison.
On top of that, there is always the possibility the one person will prefer one unit, while another person will prefer the other unit.
Once I'll have the tubes -> LCR stage up and running, I intend to build also your folded simplistic and compare the two. Only then I'll know for a fact which one will sound better to me, on my sound setup. I'm not ashamed to admit being wrong, I've done it before.
That being said, for people with limited budget, and/or little experience in DIY, probably there no better alternative to your folded simplistic – at least not one that I know off.
Anyhow, I hope that it will not turn into a debate about 'who can do better', or 'whose is bigger'. Let the music decide.
Possibly it is so, possibly it isn't so.
I'll know the situation for a fact only after doing measurements on the 'tubes -> LCR stage' I intend to build. On top of measurements gear, I have few test records.
Should the LCR RIAA equalization be unstable, I'll always be able to replace it with RC equalization.
Should the entire phono stage will not sound good to me, on my sound system, I'll sell it and go for another one.
Right now I follow what I have very good reasons to assume that it may satisfy my needs and requirements.
The FS is not a statement design, compare an FM Acoustics or a Pass XP-25.
The tubes beasts will excel in tonal beauty the truth machines will excel in err..truth.
You pick.
Hi Salas,
Once the 'tubes beast' will be up and running, I'll compare it also to the Pass XP-25.
Time will tell.
Anyhow, there is an established fact that different people prefer different sound qualities, or 'sound signatures'. Possibly, some people will prefer the Pass XP-25, while others will prefer a tubes based one. As for myself, there is no way I can know prior to having listening comparison, on my own sound setup. The comparison needs to be done on my own sound system, because of quite often there is also a matter of synergy.
I have a recent example to the above.
Last week a fellow came to my house with a phono stage he purchased recently, one he was very pleased with on his own system. After the phono stage got warmed up and we listened to it on my system, both of us agreed that it didn’t sound good at all – not in itself and not in comparison to my present phono stage.
Hi,
Thank you.
I find it extremely interesting and valuable.
As for the late Allen Wright's RTP3C, should I wouldn't be able to gather the money needed for LCR-based stage, I may go for the RTP3C, which is much lower-cost to build. But that will be decided should I wouldn't be able to gather the money.
I assume that in a 'Triode Fest', there were no all-JFET's stages.
Is it correct?
Thank you.
I find it extremely interesting and valuable.
As for the late Allen Wright's RTP3C, should I wouldn't be able to gather the money needed for LCR-based stage, I may go for the RTP3C, which is much lower-cost to build. But that will be decided should I wouldn't be able to gather the money.
I assume that in a 'Triode Fest', there were no all-JFET's stages.
Is it correct?
Wasn't that the one with excessive hum?
I was sitting next to Broskie for that shootout. He was delightfully acidic about it.
this is interesting..
can you tell more about how it was conducted?
one after the other in complete succession until all 25 is done?
did they play the same cut in the same album?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.