|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.141.58.252
In Reply to: RE: Roger Modjeski and direct-drive ESL amplifier posted by Lew on December 31, 2013 at 07:58:08
Hi Lew,
I plan to use the RM DD amps to drive the Model 3s I acquired. The panels are the same as in your Model 2sw's.
The natural crossover point for the 3's is 200hz it may be lower with the 2sw's . The 18db/ocatave is good; the higher the better so as not to mesh any midrange to the subs at all.
The RM crossover and sub system is 24db/ocatave with variable output for the line array and woofer with set frequency cards that are replaceable in the unit. It is solid state. Given his interest in this and advocacy for it, I would ask him about the crossover in the Bev and Dahlquist to see if there would be a reasonable belief for improvement.
Marchand makes tube crossovers and there is an ARC crossover for sale here on the trader. Bryston makes a very flexible SS crossover as well as Pass .. both are very expensive. The case work and flexibiltiy are expensive in these models.
Regardless, the separate cross over and subs are going to be miles better than the internal woofers and crossovers of the 3's . They should now approach the model 2's.
I like the idea of dealing with RM as he had a hand in working with Bev & is familar with the speakers. He is an avid electrostat proponent so he has perspective which I hope will follow through in his design.
RM suggests the crossover will mate well with the Beveridges as he designed the system for electrostatics. If you read his forum at Audio Circle he is and advocate of outboard crossovers with attenuation for each element of a speaker array with separate amplification. He even will build a 2 or 3way passive crossover into an amp chassis to drive each element of a speaker. I think he is on the right track.
I will run the crossover from my Aesthetix IO with volume controls and 2 supplies. I don't have a transistor bass amp yet .. but I don't think this is overly critical. I will run the line arrays initially with the Futterman and Berning.. then decide on what to do with the DD mono or stereo.
Thanks
Follow Ups:
I apologize for reposting, but it does seem relevant at this point. After having my Stax F83's rebuilt, I realized that my NYAL OTL3 was not working well in the bass----at least the combination wasn't working. Perhaps it was because the Stax's drop to 4 ohms in the bass. Based on advice from this forum, including Lew, I decided to try a subwoofer, since I liked the rest of the range very much. I ordered RM's crossover and subwoofers, along with an inexpensive used SS amplifier. I won't deny that there were some tradeoffs, but overall I am extremely happy with the result. The woofers integrate well with the speakers, the midrange and trebles sound better to me, not worse, and I am more confident in the longevity and robustness of my system. Roger says these new woofers are much better than the ones included with the original Beveridge's.
on the woofers and X-over, not that I would want to dump my home-made TL woofers.
Sorry, is this a question/request to me?
Sorry if I forgot to add a question mark.
Dear Lew,
As AJ says, RM's crossovers are solid state, with adjustable crossover points achieved by interchangeable cards and with level controls for the high and low pass filters on the front. There is unfortunately no bypass switch. RM looked at the frequency response of my speakers and recommended a crossover point at 100HZ, to avoid a resonance peak at around 60 HZ in the response curve supplied with the Stax speakers. This works well for me, the transition does sound seamless, to me and and several experts. The woofers are sealed, and quite small, with a resonance above the crossover point, which I think means that they roll off in response as the frequency decreases, which RM compensates for in the crossover. They seem solidly made but bare-bones; the grill cloths are not removable and the connection in back is via banana plugs. One needs about 100 watts per channel to drive them. It was convenient for me to set these up because I already had a spare set of speaker cables running under the floor.
I will quote for you a couple of things I got from RM about his woofers.
1) from an email to me:
there is nothing to measure and no right setting. Just let your senses be your guide. If the close woofer seems too loud turn it down. (N.B. this is not possible using his crossover; my amp has volume controls for each channel.) You need to stop listening to "everyone" and listen to me if you want to simplify your audio life.
I have found the low frequency level control to be the most usefull control in my system. Other owners of my woofer systems agree.
The woofers are 8 ohm, polypropylene cone, rubber (not foam) surround that will not rot. Their sensitivity at 100 hz is 89 db, decreasing 12 db /octave below that. The EQ precisely compensates for this rolloff.
From material on audio circle (about his ELS system):
The system consists of a mirror imaged pair of electrostatic panels, two sub woofers and an electronic crossover (24 dB/octave Linkwitz-Riley at 100 Hz). The speakers are designed to have a high WAF (wife acceptance factor) and will not dominate you room. Custom cloth and wood finishes are available. The Electrostatic Line Sources are 54 inches high, 15 wide and 2.5 inches deep. The base is 18 x 12 inches and is removable for shipping. The sub woofers are 12 x 9 x 7 inches. The crossover has calibrated level controls for the sub and the line source. These controls provide easy application of any two amplifiers of any gain plus a very handy way to change the bass balance with out affecting the lower midrange. The crossover is designed so that no male vocal can be heard from the woofer alone. Therefore, it can be placed where most convenient and/or most efficient. This design came out of many years of careful study and experimentation. The system is priced at $12,000. This includes the pair of line sources, two woofers, and electronic crossover. .
Pictures of the crossover and woofers will follow in a separate post. It is not quite true that one can hear no male voice from the subs. I find the bass to be fast and musically satisfying but not room shaking. Not as dry as the speakers alone but more tuneful.
Here is a photo of the crossover (along with my preamp and tuner).
How do you like it? I bought a 6LX/P that I got very reasonably, because it came with no outboard PS. (The LX differed from the LE in that aspect; the LE has an on-board PS.) Since then, I had to send it to Stan Klyne for some mods to the phono stage, and, while he had it, he's upgraded the voltage regulators, etc. Plus, I re-capped it myself. I also had to build the outboard PS, which is not quite ready for prime time. Thus, I have yet to hear my 6LX/P. Been using a Quicksilver preamp so far with the Bev system. The Q is excellent; I wonder whether I will like the 6LX better.
I've had this preamplifier for ages. Had Stan upgrade it once. I think it is a very good performer--delicate pure highs, good dynamics, excellent focus and imaging. Very flexible phono stage, two line-level outputs. The phase inversion relay failed and Stan says he can't get replacements, so i live without that. I hated trying to figure out which way each record was recorded anyway.
So far as I know, the 6LX does not even have a phase reversal switch. The question of "correct phase" is as controversial among audiophiles as is religion among certain ethnic groups. I don't subscribe to that school, at least with my bipolar ESL speakers in my room. No one can hear a difference when I toggle the phase reversal switch on my MP1. There are good theoretical reasons why it should not make much difference, especially if one is using multi-way speakers and given the fact that recording engineers back in the day paid no attention to it, such that every cut on every LP could be different from the one before and the one after, with respect to phase.
It's an SK5. Back in the day when I bought it, a big deal was made of phase reversal.
You were supposed to listen carefully to each recording and figure out if the recording engineers had things right or not and then use the switch to compensate as necessary.
Peter J. Moncrieff of IAR wrote copiously about it. I eventually gave up on it. I don' t like to spend time on A/B comparisons; there is too much music out there and not enough time.
All the PS and decoupling caps are new Silmic electrolytics which need time to break in. But after about 2 hours, sounds excellent with a Grace Ruby cartridge driving the phono section.
I'm just wondering if you have any further impressions to share about the Beveridge and/or the Klyne. I might suggest that, to take advantage of the Klyne's excellent phono stage, you try
a moving-cartridge with it. The Klyne and, I expect the Beveridge, should excel in image presentation and focus, which are perhaps a slight weak point of the Sound Labs. Have you ever tried a Van den Hul cartridge?
You did not complete your description of the cartridge type, "moving cartridge". I presume you refer to "LOMC" types. Yes, I do plan to try that. I am very interested to try the unique capability of the Klyne circuit to equalize the output of an LOMC into a 47K load, so you don't have to load down the cartridge to 100R or so to achieve a tame hf response. Stan Klyne tells me that my current phono section, after he completed his work, is "very nice" but still a step slightly below his latest max effort. But he indicated the difference between what I have and his best max effort would be narrowest with MM or high output types. I do plan to try it with my Urushi or the Ortofon MC7500, soon. But right now it is sounding so great with the Grace Ruby that I am loathe to change. I may mount the Ortofon in my RS Labs RS-A1 tonearm this weekend (the goofy looking Japanese tonearm), so I can run two tonearms on my Lenco.
When I re-capped the Klyne, and also when I built the Power Supply for it, I used ELNA Silmic II and Nichicon Muse electrolytics. So all those parts were new at the start of my listening. Plus Stan installed the new voltage regulators and new parts on the phono board. Per Stan's recommendation, I leave the PS power up 24/7, using the Mute switch as cut-out. Thus I have heard a steady improvement over the last week. It's really a kick now, and a great match with the Beveridges. All in all, the Klyne lives up to the legend.
Needless to say, the PS I built is way way overkill, a huge 250VA toroidal transformer, Schottky diodes, and a CLC filter. I like to think it gives my unit an advantage over others, but I can't know that.
I don't think any preamp I've ever heard will outperform the Atma MP1 with LOMCs, however.
I have a Koetsu rosewood MC with a Mitch Cotter stepup but I sure miss my F9E Ruby.I do have two Grace F9E bodies that need stylus but I would love to get the original OEM stylus unless Soundsmith can hook me up with a reasonable facsimile thereof.
Some people like second order distortion in their tube amps,some people like honesty in their tube amps. I like honest!
I probably love the Grace Ruby more than it deserves to be loved, but I keep going back to it nevertheless. About a year ago, I bought a second one off eBay; on that one the cantilever/stylus had been literally ripped out of its red removable stylus assembly. However it appeared otherwise to be NOS. I sent it off to SoundSmith and it came back with a new ruby cantilever and one of their OCL styli. I have not auditioned it yet. But your answer is "yes"; SoundSmith can replace your ruby cantilever with ruby plus a new stylus, but it won't be elliptical. I went for the most expensive of two options for styli. Cost $350. The lesser one is $250. If you really prefer elliptical, talk to them about it.
I can't get away from the Bev system. I must have listened for 4-5 hours yesterday alone, which is unusual for me. The Klyne is getting better as its PS breaks in. (I built it myself.) I also replaced every one of many electrolytic capacitors on the audio chassis, and those need to break in as well. It was unimpressive for the first hour, but since then it's giving a very "full", rich sound; I would never have identified it as a solid state device if blinded. The Quicksilver preamp sounded more like SS, if anything, on this same system. At some point, I would like to try my MP1 on this system. The MP1 is "king".
I probably love the Grace Ruby more than it deserves to be loved.
I don't think so and here is why.My friend brought over his Grace F9E ruby mounted on the head shell and we mounted on my same sumiko arm and set it up for his cart by weight,balance and Anti skate and the difference between my Koetsu Rosewood thru the Mitch Cotter step-up was not as much as you would expect..I didn't do the test on my big Martin Logans but I did do it on the full range ribbons,well full range from 270 on up but the point is,they were much more alike than they were different.
Yes,the Koetsu had an edge in some areas but nothing that would justify the price difference..I think if we worked with the setup a little more on the Grace,it would probably be very close to equal to the Koetsu..
Some people like second order distortion in their tube amps,some people like honesty in their tube amps. I like honest!
It's been in storage for about a year, but I have no doubt that the Grace Ruby is at least as good. Like you said, better in some areas and not as good in others, would be my guess. I also have an Ortofon MC7500. Ditto for that one too.
Oh yes
Very familiar with it.
Some people like second order distortion in their tube amps,some people like honesty in their tube amps. I like honest!
Thanks for the news. Let me know what you think after more listening. Is the Klyne the only solid-state preamp you like so far?
At least. If not longer.
I agree. I got my son and wife to listen to music while I toggled the phase switch on the MP1, such that they could not know whether I had altered the phase or not. We used a variety of sources and genres. In the end, neither of them could hear any difference one way or the other. But there are those who do swear by its importance. It may well be that bipolar speakers obliterate the differences, if any.
And here is a photo of one of the subwoofers, tucked under a small table.
Without a doubt there are possibly better ways to go than what I am listening to now. I kept myself on a strict budget. Would I rather have bought a tubed Marchand crossover w/24db/octave hi and lo-pass slopes? Yes, indeed. But they cost more than $2000, and Marchand would not even return my emails, anyway, when I wrote him to inquire. At the time I was putting this together, I was not even sure I would like the Bev speakers, did not want to go overboard on cost.Turns out, the Dahlquist is absolutely superb, altho 24db/octave is superior to 18db/octave, if you worry about phase shift.. But I would like to upgrade the hi-pass x-over that lurks inside the 2SW amp chassis along with the Bev built-in woofer amp, which I am totally bypassing. Problem is that no one has the schematic for the Bev x-over.
A general comment on electronic crossovers: For decades, I've stayed away from them, because prior to that time I never met one that I could love. Back then, they all colored the sound to one objectionable degree or another. I am willing to believe that modern design and parts can do better, but I am only willing to tolerate the idea for supplementing the bass response, as for the Bevs or any ESL or a monitor type spkr.
Edits: 01/01/14
I understand completely with regard to investment without a solid basis for keeping the speakers.
I am in the same boat. The Beveridges are one of my most memorable audio experiences but 30 years have past and I am not sure that the same astonishing presentation will be presented today. I am sure the Soundlabs are a more robust presentation with a more seamless balance... but budget plays a role for me as well and I am not prepared to make the investment in audio today that I have made perhaps 20 some years ago. So the Bevs will go for a spin and I am sure they will present some virtues that can be judged accordingly.
The RM system is reasonable and will also be able to be worked into my Quad set up. I also have never particularly liked the idea of complexity but I am hopeful this combination will be better than stock.. everyone I have spoken to or anything I have read verifies this for the Beveridge woofer/crossover in the System 3.
It is a shame manufacturers don't value inquiries on their products. I have had many poor customer experiences in audio along with many good ones. Given the state of the high end and the economy in general it amazes me that business would treat their customers this way. If you are going to have a website I think a response in 24hrs for a boutique mfr. is reasonable and necessary...and if you are going away as chief cook and bottle washer an auto response back of when you can expect a reply is easliy accomplished.. sorry it is a pet peave of mine.
Sounds like you have your cross over network well set up. The internal passive crossover should be easy enough to discern and upgrade with different parts for different flavour.. going all active would be nice to try to see if the benefit is real or not. If we were closer I would lend you mine in return for a listen to those Sound Labs!
So far as I can tell, based on rumor and direct inspection, the internal X-over in the 2SW is active, not passive. If I get the urge strongly enough, I will try to trace the circuit, but the circuit seems to be quite complex insofar as the lo-pass side becomes the input voltage amplifier for the in-built woofer amps. I can also say this: the 2SWs give the Sound Labs a run for the money, at least. I could live with either and not miss the other. You will be pleased with the Model 3s and direct-drive.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: