Yorkshire Hi-Fi Club

[izzy wizzy]

It seemed an odd collection of gear slung together. Super efficient speaks with a monstor SS power amp and line stage. I can't imagine that pairing being together when the speakers were being developed but hey, I don't really know. So the transduceers front and end looked a pair and the line/main amp looked a pair but that lot formed a very odd family.

And demonstrating with lots of hum. That too doesn't sound right for a bake off. Is that down to the lack of flexibility in the phono stages or is that down to the line stage not having good interface flexibility? For that money, I hope it's the former.

I also note the line stage has a 3k input Z. That's ain't very friendly for the valve stages. I don't know if some simpler SS stages would like that either. Oh sure they might have a "low output Z" but that doesn't mean they have the current to drive such a load nor the coupling output capacitance to enable good LF extension. That kind of load can suck the life outta things.

To get so many components to work at short notice is bloody hard but as most were there to start with, hum isn't really acceptable unless something else was going on?

Nick's gear from the descriptions sounded like the things that interest me I hope to hear some day.

cheers,

Stephen

[savvypaul]

I wasn't at the bake-off on Saturday but I heard the same Maxonic speakers at the previous bake-off at Dave's. At the end of that session, Nick connected his 300b valve amplifiers and they really sung beautifully with them. Up until then we had been listening with 200w s/s amplification (not sure if they were the same ones as yesterday) and I had found the Maxonics quite shrill and hard.

I'm running an NVA Phono 2 here with a Transfiguration AxiaS MC cart (0.4mv) and there is no lack of volume into my NVA passive -and no lack of volume compared to others when we had a phono stage bake off at my place. And, I assume, no lack of volume from the NVA when it was widely described as the best value at the previous phono stage bake-off at Dave's, last year.

[Nick]

Some things are taking on a life of their own here. There was hum, it was less than the background noise of the vinyl, we were listening very loudly in a room that had a noise floor maybe 10dB lower than a typical listening room as it was in a cellar with soil backed walls on two sides. we tried to get rid of the hum, but we failed, it was a the same or similar levels with all the phono stages tried.

The loudspeakers were every sensitive, and the amp was bigger than a 300b (120W or so) but the point about the amplifier (not the same as last time) was it had a very very low level of distortion, and a very low noise floor. I think the low distortion was one reason why we ended up with high SPL levels for the tests.

And yes, clearly the NVA phono stage had enough gain in the previous test (though it was a different sample, not sure if that made any difference), and clearly it has sufficient gain in other systems. But in this system on Saturday it didn't, no more or less is being said than that.

The speakers did sound good last time with the 300b last time, and they also sounded good with the two OTL amps that were tried at the end of the day, but I don’t think they would have driven them to the volume levels that we were using before. Or if they were they amps would have contributed more to the character of the sound than the phono stage's we were comparing.

I had a listen to the system last Wednesday and initially I thought it was bit hard and not balanced, so I increased the field coil current on the bass and mid units, I think that improved things a lot compared to their last public appearance.

[savvypaul]

No "life of its own" should be found in my post, Nick. It is only a brief note of my own experiences. I have complete faith in your write up. Thanks for taking the time to do so and I hope to see you again at another 'bake...

Warm regards,

Paul

[Nick]

It was more WRT

demonstrating with lots of hum.

[izzy wizzy]

It was more WRT

demonstrating with lots of hum.

Well why didn't you say so rather than some backhanded comment about "life of its own.

I mentioned it because another attendee did and subsequently so have you. Hum in £60,000 worth of amplification from the same manufacturer? No thanks. If it was my own stuff built on a slab of ply in a wooden box, fair enough but specmanship is the order of the day with Soulution. The hum might have been below the surface noise but c'mon, that isn't necessariy below the signal. And usually, hum is a bad sign of something else going on.

Shame you dodn't comment on my actual technical queries/comments.

Now it really does have a life of its own. Seems you're very defensive of Dave MCRUS for some reason. Curious again.

cheers,

Stephen

[Nick]

The hum was from before the phono stages. I didn't know about the 3k input. That may have had some bearing. I don't know.

[IslandPink]

Have you ever met Nick, Stephen ?
Just seems like a massive over-reaction to a very innocuous comment he made - ie. just to clarify the amount of hum. And to suggest that you could get a load of previously un-combined kit in a room and not have any problems with some hum at all, sounds utopian to me. I was hoping we could get back to a more gentlemanly debate about audio on this forum after some of the recent problems, but it looks like the answer is 'no'.

[pre65]

. I was hoping we could get back to a more gentlemanly debate about audio on this forum after some of the recent problems, but it looks like the answer is 'no'.

Steady on Mark, let's not give the odd "cross" word so much meaning.

[Nick]

The problem I have is trying not to unfairly offend people who contributed to the day. To say it was all there beforehand is not true, the turntable arm and cartridge was provided on the day by Dom and Nat of North West Analogue. Dom said the front end doesn't hum at his, and I have every reason to believe him, but something was causing a problem on the day. It did it with every phono stage, so I don’t think there was any question that the pre and power amp were silent. My suspicion was the original aged SME cables from the tonarm to the phono stage. But clearly it was fine before, so if there was a problem, Dom would have had no indication.

I spent a hour on Wednesday listening to the system with a different turntable (different Garard 401, 3009 and another of Dom's cartridges) and it was hum free. Or at least it was at the volume levels I used then. It was very loud on the Saturday, so maybe that contributed to unearthing a previous problem.

I said that there was hum, because there was, to then apply "lots" to that was where it has ceased to be an accurate description of events.

[IslandPink]

Steady on Mark, let's not give the odd "cross" word so much meaning.

No, I'm fed up of seeing Nick dumped on unfairly. There was a fairly obvious suggestion of bias or vested interest there by Stephen "Seems you're very defensive of Dave MCRUS for some reason. Curious again" . I know that Nick works his arse off on audio, more than any of us, and is scrupulous about reporting what he hears honestly and putting down (in writing) any potential bias. It just seemed so casual - and I expected better from Stephen, I had him down as one of the good guys.

[pre65]

Steady on Mark, let's not give the odd "cross" word so much meaning.

No, I'm fed up of seeing Nick dumped on unfairly. There was a fairly obvious suggestion of bias or vested interest there by Stephen "Seems you're very defensive of Dave MCRUS for some reason. Curious again" . I know that Nick works his arse off on audio, more than any of us, and is scrupulous about reporting what he hears honestly and putting down (in writing) any potential bias. It just seemed so casual - and I expected better from Stephen, I had him down as one of the good guys.

I'm not going to compound this bit of sillyness.

We're all good guys on here.

[Ali Tait]

Nick is correct regarding the hum, it seemed to be caused by the original SME tonearm cable used, the chaps tried to get rid of it but were unable to do so.

[izzy wizzy]

Sorry if I've offended anyone. It was not my intention.

I was only commenting on some dam hum in £60,000 worth of gear. That's all. I took my words from another report of the event. We all know about the problems assembing such a system for a bake off situation which I alluded to anyway.

Now rather than take a poke at me about my comment/expression, an explanation would have shed some light on the situation (which has subsequently happened thanks Nick) and bingo, we're all clearer on the issues at hand. I have no desire to rake over the rest of it.

cheers,

Stephen
(not a good guy)

[savvypaul]

Steady on Mark, let's not give the odd "cross" word so much meaning.

No, I'm fed up of seeing Nick dumped on unfairly. There was a fairly obvious suggestion of bias or vested interest there by Stephen "Seems you're very defensive of Dave MCRUS for some reason. Curious again" . I know that Nick works his arse off on audio, more than any of us, and is scrupulous about reporting what he hears honestly and putting down (in writing) any potential bias. It just seemed so casual - and I expected better from Stephen, I had him down as one of the good guys.

I'm not going to compound this bit of sillyness.

We're all good guys on here.

Give the benefit of the doubt. See the best in people.

HiFi Forums (and life in general) need more of this.

Well played, dude