Jens,
The TKD pots are a revelation. You will immediately notice improve clarity and resolution (maybe these are the same, no?)
I was very suspicious when I fitted one to a Lifeforce. After I heard it, before and after, I realised what audiophiles were raving about. The very high cost does delivers the pinnacle of performance, but of course using these uber-expensive gadgets in retail product are very hard to justify. I have also being eyeing the IC resistor arrays (PGA series from TI) which deliver attenuation duties, but they also include a full on opamp and I am concerned about sonic qualities just yet.....
Cheers,
Hugh
The TKD pots are a revelation. You will immediately notice improve clarity and resolution (maybe these are the same, no?)
I was very suspicious when I fitted one to a Lifeforce. After I heard it, before and after, I realised what audiophiles were raving about. The very high cost does delivers the pinnacle of performance, but of course using these uber-expensive gadgets in retail product are very hard to justify. I have also being eyeing the IC resistor arrays (PGA series from TI) which deliver attenuation duties, but they also include a full on opamp and I am concerned about sonic qualities just yet.....
Cheers,
Hugh
Last edited:
Hi Hugh,
Well - what can I say? Except that the GK-2 definitely deserves the best pot possible?
Cheers,
Jens
I rarely see this section but came to my attention today.
Having read that twin bipolar electrolytics connected back to back & in series offer a very low distortion audio coupling with DC blocking, would it be sensible to consider such for the sub out of the GK2?
A pair of 15uF or 22uF would give a big increase in coupling capacitance over the 1uF.
Having read that twin bipolar electrolytics connected back to back & in series offer a very low distortion audio coupling with DC blocking, would it be sensible to consider such for the sub out of the GK2?
A pair of 15uF or 22uF would give a big increase in coupling capacitance over the 1uF.
Hi Andrew,
Back to back quality electros are OK, there is a small improvement but it's marginal IMHO.
As for 15-22uF is probably too much because you are not trying to reproduce signal of 2Hz. Very should not go too late, less that 15Hz is not needed, because firstly there is no recorded information at that frequency, and secondly at around 16Hz the ear does not musical tone - they are perceived as 'seismic' noises.
There is again a good reason not high value of coupling cap this playing vinyl. Rumble. Arghhhh.......
Cheers,
Hugh
Back to back quality electros are OK, there is a small improvement but it's marginal IMHO.
As for 15-22uF is probably too much because you are not trying to reproduce signal of 2Hz. Very should not go too late, less that 15Hz is not needed, because firstly there is no recorded information at that frequency, and secondly at around 16Hz the ear does not musical tone - they are perceived as 'seismic' noises.
There is again a good reason not high value of coupling cap this playing vinyl. Rumble. Arghhhh.......
Cheers,
Hugh
Haha - exactly what I am going to do - but not using such big values!
I happen to have a stash of 1uF BG NPs, so I will use 4 for each channel in their back-to-back "Super E" configuration.
Regards,
Andy
Can you explain why (you would not do this)?
While I have a single 1uF cap on the tube out, using a 2.2uF film cap would give a lower CR roll-off than 1uF - which is very important IMO for "Sub Out". (But, yes, maybe 4uF is a bit OTT.
)But any "good" cap of 2.2uF is physically large ... and difficult to fit - hence the attraction of using the BG NPs. And the "refinement" which the big film caps provide for the tube out ... is not needed for Sub out.
Regards,
Andy
In post26 you said "that is exactly what I would do" and you quoted my post showing twin bipolar in series for an effective halving of the coupling capacitance.
You then followed up with "stash of 1uF". I will use 4.
To me this implied since you were doing "exactly" twin bipolar in series, that you were going to parallel a second twin series bipolar to bring the effective coupling capacitance back to 1uF.
That is what I would not do.
If you meant something else, then your post did not convey that message.
You then followed up with "stash of 1uF". I will use 4.
To me this implied since you were doing "exactly" twin bipolar in series, that you were going to parallel a second twin series bipolar to bring the effective coupling capacitance back to 1uF.
That is what I would not do.
If you meant something else, then your post did not convey that message.
Haha - I am having a similar difficulty understanding what you are saying, likewise.
Let's start off by agreeing that a "Super E" configuration of BG Ns/NPs is a parallel pair of them, arranged so that the '+' leg on one connects to the '-' leg of the other. Because they are NPs, you can safely do that.
What I originally was thinking off doing was using 4 x 1uF NPs, arranged so that 2 '+' legs were connected to 2 '-' legs. This is a "double Super E", giving a total capacitance of 4uF.
However, I am subsequently thinking that it's not a good idea to go this high ... and a standard "Super E" pair - giving a total of 2uFs - is fine.
Regards,
Andy
No, Andrew.
BG's "Super E" configuration is as follows:
* take 2 'N' or 'NP' caps
* connect them in parallel
* when doing this with polar caps, you would make damn sure you had both '+' legs joined together and both '-' legs joined together.
* for the "Super E" configuration, with non-polar caps, each pair of legs consists of a '+' leg connected to a '-' leg.
If you did this with 2 x 1uF NPs in parallel, you would end up with 2uF.
If you did it with 4 x 1uF NPs in parallel, you would end up with 4uF.
Regards,
Andy
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.