Beiträge von JohnG

The Tad's can't match the exact presentation of the KR VT231, the TAD does have a Tight Base Note and I was impressed with this presentation, but the KR has an Honesty and Realism that gives them the edge.

If a person was looking for a Tight Bass Note with Weight,

my experience is that the TAD will be a good place to find this impression and learn if the presentation is to a individuals preference.

The Sylvania GT's with Black Base and Green Print I have used. have a noticeable

Bass Bloom, that is not my choice of presentation.

The 6H8C was very impressive, if a Pair can be Found that are Stable for a Long Period,

then these will be a Step further from the TAD's toward the KR.

The ones I had had become Harsh after a few hours usage and also seemed unstable,

as if a fault was setting in, they were removed swiftly for this reason.

Whether this was a Outcome of using a Cheap Valve or there was a Thermal Issue developing is a unknown.

Do remember the 6SN7 as a Vintage Valve were produced in a Mass Production

for front line Military Purposes, so Quality was not such a issue, especially if thinking for the Audio Purpose.

It can be a very difficult Journey to discover the Ideal Matched Pair.

From my experience, I would say the TAD's offered approximately 85 +% of the Performance from a New Available Valve as a comparison to a Reputable Vintage Valve, this is a very good place to be.

I have recently been exchanging Matched Pairs of 6SN7 on my Monoblock 845 Power Amps,

I. have found that NOS Black Glass Ken Rad's (KR) are presenting the best for my preferences.

They offer a Noticeable Improvement over the NOS Sylvanias GT's, which are more affordable than KR

I. also have New Design Tung Sol, Electro Harmonix and TAD's, of which each of these are close in their presentation, but the one that nips at the heels of the Ken Rad is the TAD's

The TAD's loose out on their Bass Presentation, the KR's are a hard tube to compete with,

but the TAD's only just lose out , another listener might not pick up on my perceptions of the comparison unless it is pointed out.

The Good News is that there are New Tubes that are very good at their role.

I also tried out a 6H8C Russian Equivalent, I was tempted to go for the expensive ones to compare to the KR, but held of and compared a affordable 6H8C to the KR and the New Design 6SN7's.

After about 30 Minutes of use the 6H8C was my preferred Valve to the New Designs, and I was believing it was an extremely close presentation to the KR.

After about 1.5 - 2.5 hours of usage the 6H8C was removed as there was a deterioration in the sound quality that was becoming uncomfortable to experience.

I would be interested to hear of other experiences that might have had a similar outcome with the 6H8C.

There are very good comparison threads on the 6SN7 on the Web to be found, that are quite informative and the reports have an accuracy to my experiences.

Are you inquiring about Tubes to Exchange ?

As your thread Title suggests Tube Rolling, but your Post does not request information ?

A device off such a nature will need to be attached to an individuals system for the user to fully gain the experience to offer their assessment.

The Separator may be able to present a change in sound, to the normal presentation that an individual is familiar with when first listen to.

What really matters is whether the change in sound is recognised as an improved overall performance being created or just a new sonic signature created by the added device.

I have recently received a report on a Houdini from a user, who has a few Vinyl devices in their system that are the same that I am using, they are experiencing a change in the sound, with the Houdini in use and offered an assessment that they liked it as a device, and I was being encouraged to try out the Houdini.

I am in a position to try out the Houdini in their system and I can bring along identical devices without the Houdini, and the swapping out the devices will be speedily achieved.

When this happens I will be able to offer a personal assessment of the

' Houdini in / Houdini not in' on another individuals system but not my own.

Bear in mind I have brought devices to this individuals system in the past and they have accepted them as improvements, hence why there is owned devices that are similar in my own and the other system.

I am careful about my selections of materials and devices used on my system, I audition many and am quite willing to experiment, I am aware of how an individual can require to achieve a unique Presentation, that offers a personal satisfaction to the end user.

I am at present going through a few new experiences, so do not feel the need to rush into such an experience with a Houdini.

Recently I have acquired the Group Buy Platter Mat using Forex Foam or a DatMat Copy.

Not too exciting (I know)

When exchanging from a metal mat and ceramic mat the difference with the Forex Foam put into use, the change in the Sound Quality is very noticeable.

What is not known at this early stage is whether the Forex Foam is a Better Choice ?

What is known is that the Forex Foam has a Sonic Signature that is very different from a Hard Material Platter Mat, and has not offered a unwanted Overbearingly Bloated and Muddy presentation, that certain Mats have produced through being experimented with in the past.

To make things even more hard to Fathom, when it comes to introducing a Material into a System, a Mat Type that I had rejected, I was in agreement was the better Mat used on a Day at another home on a Belt Drive TT.

The Forex Foam Purchase was an extremely affordable purchase.

With an experiment in mind, I am intending on sacrificing one of these purchased items,

to produce a Spot Mat Design, to see how this will work with the Forex Mat, Metal Mat and Ceramic Mat, I have at hand.

Maybe there is a place for the best of both materials to find a middle place that is very attractive?

The Head Shell when detachable will be available in a variety of materials.

When the Hea d Shell is produced as an End of a Wand, the Material used for the Wand is the Material Option only in general for the Head Shell.

Using different Isolators between Cartridge and Head Shell will allow for a Different Attenuation and should offer a change in a Perceived sound.

When a Detachable Head Shell is in use, the design can assist in the setting up of the required Geometry.

The weight chosen can also help with producing the correct mechanical interfaces, to match the whole of the tonearms requirement.

The material chosen to be used for the Head Shell will offer a different attenuation to another material.

This will allow for the user to find a particular trait from a material that is presenting in a replay a sound quality that is to their preference and is satisfying their unique listening requirements.

This attenuation is available to experimented with further by using a separator material between head shell and cartridge.

There are similar expriments to be undertaken and experiences to be had with Platter Mats and Separating the Cartridge and Vinyl LP from the Platter with different Materials or Composites of Materials.

The user when selecting a Material Type for a Platter Mat, can identify a particular trait from a material, to further assure themselves they have a achieved a

Sound Quality and a presentation that is to their preference and one that is satisfying their unique listening requirements.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of putting a

Continuous Tonearm Wire into use in a system ,

would be a users attempt to try to ensure the Signal from the Cartridge was as unadulterated as possible before it enters into all the other Components in the Signal Path set in the other Devices that make up the complete system.

I have been thinking about the subject of a Continuous Internal Tonearm Wire in use with my removable

Head Shell Tonearm.

I am mainly considering this as I wish to use a Exchange Internal Wiring produced from either PC Triple C or D.U.C.C Wire.

As these Wires are produced to be very high purity and have a science attached to them that produces the most grain free crystals in the Metal Make Up, I did not want to put too many Connections in the Signal Path.

I was intending on having the only connection at the source as the Male> Female connection on the rear of the cartridge.

Then modify all the other connectors contained within the Head Shell and Tonearm, by removing the Copper Inserts and Boring a Slightly larger Diameter Hole into the housing where the pins were seated.

This modification would then allow the wires to be threaded through the Removed Connectors enlarged holes, and be terminated onto RCA Plugs to attach to a SUT.

I genuinely do not believe there is to much change in a Tonearm if a standard metal is used as a Internal Wiring.

To go to the extent of using a very pure metal as a Internal wiring, then I feel that ensuring the Wire has the least connections in its path is the best set up for the Wire.

If the Tonearm is on the list as being one that is not to be changed for any other, then the modifications that are carried out, that are all reversible, should not be too concerning.

The Plastic Inserts that are the Housing for the Connectors are available to purchase using a simple search, and can be modified in advance of any Tonearm Dismantling .

With the above Method the usually used Tag Wires and Interconnect between Tonearm and SUT are no longer required.

There is a connection at the Rear of the Cartridge.

From the rear of the cartridge,

there is a (Internal Tonearm Wire) run through the Tonearm, which will exit the Tonearms Pillar Base with an extended length of wire (?) which is terminated as a

RCA female.

The Rear of Cartridge Connection and the

RCA Female > (SUT) Male RCA are the only connections that have a loss of signal quality before the SUT manages the signal.

There is a possibility that the New Wire when used,

will offer an improvement over the Wire in use at present?

If the New Wire is used in a conventional method to Wire a Tonearm, the knowing if this configuration will be lesser than the proposed minimised connection method for the same Wire will probably not ever be known by myself.

You may want to look at a product made by Knauf called HeraKlith.

It is a used in areas of Projects where a acoustic control is required.

Following is a Mail I sent to few HiFi Group Friends during the Lock Down Period in the UK.

It covers ratios for Room Dimensions to control Room Modes.

____________________________________________

Hi all

I've had been of on a bit of a Tangent, and learning a little bit about outside of the usual box subjects (pardon the pun), as one has to be inside the box to get the full understanding of the subject.

One could say 'I have been Inside the Box, whilst being Outside of the Box' at the same time.

In my learning the Historical Room Ratios, I measured my listening room to a reasonably accurate H 2.37 mtrs x W 3.125 mtrs x L 3.735 mtrs

In my case 1: = 2.37 = H, 2.37 x 1.28 = W,

2.37 x 1.54 = L.

If I use the Sepmeyer Ratio of 1: 1.28: 1.54

with 1: = 2.37 mtrs the dimension is W 3.033 x L 3.649

If I use the Bonn Ratio of 1: 1.26: 1.59

with 1: = 2.37 mtrs the dimension is W 2.986 XL 3.768

As can be seen my foot print is reasonably close to these guideline ratios.

The use of my additional unscientific acoustic controls, such as the corner panels and the diffusers might just be attenuating the room modes to a degree of noticeable cancellation.

The Louden, Sepmeyer and Bonner Ratios are produced in a time when the types of predictive software and algorithms software that are available today were not in use.

As a result these ratios are seen to be general, and lacking in predictive scenario calculations.

On Researchgate, there are a few research papers produced where the most up to date Software and Algorithms were used in producing Ratios and Scenarios in a variety of Room Dimensions and allowing for various energies being generated in a room.

Trevor John Cox is a researcher and author of these papers, that are produced across a few years.

From my understanding if taking the comments on board, that are added from other contributors,

it seems a Ratio 1: 1.55: 1.85 that Trevor John Cox has created will be the best for increasing Bass Strength in a Small Room.

____________________________________________

Trevor John Cox can be found on Researchgate.com

There are descriptions on their of how to use the ratio's for the Room Size Calculations.

I am also to believe that if the Dimnsions are different in the Width of the Opposite Walls at either end of the Longest Room Dimension, this has a very positive effect within the room.

This can mean a Slight Tapering of the Side Walls to achieve this.

Hello and Thank You for your replies and recommendations.

I already have a good quality high flexibility internal wiring used on my PMAT 1010 Tonearm.

I am at present looking to start trials on my system with exchanging my Silver and Copper OCC Cables for Copper Interconnect Cables and Tag Wires that are produced from PC Triple C Wire and D.U.C.C Wire.

These wires are Manufactured with using the most modern Science to analyze the Crystal Structure Formation as a result of the wire production processes.

SAEC are using the PC Triple C on their 'Uber Expensive Tonearms'.

TEAC are also using PC Triple C on their Tonearm.

Phasemation are using PC Triple C on their products.

Finding these wires as Interconnects and Cartridge Tag Wires is easily achieved, but is costly when compared to OCC prices.

I have failed to find these as Internal Tonearm Wiring for purchase.

D.U.C.C is possibly the Softest/Malleable of all Copper Wires produced to date, and if it is possible to be sourced at the correct diameter as a Internal Wiring,

could prove to be a upgrade for the mechanical interface (friction reduction) as well as offer a improved sound quality to other options.

Some Retailers are charging £ 1500 for

Audio Technica D.U.C.C DIN Plug Phono Cable.

Hello

I am searching with little success for a Internal Tonearm Wiring Made from either

PC-Triple C Wire or D.U.C.C Wire.

The only reference I can find to one of these wires being used is on a SAEC Tonearm.

I know I might have to Source this wire from a alternative method, such as stripping a Cable made with it using it as Signal Wire, where the wire used is of approx 0.2mm Diameter.

I am not sure of my option to insulate this wire when removed, or the methods I will need to use to Insulate, to be able to use the Wire for the repurposed usage .

Any Direction offered to supplying a method to be able to follow up on this,

will be very much appreciated.

The Materials used on the New Hana is suggesting they are looking to deliver a presentation that has a noticeable Detail Retrieval, that might not have too much 'meat on the bone'.

It will be interesting to see the reports, as I like my Beryllium Cantilever and this has a very detailed presentation.

I know from previous experience on my system and encouraging others to try on their systems,

a Platter Mat will have a different interface with

the Mounting Platform> TT Design> Tone Arm> Cartridge.

The noticeable differences that can be perceived are quite a revelation.

I have over the past months been producing a New Bespoke TT Mounting Platform for my System that has a Multi Tier Assembly as the design.

The fundamental component is a DIY Air Suspension Design that has the resistance to support the additional Tiers that are seated on it.

On the DIY Air Suspension mounting platform there are

Four x Audio Technica AT-616 Pneumatic Footers.

A Phonotherm / Puranit Board Sub Plinth is is Seated on the AT-616.

On the Phonotherm Board Sub Plinth there are

Four x Solid Tech Feet of Silence Suspension Footers.

The Solid Tech Footers are direct contact connected to my Technics SP10 MK II, Multiplex MU25 Plinth.

I know the above assembly has had a much improved effect on the presentation offered by the TT.

I have not to date started to reverse the structure to gather the full extent of the perceived improvement.

My experience of a Platter Mat exchange what the first

I have carried out since my additional work to produce the New TT Mounting Platform.

I have been intending on using different Platter Mats later in this year, but the High Temperatures had created as Static Issue, so I looked into changing a Mat to try and reduce the problem.

The outcome was quite unexpected.

I am keen to analyse this noticeable change offered from the Foam Mat to see how it offers all the qualities I seek for a replay.

In the meantime though, I hope it has improved on the Static Issue and I will give it a play time for up to 50 Hours of easy listening, before I start going into the analysis mind set.

Today I used a 3mm Mat in place of a Tenuto Mat.

The difference in Attenuation was immediate.

A Perception of Weight to the Presentation was the most

noticeable part of the new presentation.

I did not see such a difference was to be presented by the change.

I will carry on with the 3mm mat to learn how the music is able to reveal the clarity of the details.

Before the commitment is made, look for the best available Platter Bearing designs that can be purchased as a Single Component.

Then the platter can be chosen to work with the bearing type in a material that is of much interest, Acrylic, Delrin,

Metal ?

How this is to be driven is then a Science, and much can be learnt of the basic requirement for a

Drive Pulley (Motor), Driven Pulley(Platter) and Belt Relationship.

There is a Long Discussion on the Science of Driving a Platter on DIY Audio.

Google Images of this Case.

It might show the various Cartridge Types Stored.

Look at a Fidelity Research K5.

I bought a used one for very fair money.

Oliver is correct about finding the Tube for the purpose to suit the end user.

I am very fortunate to have been offered the support of a Tube Collector with AVO Machine.

All tubes made available for a tube rolling experience are matched in advance and many permutations are catered for on the day the event takes place.

I have taken part in ECC88 / E88CC / ECC83 / ECC81 Tube Rolling with the support of the collector.

Seimens early 1960's are my preferred E88CC in my Valve Output DAC.

ECC83 CV4004 M8137 and ECC81 CV4024 M8162 proved to be my much preferred match for my Phonostage.

My DIGNA Phonostage is most preferred with late 1950's E88CC-01.

If the total purchase values of the Matched Pairs of Tubes made available to draw the above conclusions were combined, there would be approximately £2000+ value put out for the Line Up of Tubes to be Rolled

The experiences gathered and lessons learned from being very kindly allowed to experience a large range of Tubes, have been superb, and the Tube collection offered for the days event would not be able to happen for a inexperienced individual.

I have done my own 6SN7 Tube Rolling at a

considerable cost, my tubes are bought as matched, but not proven on a second machine.

At present my Ken Rad VT 231 are my most preferred.

To find a more improved tube could easily run into a

£ 500 + outlay.

Lucky I have a friend who is willing to allow me to Roll some of these from their collection in my system when the Lock Down is allowing more freedoms.

Another Tip I have been given for cleaning Tube Pins is to use a Pencil Eraser and for Tube Sockets use Dental Brushes.

The Brushes can bought in multi packs between 0.75mm - 2mm, I have used these with WD40.

For the Pins use a Pencil Eraser,

I have used one of these pencil rubbers and achieved bright pins.

I put a small hole in the rubber and inserted the pin whilst rotating the rubber, it worked fine for me.

If you are going for ECC83 the Mullard option that will be offering a substantial performance is the CV4004 M8137.