The cheapskate bodger with the JLH 1969

What people are working on at the moment
JMRead
User
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:20 am

#16 Re: The cheapskate bodger with the JLH 1969

Post by JMRead »

Hello all,

JLH 1969 vs LM3886

I did this test for 8 days I wanted to be sure that my opinions were right. I was also concerned not to use the daft metaphors one sees on, for instance six loons.

I used the setup you can see here;
Image

Input = One channel from my CD/DVD player through to a switch with two metres of wire
Output = left loudspeaker from the JLH 1969, the right one from the LM3886

By doing this I am able to switch from one amplifier to another instantly and can use the return on the CD/DVD remote to repeat a passage in seconds.

My first reaction was there's not that much difference. After half an hour or so I realised that the JLH sounded a little brighter. This was with Mahler's 1st symphony. The following day I tried some old Jazz, Bessie Smith and Clarence Williams's acoustic recordings from the early 1920's and Lady Day's from 1937, both sounding a bit clearer on the JLH.

I'd listened to these recordings many times and realised that I was listening to what I expected to hear i.e. the 3886 and 3876 before it and not what the JLH was giving me. The JLH still sounded a bit brighter though.

Next up was Norah Jones and 'What am I to you' this time I listened to her and realised that her voice was more up front with the JLH, this is where the switch came into it's own, being able to swap amps instantly identifies ones thoughts like nothing else.

The piano version of the Enigma Variations was next and one particularly loud and fast variation sounded quite brighter on the JLH but a little dull from the 3886. Oh dear I thought there must be something wrong with my speaker on the right.

I removed the drive units and the input lugs from both, re-soldered them and undid and re-tightened the cables, I then swapped the speakers left for right and right for left.

Back to the variations and the same result, it wasn't my speakers at all! I thought now I'm on to something here. On another forum there is a member who calls himself Poultrygeist he mentioned shimmer in a post with reference to Cymbals. My goodness! A bright light in ones brain, that awoke a recent memory, I'd never heard of the term as aural only as pictorial and thanked him.

Straight back to Norah Jones and yes there it was, a barely heard and rather dull Cymbal from the 3886 and a clear and fast Shimmer from the JLH. What's going on here I thought and back to the Variations, there it was again that instant brightness as I listened carefully to the JLH.

It then dawned on me what was going on (forgive me I'm just a slow old cheapskate git) it was the ADSR the JLH gives me the spike between A and D the 3886 doesn't;
Image

After that I tried Glenn Gould's Goldberg's I could hear him better on the JLH, maybe not such a good thing! Then Julian Breams BBC series Guitarra I could hear his breathing and his jacket rustling and his fingers sliding up the fret (not just the squeaks) at first I didn't believe it and played them over and over again on a couple of days to make sure.

Back to Mahler and the 1st symphony by this time I was used to the brighter sound and listened for the bass drums in the background, a dull rumble on the 3886 I'd never taken much notice of, on the JLH a clearer more concise sound, by this time I wasn't surprised at all everything the 3886 did was a little better on the JLH.

I'd saved Tangerine Dream for a few days, this is the new trio with their wall of full frequency sound recorded at high volume (into the red as I found out in Audacity), deep bass to high treble and everything between. Clarity is what I got from the JLH and a slight confusion from the 3886.

I tried other recordings of course I won't bore you with the names the ones above were the occasions when something dawned on me and was repeated with lots of other music.

The last eight days have been rather strange I did have to look for differences they were not immediately apparent. The 3886 is a fine amplifier no doubt about that, the JLH is slightly better being brighter, faster and more analytical.

What will I be listening to now for the foreseeable future, the JLH :-)

Cheers -J

In another forum I had some detractors saying that 'bright' is not 'right'. It would appear that I've uncovered a yet another dichotomy.

But then from one of the experts was this and I quote it from Mr Nigel Pearson;
Really good valve amplifiers have an analytical sound that is bright and fast. Less good valve amplifiers sound soft and pleasing. Most valve lovers let their designs drift towards the soft. A true Williamson (state of the art valve jobbie) which is rare are not soft.

Mr Hood said this in the 1969 article
The "Williamson" and the present class A design (the JLH) were both better than the other valve amplifer, and so close in performance that it was almost impossible to tell which of the two was in use without looking at the switch position. In the upper reaches of the treble spectrum the transistor amplifer (the JLH) has perhaps a slight advantage.
User avatar
pre65
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 21373
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: North Essex/Suffolk border.

#17 Re: The cheapskate bodger with the JLH 1969

Post by pre65 »

An excellent presentation of the evaluation process. Thanks for posting it. :)
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke

G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
steve s
Shed dweller
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:19 pm
Location: east yorks

#18 Re: The cheapskate bodger with the JLH 1969

Post by steve s »

Your educating yourself.. As you have found objective listening is a skill that for most has to be learnt
The tube manual is quite like a telephone book. The number of it perfect. It is useful to make it possible to speak with a girl. But we can't see her beautiful face from the telephone number
User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 5384
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

#19 Re: The cheapskate bodger with the JLH 1969

Post by ed »

many thanks JMRead

For a very long time I've been trying to explain at our meets the difference I perceive between tish and tizzz on the top end of the kit. You've nailed it at shimmer. At least that's the way I hear it.

others may have a different mileage.
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
JMRead
User
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:20 am

#20 Re: The cheapskate bodger with the JLH 1969

Post by JMRead »

Hello Philip,

And many thanks for your comment it's very nice of you.

Hello Steve,

In the past I'd just thought, great, that sounds better, probably because I made it and nothing else.
I'm so glad that I found Mr Hood's original article, he must take the credit.

Hello Ed

Others do! Like 'bright' is not 'right'!
It wasn't until Poultrygeist explained about shimmer that it hit me between the eyes, Cymbals with a ring of rivets at their perimeter :-)

Cheers and thanks to you all, one can't help feeling a little nervous about posting something like this.

J
User avatar
Ali Tait
Eternally single
Posts: 4373
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Galashiels

#21 Re: The cheapskate bodger with the JLH 1969

Post by Ali Tait »

A good and useful evaluation, but the thought did occur that this doesn’t allow comparisons on imaging and soundstaging?

Less important to some than other aspects admittedly.
User avatar
Paul Barker
Social Sevices have been notified
Posts: 8867
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 9:42 pm

#22 Re: The cheapskate bodger with the JLH 1969

Post by Paul Barker »

Interesting thank you?
"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe." – Albert Einstein
JMRead
User
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:20 am

#23 Re: The cheapskate bodger with the JLH 1969

Post by JMRead »

Hello Ali,

You're quite right it would be better to do that, at time of the test I'd only made one board, if the 3886 had been better I would have scrapped the project.

There was one thing that was a bit odd though and I thought I'd better not say anything about it. Upon switching from the 3886 to the JLH the sound had more spread and the source was not immediately obvious, especially in the lower register. Upon switching back the sound was obviously from the the 3886 alone. That occurred before and after I swapped the speakers over.

Whether it will affect the the stereo-ness I don't know but it would be nice to find out, I'll have a go at rigging it up it will be nice to try it.

More on that soon, thanks for the suggestion, I've got some piano recordings that sound all over the place, they should be a good test and some string quartets, and yes Sir Simon's CBSO Mahler2

Cheers - J
JMRead
User
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:20 am

#24 Re: The cheapskate bodger with the JLH 1969

Post by JMRead »

Hello Paul,

Thanks for your comment good of you, the test continues thanks to Ali's suggestion :-)
I hope you'll continue to have a look at the thread.

Cheers - J
User avatar
Paul Barker
Social Sevices have been notified
Posts: 8867
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 9:42 pm

#25 Re: The cheapskate bodger with the JLH 1969

Post by Paul Barker »

Had you thought about using the current circuit from the original article figure 10?

It seems an amp you have to know youre loudspeaker impedance for real so you can set the amp up for that impedance.

But I’m so impressed by what I’ve read I might knock one up and when that and the 801a amp are both built it would make an interetsing comparrison, the 801a should produce 9 watts at godawful distortion while the 3055 should make 10watts at nera enough perfect purity. The transistor amp won’t have any transformers and the valve amp won’t have any capacitors. Interesting.

But how will they sound? Only one wya to find out; build them both. No armchair opinions from this quater.

Ill bring them both with the OB’s I brought last time I brought something, when I built a push Pull amp for fun.They filled the listening area adequately at 8 watts.

If we ever get another listening area.
"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe." – Albert Einstein
JMRead
User
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:20 am

#26 Re: The cheapskate bodger with the JLH 1969

Post by JMRead »

Hello Ali,

I've been working out what to do to compare two amplifiers in stereo, initially I thought of switching the inputs I would need two sets of speakers though. In order to use one set of speaker leads and switch the power outputs I would need 6 pairs of wires 2 pairs at 5 mtrs and 4 pairs at 3 mtrs, 22 mtrs of twin speaker cable in all and two DPDT switches

It's not as simple as I first thought and I'm sorry I prefer not to do it.

Hello Paul,

Both amps are built for my 4 Ohm 86 dB FH3's, I'm sorry but I've never heard of an 801a. My JLH used 7 Watts for the test, there no adjustable bias on the the 3886 so I don't know what the out is.

I use an Android dB meter called 'Sound Meter' works down to 0.4 secs and set each speaker to an average of 65 dB.

Hope I've been some help.

Cheers - J
User avatar
pre65
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 21373
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: North Essex/Suffolk border.

#27 Re: The cheapskate bodger with the JLH 1969

Post by pre65 »

I was looking at "power amplifiers" on Ebay earlier, and I notice quite a few JLH amp kits and PCBs of various years, including the 1969 version, I wonder if they sound OK ?
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke

G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
JMRead
User
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:20 am

#28 Re: The cheapskate bodger with the JLH 1969

Post by JMRead »

Hello Pre65,

Well!! There's only one way to find out :-)
I think they would be OK the circuit is so simple surely they can't be far away.

Cheers - J
User avatar
pre65
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 21373
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: North Essex/Suffolk border.

#29 Re: The cheapskate bodger with the JLH 1969

Post by pre65 »

One question if I may J.

What drive units are in your FH3 ?

I got a pair of well made cabinets from a chap in Germany (on Ebay) many years ago, and I used a pair of "enabled" Fostex FE126E. I do like the way they play, but in my size room the baffles give a bigger, more authoritative sound.

At the moment the cabinets are in the loft and the drive units boxed up in the parts store.

I should put them together and try them with the television.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke

G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
JMRead
User
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:20 am

#30 Re: The cheapskate bodger with the JLH 1969

Post by JMRead »

Hello Pre65,

Thanks for the message and its contents interesting about your baffles. My listening room is at the back of the garage 7and a bit feet wide and 10ft long, the FH3's got into the corners, I bought the cheapest of the MA range the CHP-70's. Later I read that they have the best bass of all of them, I've always liked paper cones.

I first heard the FH's at Colin Topps house, he kindly invited me aroung to have a listen. His room was about 12ft wide and 15ft long with a high Victorian ceiling, they easily got to concert level from his 6 Watt SET.

Cheers - J
Post Reply