Nope not quite so , examination done on a daily basis , condemnation is the result of ...
Ps: Thank god for digital, thank god for analog , the remote is most pleasurable, dicking with the TT, is not ..
.
Interestingly, the member up the road that I recently visited has fired up his LP12 in the interim, after not touching it in many, many years - over the phone he's extremely enthusiastic about what it's doing - the listening into the early hours of the morning thing.
Now, I've already mentioned hearing some classic digital problem artifacts while there - and the LP12 obviously won't have these ... so, it will be interesting to see if the CD player can be knocked into shape a bit more, then ...
Now, I've already mentioned hearing some classic digital problem artifacts while there - and the LP12 obviously won't have these ... so, it will be interesting to see if the CD player can be knocked into shape a bit more, then ...
Ps: Thank god for digital, thank god for analog , the remote is most pleasurable, dicking with the TT, is not ..
.
+100Dan.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, with digital and analog, we have a dichotomy ...
In the heyday of audio, 1970-1980, the boom of the market caused research of TT problems, and here and there, their elimination. In other words, they grew up fast.
The Digital Revolution gave us a whole slew of new items, from the PC to many a gadget, but the days of an audio boom were over. That market was shrunk first by video, then by the PC, which became all the rage.
This caused slower development of digital audio; advances were made, but at a much slower pace, and in slower, smaller increments. Audio companies were bolting their doors, that market was soon taken over by the HT receiver, for better or worse (in my view, for worse).
Worse, the CD sofware market changed completely. From quality, it quickly moved on to flashy and loud. When you have a CD which clips 90+% of the time, you are not really stimulated to buy a top flight CD player just to be able to hear all that clipping much better.
Look how long it took even simple to implement ideas, such as Real Time DACs, to make en appearance - literally decades! Since I own an Australian take on that, pretty good but far from the best possible, I can attest to the fact that it is a new experience, CD without most of the "digital" sound to it. And nowadays, not expensive at all for a reasonable sample.
NAD is not the most propulsive company in the world, rather it's a mid market company, yet my recently acquired NAD C 565BEE gave me quite a surprise at how it sounds, especially for the money, which was €400 (app. US$ 540), hardly a High End device or price. Almost no digital overtones to it, it made me re-invent my own CD collection.
So, it took around 35 years for the CD to catch up with analog, at least as I own them and percieve them. But the advance from my idler driven Dual 1019 from 1968 to my 1977 Dual CS 604 was just 14 years, less than half of the digital. And, in its day, the 1019 was Dual's top model, while the 604 was not in 1977, there were to1 and 721 above it on the model scale.
In the heyday of audio, 1970-1980, the boom of the market caused research of TT problems, and here and there, their elimination. In other words, they grew up fast.
The Digital Revolution gave us a whole slew of new items, from the PC to many a gadget, but the days of an audio boom were over. That market was shrunk first by video, then by the PC, which became all the rage.
This caused slower development of digital audio; advances were made, but at a much slower pace, and in slower, smaller increments. Audio companies were bolting their doors, that market was soon taken over by the HT receiver, for better or worse (in my view, for worse).
Worse, the CD sofware market changed completely. From quality, it quickly moved on to flashy and loud. When you have a CD which clips 90+% of the time, you are not really stimulated to buy a top flight CD player just to be able to hear all that clipping much better.
Look how long it took even simple to implement ideas, such as Real Time DACs, to make en appearance - literally decades! Since I own an Australian take on that, pretty good but far from the best possible, I can attest to the fact that it is a new experience, CD without most of the "digital" sound to it. And nowadays, not expensive at all for a reasonable sample.
NAD is not the most propulsive company in the world, rather it's a mid market company, yet my recently acquired NAD C 565BEE gave me quite a surprise at how it sounds, especially for the money, which was €400 (app. US$ 540), hardly a High End device or price. Almost no digital overtones to it, it made me re-invent my own CD collection.
So, it took around 35 years for the CD to catch up with analog, at least as I own them and percieve them. But the advance from my idler driven Dual 1019 from 1968 to my 1977 Dual CS 604 was just 14 years, less than half of the digital. And, in its day, the 1019 was Dual's top model, while the 604 was not in 1977, there were to1 and 721 above it on the model scale.
Aye, but along the way we learnt:
1. TTs need to have idler drive, as the most complex and trouble ridden drive of all, because it keeps us honest;
2. It's very hard to decide which drive to use these days:
3. Da Boss will be Da Designer,
and we never even got to the tonearm.
But it was fun.
The good news is most arms and cartridges are fine . The big risk is getting the best match . I don't like the cheaper Jelco arm or Denon 103 pick up much . I have hunch they would be excellent together . Seeing as that is the realistic budget I have I will suspend my doubts and try them . They will function beautifully and I am guessing have complementary errors ( Jelco would aim it at the likely cartridge people will buy ) . Looking at the full Jelco range they are not idiots , the soft sound of the cheaper must be a choice . If new to turntables never underestimate how compatibility works for or against you . I am not the worlds greatest fan of the SME 5 . I have heard it sound good with Lyra Argo . The best I ever heard it was with Shure M44-7 . That's crazy as no one will want to own that . It was for 78's . We had the original stylus to hand so wanted to try it . V15 ? Not my cup of tea although fine as a freebee ( often as a secondhand purchase on the deck ) .
Forgot to say . It will be Colleen's deck . GL88 ( link ) , Jelco , DL103 . It should be world class and we can both be 2 bottles of wine worse off when using it . The Jelco is nice to use and the 103 is tough . I have heard a 103 sound good . It is very fussy to adjust . It is no better than a M44-7 in it's stylus .
http://www.hembrow.eu/personal/goldring88.html
Last edited:
Supposedly the best sounding of all NCore amps
Model 925 Mono Amplifier
Seperate PSU chassis and input transformers for isolation ...
Model 925 Mono Amplifier
Seperate PSU chassis and input transformers for isolation ...
Cant see the Jelco /103 combi working without adding significant mass...
Supposedly the best sounding of all NCore amps
Model 925 Mono Amplifier
Seperate PSU chassis and input transformers for isolation ...
You may never see it in public but I expect Bruno P to be laughing at the overbuilt excess that won't contribute to the performance. But Bruno is a fan of feedback so what does he know?
Supposedly the best sounding of all NCore amps
Model 925 Mono Amplifier
Seperate PSU chassis and input transformers for isolation ...
I think Jeff Rowland is one of the very few audio designers who doesn't get stuck in the past and keeps an open mind.
I remember his power amp with a bunch of LM3886 power chips. And now nCore. His bottom line doesn't seem to suffer.
We can learn an important lesson from him: you actually CAN get customers to accept innovation, as long as you have a good story for it.
Jan
You may think so , many who has compared them to other nc1200 based amps including Bruno's, state the Rowlands stands tall ...
Model 102, SMPS + ICEpower, in a case machined from solid 6061.
For $3k or €1.8k in '06/'07.
(could be Mr. Rowland fancies yuppy inbreed
)Attachments
Last edited:
I see that we still haven't worked out that measurement technique that produces numbers correlating with what the ears hear ...
The sad truth begind modern audio, and especially the so-called High End.
Best confirmation - most (but not all) of the Chinese production. They invariably look great and far more expensive than they really are, but perform way below their looks. They got the message - what matters is how it LOOKS to be like, not how it actually is.
Many don't like to admit it, but audio electronics are VERY succeptible to fashon and advertising BS. One is sometimes led to believe that without the latest "innovation" by company X, audio circuits don't actually work, they just pretend to work.
You may think so , many who has compared them to other nc1200 based amps including Bruno's, state the Rowlands stands tall ...
That may be so, Wayne, but 1 will get you 10 that separating the amp from the PSU is NOT the reason why that may be so.
There are many techniques how to isolate the transformers from the sensitive audio electronics, but the one they have chosen is the one which yields the biggest profit margin in terms of aluminium sales.
I see that we still haven't worked out that measurement technique that produces numbers correlating with what the ears hear ...
No, we haven't, Frank.
If we had, I'd know why one of my amps, rated at 0.08/0.3% THD at full power into 8/4 Ohms, sounds a hell of a lot better than another one of my amps, rated at 0.03%/8 Ohms (no 4 Ohm rating).
The first has a global NFB of just 12 dB, the second uses well over 40 dB of global NFB.
I can't even count all the times when a circuit which is theoretically far better than another circuit sounds worse nevetheless.
Theoretically, faster output devices should sound better than slower ones because they switch faster to much faster, yet in far too many cases I end up enjoying the wholesome, integral sound of the slower devices way better.
It seems to me that far more resources are being spent on advertising than on basic circuit development, let alone reserach.
Quite frankly, those must have been some poor transformers if you have to move them across the room to get rid of hum and noise.
Please don't misunderstand me, it's always a good idea to put your transformers in some kind of the Faraday cage, even if they have no hum, it certainly can't hurt.
My point was, the same effect can be achieved without wasting additinal 20 lbs of heavily machined aluminium.
Just as an example, one can use a double case bottom, the inner one being made of copper, and the transformer(s) in between the two. If you are careful with your grounding, you get exactly the same effect of isolation with much less hassle and for a lot less money. If you have decently oversized your transformers, heat won't be a prolem with some careful thinking and planning.
Or do the same by placing the toroids sidewise in the center of the case with isloation walls on both sides, a la Levinson did before.
And I do NOT make isolators, I make power line filters. Quite another thing altogether. They do islolate the transformers from the grid, but do nothing for them once they are installed inside the case.
Or quite simply case the transformers and ground the casing. As many do, e.g. my own Citation 24 power amp.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.