The Marco-boy main system, as of August 2020

[Marco]

Y splitters: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Gold-Plat...QAAOSwFJBZVit7

Just a 'shout out' for Chris, who posted earlier about the above Y-splitters. I ordered a set (and how nicely made they are), as it's a neater solution than the wired connectors that came with my set of loading plugs, and I thought potentially might sound better.

And I'm pleased to report that they do! Not 'night and day' better, but definitely they produce an overall 'tidier' and more solid sound, subjectively 'quieter', too... The reason for that I'm guessing is due to the difference in capacitance between the short run of cables I was using and the 'hard-wired' gold-plated brass splitters, using the same 150pF loading plugs.

Anyway, for £8 it's a nice little upgrade and I'd recommend others experimenting with loading plugs to invest in these splitters, as they offer a very solid, good sounding and reliable connection

Marco.

[matodono1]

Ok, I've been looking for one of these for YEARS, but they are super-rare and also usually more than double the price, and located in Japan! So it was refreshing to see a minty one for sale in the UK, and for such a good price:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NAGAOKA-G...72.m2749.l2649







It will partner my Nagaoka crystal glass mat:



The mat on its own sounds superb, so it'll be interesting to hear how it works as a combo, as indeed it was originally designed to work

Honestly though, I've seen the stabiliser alone sell for upwards of £200, and ditto the mat, as both are very rare and sought after vintage classics! So I'm well chuffed at scoring the stabiliser for £85!

Also, and this is particularly exciting... Arthur has sent me an improved version of the Achromat to try, and which looks great but I haven't yet assessed. I'm hoping that it'll not only be the best mat I've heard (perhaps trumping the Nagaoka), but also form a synergistic partnership with the Houdini, as both have been designed to work together.

Full report on all of the above in due course!

Marco.

Very exciting cannot wait!

[Marco]

Yes indeed, and all will be revealed soon!

Marco.

[matodono1]

Yes, but will it be better than the 'Achromat+' Arthur has sent me?

All will be revealed soon!

Marco.

You're such a tease!

[Marco]

I still remember with great affection, as a teenager in the 80s, listening to the Radio 1 Top 40 chart show on Sunday nights, hosted by Tommy Vance (and others), and marveling at the quality of sound [through the rather nice Sony tuner my dad had in the lounge back then], a show that like most youngsters then I'd record onto tape and play on my stereo or 'ghetto blaster' later - and a sound that still sticks in my mind to this day, which was bold, weighty, detailed, punchy and dynamic, and conveyed with palpable authority...

This is the sort of thing I was on about:



Turn the volume up and have a listen to that.. Now I know it's compressed to buggery on YouTube, but despite that I still think it sounds fab, and if you've got any kind of 'ear' at all, even through this compromised medium [although the chap in question has preserved a good recording], you should be able to hear the type of sound I've described produced by the Shure!

I suspect during that era, a Gates CB-500 was used, with the SC35C strapped onto a Grey Research 108-C tonearm:



The above video must be watched directly on YouTube.



Now that tank-like thing is defo what you call 'high-mass'!!

Yup, that's the combo you were likely listening to spinning the tunes on BBC radio, during the 70s to mid 80s!

No way does Radio 1 (or R2) sound like that now, SQ-wise, with the streaming shite they use to play music...

Marco.

[Opti-cal]

You should try a Shure SC35C, as fitted with a NOS stylus and correctly loaded

As its a rubber stamped recommendation from the horses mouth, its become a priority. I think I need to hear one . . . . likewise on the Houdini . . . . I'll be selling a few bits and pieces in the near future so that will offset the cost somewhat (or at least that's what I'll tell myself to justify it!!).

Just a 'shout out' for Chris,

a very solid, good sounding and reliable connection

Marco.

No problem Marco, glad they do the trick for you too.

I subscribe to the explanation regarding the removal of extra capacitance of the cable etc (now being just a solid plug rather than any actual cable involved). I've actually often wondered if a 'male to male' (ooo errr Mrs) plug of similar construction would bring sonic benefits when used straight from a DAC or phono stage connection into the pre-amp in. If you don't need to see the front of your DAC or phono stage it kind of makes sense assuming you have a shelf/space to facilitate such a configuration.

Anyway, I digress, keep sharing your findings as it looks like we're on the same page regarding sonic attributes and also our 'aims' regarding equipment. I appreciate all the little tweaks 'can' work in some systems. To a more or lesser degree and sometimes not at all, but its fun to try and super satisfying when you do pull them off, especially when they don't cost the earth!

Cheers

[Marco]

Hi Chris,

Nice one on the Shure and Houdini. I'm SHURE you'll be delighted with both, lol!

I also agree with you about the jumpers. I thought I'd have to choose a different value of loading plugs, after having 'lost' the capacitance of the leads, as it were, but the 150pF ones I'd been using were still fine. Sound is defo better, though

Did you listen to the YouTube video I posted of the Top 40 chart show in 1982, and the quality of the sound that was produced then? If you did, hopefully you can hear where I'm coming from about the SC35C, used within the 'infrastructure' it was intended to be used.

Here's another clip, this time from the same show in 1987, when the Beeb were using EMT 950s, with the same cartridge:



Fast forward to 1.04.30 and listen to Jelly bean's 'Who Found Who'?...

It may not be your type of music, but just listen to that lovely weighty, solid and rhythmic bass line! That's something that digital struggles to achieve in comparison (and a trait of the SC35C)!



Marco.

[Macca]

It may not be your type of music, but just listen to that lovely weighty, solid and rhythmic bass line! That's something that digital struggles to achieve in comparison (and a trait of the SC35C)!



Marco.

Well clearly it doesn't since your example is itself a digital transcription....on the other hand I do agree about the decline in sound quality from radio, thin and a bit scratchy nowadays compared to what it was.

[Opti-cal]

Hi Chris,

Nice one on the Shure and Houdini. I'm SHURE you'll be delighted with both, lol!


Did you listen to the YouTube video I posted of the Top 40 chart show in 1982, and the quality of the sound that was produced then? If you did, hopefully you can hear where I'm coming from about the SC35C, used within the 'infrastructure' it was intended to be used.

Just had a listen to that Marco,

that juicy, full bodied sound comes through regardless of playback system I think. It just fills the frequency range very, very nicely. I think sometimes (and I've been guilty of this myself on occasion) people are just listening out for cues and nuances which they know 'should' jump out of the mix and impress them. Maybe they've heard the track on playback systems which (over) emphasizes a certain sound/instrument/voice and any which don't reproduce what they expect to hear are deemed inferior.

Fact is if it boogies it boogies, I get more boogie factor with vinyl/analogue playback. The detail and transparency achieved using my digital components can be very enjoyable but swapping to my vinyl rig and playing the same song is (nearly) always no contest. To be honest I've never done a comparison of digital vs vinyl and thought 'oh there's some detail missing there from the vinyl', although technically likely true, the vinyl just has that bounce and boogie factor.

Maybe I haven't come across the right DAC/streamer setup (and the DAC I'm currently using is on the very budget end) to compete with the vinyl on this front at least. Where the digital does win however, is separation, instrument placement and ultimate sub (20Hz and below) bass. Although its certainly not as 'rich' sounding and ultimately, enjoyable.

Nothing wrong with those tunes, good music is good music. I often reference a lot of my electronic, ambient stuff on the threads here but I have a firm grounding in all the good stuff.

Flashbacks of chucking a cassette in my dads Nakamichi (BX2?) I think it was (the twin head though, not the triple bad boy) and being consumed by its analogue 'tapey' sound. Slightly akin to an old skool 'loudness' button being on, everything just sounded a bit bigger an beefier.

[Marco]

Well clearly it doesn't since your example is itself a digital transcription....on the other hand I do agree about the decline in sound quality from radio, thin and a bit scratchy nowadays compared to what it was.

Lol - I can hear through the digital transcription and still readily identify the sonic characteristics of the vinyl source, just like I do with the 'needledrops' I produce - not a problem - and that lovely 'juicy' and full-bodied bass is defo a characteristic of both the Shure cartridge used and the EMT turntable and arm it was on

If the music had been reproduced via a digital source, the bass wouldn't have sounded like that. Yes, the digital process can faithfully reproduce the qualities of the analogue source, but not PUT them there in the first place - that's my point!

Totally agree with you on the 'thin and scratchy' nature of the sound on commercial radio these days, and much of that is down to them simply playing computer files on not particularly good equipment. If it was CDs, through the likes of the BBC Technics player you've got, it would be a different ball game!

So it's not that digital music is crap [you know that's not my view anyway], but rather how radio stations are choosing to reproduce it these days... However, it still sounded better when it was turntables and vinyl, and 'DJ' (DISC jockey) actually meant something!

Marco.