Hi Leo,
Our posts almost collided.
I have to go and do Christmas too, so will talk later.
Regards
Paul
Printable View
Hi Leo,
Our posts almost collided.
I have to go and do Christmas too, so will talk later.
Regards
Paul
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSJR
I'm with leo on this one, everything is built down to a price where the manufacturer feels pretty sure that they'll get the custom ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by leo
This modification is totally logical from the point of view of seperating out the control circuitry (which will draw a fairly constant current) from the circuit feeding power to the motor coils (which will be drawn in pulses).
The standard deck is quite satisfactory, but this is about getting as close to the ultimate performance possible from this TT. This is how i'd do it on my deck to get better performance, which incidentally isn't a Technics :eyebrows:
From an engineering point of view it's a bit of a no brainer i'm afraid, it's got to be better & i applaud those that are trying it :) While i feel sure they'll also be applauding the improvement in sound quality even if it may be less obvious than other upgrades, i feel sure it'll be noticeable.
Dave, if I may supplement what Paul Hynes has already written in reply to your post, his regulator boards have a whole load of surface-mount components on the underside of the PCB, so your comments are based on seeing only half of the true picture. These regulators are quite complex things and as such, in my opinion and experience, offer considerable value for money, or as Marco would put it, SPPV. I'm pleased that so many here on AoS now agree with me!Quote:
Originally Posted by DSJR
SMD's aren't expensive, however, the intellectual property embodied in these boards counts for something I agree.
I still hope that you guys are aware of "exactly" what you're doing, by checking that a difference is actually being achieved, rather than just "gut feelings." There are enough professional engineers involved now to make this possible I think and this would make these upgrades the definitive article.
I was told years ago that many old radio designs were achieved by constructing a circuit and then stripping out unnecessary bits until the circuit stopped working. many great radio sets were apparently designed this way and decades later they're still runing fine. For certain, in many audio circuits, having decent individual supplies for different stages makes perfect and excellent sense, especially when these supplies are right next to where they need to be, but this is a turntable motor control circuit. The general cost-saving argument may be perfectly rational and true in this case, but does this circuit really NEED to have everything separated out? Obviously some of you think it does, in which case, the benefits of doing this should be easy to measure, as well as hear.
For me, it's a simple case of listening to the results with having everything separated out, and not.
I know how the Techie sounds inside out, especially my own one, so if the former configuration to my ears sounds better, then, quite simply, it *is* better, regardless of theories (or not) to the contrary - or indeed any boring measurement bollocks {yawn}....
Simples - trust your ears (and your system) if they're good enough, and all will be revealed!! :)
Marco.
I trusted my ears when I thought they were good and ended up with Isobariks - oh yeah, they were the "next big thing" back then :D
I'm not winding you guys up, but this deck works well as-is and takes incredible punishment in its stride. At least you can get spares for it if you make catastrophic mistakes with the main board..
Lol - actually, I quite like Isobariks.... Anyway, hope you've had a nice Christmas day, matey! :cool:
Marco.
We spent so much time snacking we didn't bother with the main meal... We'll save it for tomorrow but heaven knows what my blood-sugar is going to be.......
Early active 'briks could sound bright but incredibly involving. I thought they sort of got worse as the years went on (passive ones sort of got better ironically) and the final active examples just sounded forced and coloured for some reason. Anyway, time to back off and read up with interest on future Techie mods :)
Forgive me Marco, I KNOW you've had a great day with loads of goodies to eat and drink, along with plenty of pussies to fuss - you lucky boy you :D
Hi Dave R,
I’m not entirely sure this is accurate information as I’m going back to the early 1980’s and my memory may be at fault, but I do remember a very pleasant evening discussing loudspeaker design with Malcolm Jones of Falcoln Acoustics and Barry of Badger Sound services who I used to work with. I believe the passive Isobariks used a pair of Web Transmission Line crossovers (one for each set of drivers) wired in parallel, hence the reputation for having a punishing amplifier load at the time. These crossovers were supplied to Linn Products by Malcolm Jones who ran Falcon Acoustics. Using a crossover that was designed for a completely different driver loading system would not have been ideal but the crossover design may have changed over time, as this is the nature of product development.
Regards
Paul
I think you're right sir, as I remember Falcon Acoustics and/or Badger being mentioned.
Many things happened - the early chipboard cabs definitely suited the active version IMO, the passive DMS's pre 1983 sounding boxy, hollow and "tubey" on vocals. The MDF cabs were definitely better with the DMS version, although the PMS's were never quite as comfortable imo - it may have been the hard-as-nails CB NAP250's though being shown up for the dogs they were when new. By the mid 80's, KEF had to make changes to the B110 and this upset the existing 1KHz peak even more, afecting LS3/5a's too and annihilating the Kans. Linn changed the boxes to have accessible crossovers (don't know if they were different) which made active conversion easy and the B110 was changed to the higher power version which smoothed the response. Trouble is, whether Naim or Linn driven, the "magic" seemed to disappear and the Kan II, Sara 9 and later 'briks to my ears began to sound coloured (box ridden), forced in the bass and with a dead treble, replacing the sometimes glassy (Scanspeak) or tinny (Hiqufon) treble of earlier versions. Just my view obviously, but the best 'brik systems I've heard in peoples rooms have always been early chipboard PMS's driven by bolt-up Naim 250's, later 135's or Krell KSA50's (Jimmy's excellent setup for a few years) and these with a now lo-fi 12S preamp and Snaps (by comparison to what Glenn Croft and others are doing for comparative peanuts), Linn's own active systems sounding as though the music was being squeezed out in a constipated way......