Simplistic NJFET RIAA - Page 496 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Analogue Source

Analogue Source Turntables, Tonearms, Cartridges, Phono Stages, Tuners, Tape Recorders, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 19th September 2010, 10:43 PM   #4951
Salas is online now Salas  Greece
diyAudio Chief Moderator
 
Salas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens-Greece
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Space Egg Corp View Post
Hi Salas

The D160 it is then, Quick order one and keep fingers crossed !

Cheers again Simon =MC sq.
I think its a wise non pocket ripping choice to test how it will go on your SME. And you can always try other R1 load than typical 47k.
Those CCTs I posted can be easily modded to exchange sensitivities by substituting some resistors, LED count, and by fixing the proper B+. Just fit the higher voltage local capacitors from the start. So you can even try normal MC in the future if all goes well. There is actually a DL-301 II out there that seems like marrying the higher compliance elliptical HiMC lines with lower impedance normal MC output coils and rigid bodies that I haven't experienced in the flesh yet. Interesting at the particular price point for matching better the 3009 instead of 103R. I picture it as a refined 160. Nice Denon video.

P.S. What kind of CCT is your valve phono? I have made some valve phonos too.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg DL-301II.jpg (100.3 KB, 404 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2010, 12:36 AM   #4952
diyAudio Member
 
The Space Egg Corp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: London & Miami
Blog Entries: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCruz View Post
So your SME is a fixed headshell type with aluminium tube.
Thanks Ricardo for your help

There are quite a few different models, I didn't realise there were so many.
I see what you mean about the headshell, Mine is the SME 3009/S2 Improved, the headshell is fixed and arm tube looks like stainless steel to me.
Salas's friend built a MM Simplistic Phono Stage and used this arm with a D160 which worked well for him, I think I will try the same.

Cheers Simon =MC sq.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2010, 05:08 AM   #4953
diyAudio Member
 
The Space Egg Corp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: London & Miami
Blog Entries: 13
Default Hi Merlin

Quote:
Originally Posted by merlin el mago View Post
@ Simon,

I own a Denon DL103R & I'm happy, possible is not the ultimate resolution cart but very musical & combined with Salas NJFET RIAA sounds very good. Salas loves Transfiguration & Shelter top but I believe the Denon isn't too far & the relation quality price it's a bargain.

Let us know wich cart will use.
Hi Merlin
Thanks for your interest in my setup.

I'm not going to mention the deck too much, other than to say for me it is a tireless workhorse, great suspension, no mechanical or electrical noise and built like a tank. I'm sure maybe there is a couple of % improvement to be had in it somewhere, but I don't think I'll know until I get the new cart on and the Simplistic Preamp built (I think Salas's pre will be a quantum leap over my previous one, and should come at the same time as the new cart). A new mat and disc clamp might be good also (recommendations ?). I'm definitely going to make it a whoping great mains filter just to satisfy my curiosity on that one. Apart from that a nice new paint job and lid and she'll look like she just left the showroom !

The arms a bit more up in the air it seems. I never had a manual to set it up by, and never checked out opinion on the net about it until now. I knew it was intended for a high compliance cart which the Goldring 1006 was, and I just set it up by eye, feel and ear which sounded great.

It seems that although it was one of the most popular quality arms ever made it didn't receive great press from the scribblers at the time (perhaps popularity was it's downfall, and it was not 'exclusive' enough to warrant praise from the golden eared reviewers of the time).

Bizarrely it seems that about 50% of opinion says it's an impossibly difficult arm to set up (can't understand that, I did it without a manual), the reviews complained of thin bass and lack of soundstage (not what I heard), the only thing to do with it is throw it in the bin !

The other 50% say it's easy to set up with any cartridge, even low compliance MC's, by adding mass to the head shell (which the detractors say looks like swiss cheese), and have come across many users who seem delighted with it useing the classic DL103 as you do (not what it was intended for, but do-able and highly musical nevertheless).

Salas pointed out that as well as the let's say medium compliance DL160 @10, there is also the D103 II @14, and of course the D103 @5. I thought this was a step in the right direction, but perhaps the medium DL160 is a safer bet after all. I can easily make accurate copper shims to add shell mass if needed, and apart from setting the arm up for the sweet spot, there is plenty of tuning to do in other parts of the setup, particularly in the phono stage as you do.

I love messing about with electronics and of course listening to music, but would like to fall in love with a new cartridge, as I have done with the Thorens / SME, and never have to think about another one again. Denon being the good reliable people that they are, will never stop producing the DL103 and there's a good chance I guess, that will hold true for the DL160 also, given it's obvious popularity.

I think that some of my worn records may spring back to life with a micro-ridge tip type stylus, but high / low / medium compliance seems to all be an option for this arm, judgeing by what real end users, not reviewers and readers, are doing with it.

What cart ? Dunno. I've got a bit more time to get confused while I polish up the deck and arm, and build the phono stage, and by that time the new Denon DL99999999999999 might be on the market and I might just fall in love with that.

Cheers Merlin

Simon = MC sq.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2010, 05:21 AM   #4954
Salas is online now Salas  Greece
diyAudio Chief Moderator
 
Salas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens-Greece
Those Denon published compliance numbers are 100Hz dynamic. 10Hz static are needed for the Fs formulae and the 103R came at 16 compliance on my Mission 774 after 11Hz Fourier on HFNRR test disc and back calculation. The 160 and 301II should be about 25-30mm/N. That is why the carts work on some seemingly impossible arms. For so many years people get confused and the hi-fi press could do some subsonic measurements on some disputed carts, see what happens. Instead, they wax away lyrically.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2010, 08:39 AM   #4955
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Space Egg Corp View Post
Some people say the best upgrade you can do to this arm is throw it in the dust-bin, others say with careful adjustment and the right cartridge it's hard to fault, and totaly up there.

Any thoughts on transformers with Salas phono, are they of benefit ?Simon
Hello Simon,

you're dealing with some edges but you can't get a circle here. My suggestion is to implement a new front end which is a well balanced and a base for your phono pre:

Search for a Garrard 401, place it in a good plinth and use a tonearm from Thomas Schick, cartridge Denon DL103. Later on you can upgrade if you like...

A transformer is quite a good idea and there are pro's and contras. I like transformers but they must be from the top league. The Salas design is somewhat quite and the sound comes out of the nothing so I'd recommend to use the 57dB version first and you can modify it later on to decrease the gain to 44dB and use a step-up transformer - if you like to do then ...
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2010, 10:06 AM   #4956
RCruz is offline RCruz  Switzerland
diyAudio Member
 
RCruz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wallis
Blog Entries: 1
Denon DL160 works very well with SME3009 S2 Imp.
As Salas pointed out, it“s compliance is much higher than spec.

The arm is quite easy to set up. You can download it“s setup brochure from Vinyl Engine.

Off course there are better carts but not at that price

It works perfectly with the 47dB Salas riaa version.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2010, 10:08 AM   #4957
RCruz is offline RCruz  Switzerland
diyAudio Member
 
RCruz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wallis
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joao@AltheaMusica View Post

A transformer is quite a good idea and there are pro's and contras. I like transformers but they must be from the top league. The Salas design is somewhat quite and the sound comes out of the nothing so I'd recommend to use the 57dB version first and you can modify it later on to decrease the gain to 44dB and use a step-up transformer - if you like to do then ...
Hi Joćo

Why should you use a setup TX with a 44dB riaa instead of a 57dB version ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2010, 12:35 PM   #4958
diyAudio Member
 
merlin el mago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Catalonia - Europe
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Space Egg Corp View Post
Mine is the SME 3009/S2 Improved, the headshell is fixed and arm tube looks like stainless steel to me.

Cheers Simon =MC sq.
Let me know wich is your arm pivot to spindle distance: 213.25 mm or 215.70 mm? so I can post your arm potractor
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2010, 02:38 PM   #4959
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCruz View Post
Hi Joćo
Why should you use a setup TX with a 44dB riaa instead of a 57dB version ?
Because you have a better S/N-ratio and avoid one more active device. This means as well better distortion, a step-up TX owns, because of it's construction, different distortion - called linear distortion.

But this is my personal opinion and you know I like transformers - my amps all work with contionous interstage transformer couped.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2010, 03:27 PM   #4960
RCruz is offline RCruz  Switzerland
diyAudio Member
 
RCruz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wallis
Blog Entries: 1
Well, in this case we have the same number of active devices for 44dB or 57dB.

So the stepup TX just adds one more component in the signal path

I already experimented a Denon stepup TX with my 48dB riaa and liked it but it adds some hiss (imperceptible).

Off course I needed more cables and the signal passed on several more switches

A friend had hum problems with the same stepup device......

Last edited by RCruz; 20th September 2010 at 03:31 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:15 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2