I would imagine so, and I didn't have a chance to check it in that many different systems, that's why I'm curoius others' experience in that matter. It may be also a matter of taste.
While I'm noticing that some people initial impression might be lack of resolution (especially in the highs) or sharper image, after getting used to the sound, they always comment on amazing coherence and rightness of the sound and the "space between the notes".
I'm currently working on a setup where transformers and GC amps are in a same enclosure. This may be an interesting combination, as some people already commented that performance might be further improved with an active driver stage right after transformers.
When this works out well, I might also put a DAC in a same chassis as well 😉
While I'm noticing that some people initial impression might be lack of resolution (especially in the highs) or sharper image, after getting used to the sound, they always comment on amazing coherence and rightness of the sound and the "space between the notes".
I'm currently working on a setup where transformers and GC amps are in a same enclosure. This may be an interesting combination, as some people already commented that performance might be further improved with an active driver stage right after transformers.
When this works out well, I might also put a DAC in a same chassis as well 😉
Re: input switch advice
Hello,
IMHO it does not matter which switch to use ... those bumps result from different ground levels of the sources ... to avoid this you must either connect all grounds (and don't switch them) or connect all grounds via resisitors to make these bumps at least inaudible. (lets say 50K .. 100K)
@Peter Daniel
I am using unity gain configuartion as even then I can't turn down the volume far enough ... maybe I should modify my CD player ...
Cheers
Christian.
Inaki said:
Hello,
IMHO it does not matter which switch to use ... those bumps result from different ground levels of the sources ... to avoid this you must either connect all grounds (and don't switch them) or connect all grounds via resisitors to make these bumps at least inaudible. (lets say 50K .. 100K)
@Peter Daniel
I am using unity gain configuartion as even then I can't turn down the volume far enough ... maybe I should modify my CD player ...
Cheers
Christian.
Peter,
I am have tried both 0 dB and +6 dB in my system,
and if I am to get the loud listening levels I want to have, I have to use the +6 dB configuration.
When I used my own designed preamp, I had + 6dB gain.
With the S&B I use a Harmak&Kardon CDplayer (about 100 Ohm outout resistance) connected directly to the transformers and then to the power amp (47k Ohm input resistance).
Short cables - max 1m long.
Sigurd
I am have tried both 0 dB and +6 dB in my system,
and if I am to get the loud listening levels I want to have, I have to use the +6 dB configuration.
When I used my own designed preamp, I had + 6dB gain.
With the S&B I use a Harmak&Kardon CDplayer (about 100 Ohm outout resistance) connected directly to the transformers and then to the power amp (47k Ohm input resistance).
Short cables - max 1m long.
Sigurd
Peter Daniel said:
Re: input switch advice
Konnichiwa,
I suggest you switch grounds and use BBM.
BUT, and that is crucial, you must tie all inputs grounds to a common point, ideally also linked to the chassic and transformer screen/case.
If you where to tie the input grounds together directly you obviously have no benefit from switched grounds, therefore use 1K in series with each ground with at least one input being tied down with only 100R and deisgnated TV/AV as these signals tend to be quite noisy.
Another trick that helps to understand, think of any source as having signal Hot & Signal Cold (as on a balanced connection) and Ground/Screen. For unbalanced connections ground and signal cold are sadly combined, making them particulary unsuitable for quality audio.
Another worthwhile trick is to terminate each ground lead for RF as diretcly to the case/RF-Ground of the Pasisve pre as possible, use a 51R resistor in series with a 10nF ceramic Capacitor, keep all wires extremely short.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
Inaki said:
I suggest you switch grounds and use BBM.
BUT, and that is crucial, you must tie all inputs grounds to a common point, ideally also linked to the chassic and transformer screen/case.
If you where to tie the input grounds together directly you obviously have no benefit from switched grounds, therefore use 1K in series with each ground with at least one input being tied down with only 100R and deisgnated TV/AV as these signals tend to be quite noisy.
Another trick that helps to understand, think of any source as having signal Hot & Signal Cold (as on a balanced connection) and Ground/Screen. For unbalanced connections ground and signal cold are sadly combined, making them particulary unsuitable for quality audio.
Another worthwhile trick is to terminate each ground lead for RF as diretcly to the case/RF-Ground of the Pasisve pre as possible, use a 51R resistor in series with a 10nF ceramic Capacitor, keep all wires extremely short.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
I find that if there is a very low source impedance (eg my CD Player with Gomez Output stage having << 100R) there is no distinct prefernece, where the source impedance is highish (like my Phonostage around 2K) I prefer unity gain of boost.
Note that speakers are rather high sensitivity (97db/W/m Fieldcoil) and Amp's are most zero feedback SE Triode.
Sayonara
Peter Daniel said:
I find that if there is a very low source impedance (eg my CD Player with Gomez Output stage having << 100R) there is no distinct prefernece, where the source impedance is highish (like my Phonostage around 2K) I prefer unity gain of boost.
Note that speakers are rather high sensitivity (97db/W/m Fieldcoil) and Amp's are most zero feedback SE Triode.
Sayonara
Re: Re: input switch advice
Thank you all for your answers, I think I'll go for the 4 poles bbm switch annd experiment with your suggestions.
I'll begin trying the Kuei tie+resistor to the chassis advice.
If this doesn't work for me, I'll try ending grounds with the RC to the case and in the worst case I always can unswitching input grounds.
Thanks again
Thank you all for your answers, I think I'll go for the 4 poles bbm switch annd experiment with your suggestions.
I'll begin trying the Kuei tie+resistor to the chassis advice.
If this doesn't work for me, I'll try ending grounds with the RC to the case and in the worst case I always can unswitching input grounds.
Thanks again
Peter Daniel said:
Hi,
I have had an opportunity to test the TX102. Linear and nonlinear distortion was obvious at +6dB tap (Rsource=50ohm, Rload=10k, Vout=+6dBV). A friend of mine who uses Sowters has been experiencing the same - a clearly noticeable distortion and high frequency losses.
Better results (high frequency response) may be obtained by using just one primary at +6dB tap (and not two in parallel).
However, using +6dB tap might make sense (at least to me) if the load impedance is relatively high and resistive (up to 100kohm) and the source impedance is very small (50ohms or so).
Regards,
Milan
Konnichiwa,
That sounds like you had the MK II. Due to the winding structure changes in the MK II to make it "measure good" some of the abilities of the MK I (and now also the MK III) where changed/removed. The MK II should be hooked up only using 1/2 primary for the +6db option, the MK I & MK III in parallel.
Sayonara
moamps said:
That sounds like you had the MK II. Due to the winding structure changes in the MK II to make it "measure good" some of the abilities of the MK I (and now also the MK III) where changed/removed. The MK II should be hooked up only using 1/2 primary for the +6db option, the MK I & MK III in parallel.
Sayonara
How good is MK III with balanced output? I mean, can I use single ended source and connect the transdormer's output to bridged configuration of chip amps?
IIRC, MK II had problems with phase inverting.
IIRC, MK II had problems with phase inverting.
Konnichiwa,
I have not made too extensive tests with that, it should be okay on that though, according to JB. If I find time, I'll have a look this week. The MK I was perfectly usable that way though.
Sayonara
Peter Daniel said:
I have not made too extensive tests with that, it should be okay on that though, according to JB. If I find time, I'll have a look this week. The MK I was perfectly usable that way though.
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
It might be.
Should this be taken to mean that primary windings are bifilary-wound? Can TX102 III measurements and technical data be found somewhere?
Regards,
Milan
Konnichiwa,
The MKII used a bifilar construction, MKI & MKIII use a construction JB calls sandwich, which uses a fundamentally balanced winding structure, similar to that found in high quality balanced input transformers. The biggest indicator of having a MKI/III or a MKII is CMRR. The MKI/III are as good as most TX's I measured, the MK II are rather poorer.
The official specs in most key areas (primary inductance, DCR & Level handling) are identical to the largest degree for all revisions. The main differences are not in specified areas.
Some independent measurements where made by Martin Colloms in HiFi News. There was a link of this in one of the recent 102 threads...
Sayonara
moamps said:
The MKII used a bifilar construction, MKI & MKIII use a construction JB calls sandwich, which uses a fundamentally balanced winding structure, similar to that found in high quality balanced input transformers. The biggest indicator of having a MKI/III or a MKII is CMRR. The MKI/III are as good as most TX's I measured, the MK II are rather poorer.
moamps said:
The official specs in most key areas (primary inductance, DCR & Level handling) are identical to the largest degree for all revisions. The main differences are not in specified areas.
Some independent measurements where made by Martin Colloms in HiFi News. There was a link of this in one of the recent 102 threads...
Sayonara
Hi Guys,
I just did a couple of mods to my tx102 mk2 that I have had for a while now...
1) I reduced the secondary termination load from about 200K to about 20K by putting 2 x 10K welyn 0.1% across the ( balanced ) o/p - my amp has i/p resistance of about 200K
This effect was quite subtle but it sound a little fuller and smoother.
I wonder if anyone has experimented with different values to find the best subjective effect
2) I wired it as an auto transformer i.e. wired the i/p ( via a cap ) to the third tap down from the top on the secondary. This seemed to match most closely the volume I get with the 6db gain configuration.
I thought this might loose some of the advantages of a TVC but I could only hear clear advantages - more definition, detail, realism.
these two mods together, in my system, amount to a significant improvement.
Has any else tried this ? what was your verdict ?
mike
I just did a couple of mods to my tx102 mk2 that I have had for a while now...
1) I reduced the secondary termination load from about 200K to about 20K by putting 2 x 10K welyn 0.1% across the ( balanced ) o/p - my amp has i/p resistance of about 200K
This effect was quite subtle but it sound a little fuller and smoother.
I wonder if anyone has experimented with different values to find the best subjective effect
2) I wired it as an auto transformer i.e. wired the i/p ( via a cap ) to the third tap down from the top on the secondary. This seemed to match most closely the volume I get with the 6db gain configuration.
I thought this might loose some of the advantages of a TVC but I could only hear clear advantages - more definition, detail, realism.
these two mods together, in my system, amount to a significant improvement.
Has any else tried this ? what was your verdict ?
mike
This is rather amusing. At the time when MkII were the only ones available and i was complaining the highs sounded like crap i distinctly remember Kuei claiming they were absolutely amazing and just needed some break-in. He even expressed the suspicion i had miswired them. Apparently things are different now.
As much as i need to buy another set of moving coil tranformers i'll never buy another S&B product.
Hi MIke
You have wired the primary in series with part of the secondary, right? Why the cap? It does sound very interesting.
analog_sa said:
Hi,
I was kind of thinking of you when I posted this - the treble does seem to have a bit more sparkle in this mode
The primary is disconnected one end and earthed the other so it is not in cct at all.
Jonathon Billington assured me that even a tiny amount of DC would mess up the sound so I am running it with an i/p cap. I have to confess that I have not even tried it without - yet.
just off to measure my DC offset...
mike
Konnichiwa,
You took my comment completely and deliberatly OUT OF CONTEXT. I rather resent that. You deliberatly quote out of context and partially to create a false impression. This is rather dishonest, to say the least.
The full quote must read:
"The biggest indicator of having a MKI/III or a MKII is CMRR. The MKI/III are as good as most TX's I measured, the MK II are rather poorer. "
The only area where the measured performance of the MKII is not the equal of earlier/later versions is in terms of balance, CMRR - which is short for common mode rejection ratio - is an indication of this. That is a direct result of the bifilar winding which was adopted to get "measures perfect" HF response.
In terms of distortion and level handling you will find minimal differences between revisions, in terms of frequency response the MK II actually measured "best" (as in widest frequency response), the thing was flat to some silly high frequencies, well past 300KHz when driven from a 50R output RF generator.
Sonic impressions and system matching are another issue and I'll not get into a discussion about this, if you check you will find that your one of very few people who decided to dislike what they heard. Why, that is open to argument, but not now and here.
Given how applingly poor your ability to read what is written appears to be, this would still seem a distinct possibility.
No, you just need to be sure that you actually bother to read what is written.
Feel free to buy anything you like.
And feel free to quote correctly and in context. Quote me again the way you did here (deliberatly out of context to create false impressions) and a complaint goes straight to the moderators.
Sayonara
analog_sa said:
You took my comment completely and deliberatly OUT OF CONTEXT. I rather resent that. You deliberatly quote out of context and partially to create a false impression. This is rather dishonest, to say the least.
The full quote must read:
"The biggest indicator of having a MKI/III or a MKII is CMRR. The MKI/III are as good as most TX's I measured, the MK II are rather poorer. "
The only area where the measured performance of the MKII is not the equal of earlier/later versions is in terms of balance, CMRR - which is short for common mode rejection ratio - is an indication of this. That is a direct result of the bifilar winding which was adopted to get "measures perfect" HF response.
In terms of distortion and level handling you will find minimal differences between revisions, in terms of frequency response the MK II actually measured "best" (as in widest frequency response), the thing was flat to some silly high frequencies, well past 300KHz when driven from a 50R output RF generator.
Sonic impressions and system matching are another issue and I'll not get into a discussion about this, if you check you will find that your one of very few people who decided to dislike what they heard. Why, that is open to argument, but not now and here.
analog_sa said:
Given how applingly poor your ability to read what is written appears to be, this would still seem a distinct possibility.
analog_sa said:
No, you just need to be sure that you actually bother to read what is written.
analog_sa said:
Feel free to buy anything you like.
And feel free to quote correctly and in context. Quote me again the way you did here (deliberatly out of context to create false impressions) and a complaint goes straight to the moderators.
Sayonara
Hey Kuei,
never mind - if peter ( is that name right ? ) tries this mod he might cheer up no end - I mean, if you are not using the primary, it does not really matter how it is wound. I am definetly getting more zing
what do you think of the auto tranny option ?
have you tried it ?
never mind - if peter ( is that name right ? ) tries this mod he might cheer up no end - I mean, if you are not using the primary, it does not really matter how it is wound. I am definetly getting more zing
what do you think of the auto tranny option ?
have you tried it ?
Konnichiwa,
It is certainly an option. If your is SE only and you do not need to split up the current loops it can work great.
Cursory.
I have been usually taking advantage of the transformers ability to convert balanced and unbalanced signals freely. I have not really used the MKII much myself, on the MKI the autorformer option gave a modest improvement.
Much will also depend upon the rest of the system context. The greater the source impedance the more will unwanted capacitances in the transformer make themselves felt.
That is why the spec says "10K/2K5", in other words your source should drive a 10K load without trouble to use the TX-102 in unity gain configuration and a 2K5 load with 6db stepup.
Sayonara
mikelm said:
It is certainly an option. If your is SE only and you do not need to split up the current loops it can work great.
mikelm said:
Cursory.
I have been usually taking advantage of the transformers ability to convert balanced and unbalanced signals freely. I have not really used the MKII much myself, on the MKI the autorformer option gave a modest improvement.
Much will also depend upon the rest of the system context. The greater the source impedance the more will unwanted capacitances in the transformer make themselves felt.
That is why the spec says "10K/2K5", in other words your source should drive a 10K load without trouble to use the TX-102 in unity gain configuration and a 2K5 load with 6db stepup.
Sayonara
Thanks Mike. I'll definitely try it. IIRC many preferred Dave Slagle's autoformers to any kind of TVCs