Aesthetix Io Users Group

[Kcin]

In many ways the Rhea is what the Io should be in terms of convenience. Loading on the fly, multiple inputs on the fly and variable gain on the fly all with remote control

I have installed a couple of Rheas locally for friends up to the signature level. I have not seen the Eclipse version. My comment is that it is a very capable phono. However, it seems more so than the Io, you must take extreme care in low noise tube selection. Usually, if you are in the Rhea camp you are not a super nutty enthusiast and you tolerance for noise is less so you can get discouraged. I have seen this happen.

I think if you install selected tubes.. your friend will be thrilled.

 

[OGH]

Kcin - "more so than the Io, you must take extreme care in low noise tube selection."
This is surprising.
I would think that the Io would be the most un-compromising.
But I have not compared the two.

 

[oldvinyl]

A friend of mine in San Francisco is considering purchasing a used Rhea Eclipse or a used Io Eclipse.

What are the sonic advantages of the Io Eclipse over the Rhea Eclipse?

Thank you.

That's a hard one to answer since one rarely has both of the phono stages to listen to side-by-side.

I used a Rhea Signature for a few months this summer while my Io Eclipse was in for repair and upgrade.

I thought that for the money, the Rhea was a great phono stage. It embodies the Aesthetix sound ("house" sound). Very similar voicing to the Io. I liked the convenience of the remote for gain and loading adjustment.

I would not want to venture a guess on the Rhea Eclipse since I have not heard it.

If your friend has an opportunity to audition them, that would be ideal.

I did find that the Rhea benefited from well selected quite tubes versus the stock tubes. From what Jim at Aesthetix told me, the Rhea has lower noise when you increase the gain. I was not able to try that out since my cartridge has fairly high output and I was not using a preamp.

 

[OGH]

One more listening test, maybe relevant, maybe not. Steely Dan: The royal scam (1976). It has been said that this and their other albums from that time were so well recorded that you needed a really poor system to make them sound bad. Yet different versions sound different. Qobuz has this album in standard CD quality. I have a vinyl LP 1984 German reprint. Result comparing the two: the LP sounds better, although the difference is not as large as in the Beach Boys Sail on sailor case. The Qobuz streaming version - even if only cd resolution - sounds quite good too. Good timbre, balance. But listening some more, I hear the problems noted with Sail on sailor. The sound is less dimensional, more flat. More noise in the treble. Sounds fine at first but less so after a while.
An audio friend has commented - you compare a top end analog chain to a mid level digital chain.
This is true. The Teac NT-505 dac + streamer does a good job, but maybe I could get better, investing in a better digital chain.
I doubt it, though. I think there is still a major step up, playing analog / vinyl, whatever the digital chain.

 

[OGH]

How is your situation, now - do you find the your analog chain with the Io outperforms your digital chain, that it varies, or (shock!) that digital sounds better? This varies with the quality of the digital of course (as well as analog components like the cartridge), but I am interested in hearing your experience.

I have noted that sometimes my digital streaming (from Qobuz) sounds better than my vinyl LP - but it is actually due to a good remaster. So for example Zappa: Blessed relief, on Waka/Jawaka, sounds great even in my little home office system. Clear and juicy. Qobuz doesn't say, but this is probably the new Bernie Grundman remaster. In such cases, the playing ground is not fair. To evaluate the analog/digital difference we need the same mastering or very close to it, no big fixes on one side or the other.

 

[oldvinyl]

How is your situation, now - do you find the your analog chain with the Io outperforms your digital chain, that it varies, or (shock!) that digital sounds better? This varies with the quality of the digital of course (as well as analog components like the cartridge), but I am interested in hearing your experience.

I have noted that sometimes my digital streaming (from Qobuz) sounds better than my vinyl LP - but it is actually due to a good remaster. So for example Zappa: Blessed relief, on Waka/Jawaka, sounds great even in my little home office system. Clear and juicy. Qobuz doesn't say, but this is probably the new Bernie Grundman remaster. In such cases, the playing ground is not fair. To evaluate the analog/digital difference we need the same mastering or very close to it, no big fixes on one side or the other.

I just enjoy both and try (hard as that can be) not to compare. The comparison mindset leads me to dissatisfaction and/or chasing upgrades.

My analog front end is very satisfying - Io Eclipse with volume control and dual power supplies, Clearaudio Master Innovation table with TT1-MI linear tonearm and Goldfinger Statement cartridge.

The digital side has a dCS Vivaldi transport and Vivaldi (Apex) DAC with a Rossini clock. I started with the Rossini player and clock but found that I could only play SACDs using my Oppo with an HDMI-SPDIF transcoder. Then, I made the mistake of auditioning the Vivaldi. I only spin discs - have not ventured into streaming. I use digital for the obvious - recordings that are only on disc and have not been released on LPs. I also find that many newer recordings, even if pressed on vinyl, were digitally mastered and sound superb in their native digital format.

I have a large collection of LPs (10,000+) that are mostly from the all analog era, I have great satisfaction listening to them. My tastes run from Early Music and Renaissance all the way through modern classical. Many of those LPs were available in pristine condition and inexpensive. Some I have had since the 1970's when I was in college.

 

[OGH]

Oldvinyl wrote
"I just enjoy both and try (hard as that can be) not to compare. The comparison mindset leads me to dissatisfaction and/or chasing upgrades."

I agree - I tend to avoid A-B comparisons. Or even the whole mindset, what is best, where are the faults, and so on. Instead I note what version, digital or analog, that gets me most immersed in the music. This is where vinyl still wins out, in our home. My wife agrees.

 

[OGH]

Oldvinyl: "I also find that many newer recordings, even if pressed on vinyl, were digitally mastered and sound superb in their native digital format."

Your digital chain (Vivaldi) is probably a big step up from my Teac NT-505. In my case, we often hear good-sounding new albums, even up to 192 / 24 pcm, streaming from Qobuz. However they usually sound even better, when I buy them on vinyl, provided the vinyl mastering is OK. For example, the Norwegian group Karpe: Omar Sherrif. I was surprised by the improved sound in the LP version. Or Rosalia: El mal querer, and Motomama. More "there" there, to use a phrase.

I recognize that this may be due to "old ears", indoctrination of vinyl sound, old habits, etc - and also, that our digital system is not good enough to really rival the analog sound. Yet, I believe the experience is real. Not just a matter of taste or the state / cost of the two chains.

 

[OGH]

Just for fun, not for comparison, I played Beach Boys: Holland (original LP) all the way through. Not just the best tracks like Sail on, and Trader. I've known this album and liked it a lot ever since it came out in 1971. This time, I heard it anew, as a whole, and found a lot I had missed. This is a concept album, in a broad sense, a whole, not just parts. Even Funky pretty, that I dismissed as commercial back in the day, now sounded more meaningful. So maybe, I thought, the big record from the Beach Boys was never Smile, that never appeared. It is Holland.

My point? This kind of enjoyment owes a lot to the Io. I hear more of what they intended, the meaning and soul of the music. Regardless of the newer masterings or the problems with this or that. Most of my 1900 original LPs from the 1960s onwards sound great through the Io.

I started with a first version of the Io twenty years ago, and later upgraded to partial Eclipse. I noted the superior performance of the Io even in the lower level chain I used back then. Later, I moved up from solid state to OTL tube amps, better speakers, preamp, player and cartridge. The Io has followed up every step of the way. The more I give it the better it performs.

 

[OGH]

Testing NOS 12ax7 in the first gain stage

There is no disagreements to the fact that the tubes in the Io’s first gain stage means a LOT for the sound and especially the noise level. Unless these four tubes are fairly low-noise you can basically forget the rest. This is so even with a fairly strong cartridge output (0.56 mV in my case) and even more critical with low output carts.

My reference point is new JJ tubes, selected by Aesthetix. They measure ca 55 db noise, in my test system (using an analog db meter ca 10 cm from the front of the speaker, with volume high, not playing music). This test is just for my system, but you can use the same method starting from whatever reference tube set you like. We combine this with listening. The method agrees very well with what my wife (our best ears) and I actually hear, listening in front of each speaker, and then, from the back of the room.

So, briefly, this is what I have found. The JJs set a standard, at 55 db. A quad of new Sovtek LPS is quite good but not as noise-free (58 db).

My NOS tubes are all over the place. A TFK quad bought back in 2014 and used for several years is now noisy, sounding like there is a storm in the background. Philips (Herleen factory) – good for a year or two, but quickly rising noise (disappointing).

When the meter reads 60 or more, it clearly impacts on the listening, and even on the music, even if it may be ‘masked’. If in doubt, test with a quiet recording, like Beach Boys: Only with you. I think that background tube noise and distortion has impact also on high dynamic ‘complex’ music, even if there, it is hard to pin-point directly. I think it contributes to less ‘peace’ so complex passages sound more ‘stressed’ than they need to. At least this fits my own – limited – experience.

Some months ago, I received a TFK quad that sounded and measured remarkably ultra low noise, even a db beneath the JJ reference (54 db). I was amazed, and ordered an extra quad from the same seller, but the new one is more noisy (58 db). Not sure what to do. I might keep it, and use in another position (like gain stage 2) in the Io.

 

[OGH]

Do you recognize this symptom:
Some of my LPs sound more hard and harsh at the outer tracks, and then mellow out from the middle and towards the end of this side of the LP, sounding better.
Could be due to antiskating (or azimuth) needing adjustment? Maybe too much a-skate?
Not sure, is it my setup, or the recording or pressing. I associate it with 1970s LPs especially (like Beach Boys: Holland, and e g Doors LPs). On my Holland original LP, the first track on side B (The trader) sounds poor compared to the tracks further in.

 

[oldvinyl]

Do you recognize this symptom:
Some of my LPs sound more hard and harsh at the outer tracks, and then mellow out from the middle and towards the end of this side of the LP, sounding better.
Could be due to antiskating (or azimuth) needing adjustment? Maybe too much a-skate?
Not sure, is it my setup, or the recording or pressing. I associate it with 1970s LPs especially (like Beach Boys: Holland, and e g Doors LPs). On my Holland original LP, the first track on side B (The trader) sounds poor compared to the tracks further in.

OGH - I had the opposite problem a while back with an SME V arm. The sound got more brittle towards the inner part of the record. The last cut on each side was almost unlistenable, depending on the music.

Turned out to be incorrect overhang. I got a Wally alignment protractor and fixed it. Just a minute adjustment to overhang and voila!

Definitely sounds like an alignment issue.

 

[audioquest4life]

Do you recognize this symptom:
Some of my LPs sound more hard and harsh at the outer tracks, and then mellow out from the middle and towards the end of this side of the LP, sounding better.
Could be due to antiskating (or azimuth) needing adjustment? Maybe too much a-skate?
Not sure, is it my setup, or the recording or pressing. I associate it with 1970s LPs especially (like Beach Boys: Holland, and e g Doors LPs). On my Holland original LP, the first track on side B (The trader) sounds poor compared to the tracks further in.

Howdy,

Been a while since I posted since my equipment is packed up and I am waiting for the house to be completed. As this symptom is mostly noticeable on some albums, especially the ones you indicated, it seems to me that that could potentially be an indication of record quality and perhaps thickness. I have plenty of older records that are thin that sound phenomenal, so record thickness is not necessarily an absolute reason as to why youu have poor record playback on certain records. It could be time for a tune-up. Maybe your setup drifted out of alignment over time. If you are using the viscous damped fluid damper in the SME V, was it filled when you did your original alignment? This person on Vinyl Engine posted this about damping fluid "I finally got my damper refill (SME V) (it was barely one fifth full, not 1/3 empty - sorry). Cleaned the old fluid off with lighter fuel etc and filled the trough half full, paddle sitting in half depth and then in 1/3 depth of the fluid. Did I hear a difference? Yes. With the paddle half in the fluid, the sound was somehow slightly restrained, entire presentation seemed "dimmer". With a few counter clockwise turns and the paddle just dipping into the fluid, I heard a slightly clearer soundstage and the voice was noticeable brighter. Did I prefer it with the paddle not touching the fluid - yes if i want to have a much brighter sound but no if I want to hear a more realistic tonality of the piano and voice. So for me it was worthwhile getting the damper fluid. Best sound for me was with the paddle just inside the fluid."

Soundsmith has some good tips on addressing noise issues. It is mostly about sibiliance, but the article is good for checking other things in your setup: What are the causes of Sibilance? | Soundsmith (sound-smith.com)

If you are only noticing it on those albums, you mentioned I would think that they are mostly the culprit, but if you have a second tonearm or another turntable in use, you can easily test the records to see if you experience the same issues on the other turntable. I got a little OCD with a Patricia Barber LP, 200gm version. Sounded awful in one of the songs at the end of record. Thought it was setup too. I tested on the Project game room turntable and same symptoms were discovered with that track. Go figure. These things seem to pop up once in a while. I am sure you are enjoying your music through the Aesthethix.

 

[OGH]

I have returned the new TFK quad. I asked the seller, do you have something more silent? "These tubes don't exactly grow on trees", he said. But OK, he will take a look.

 

[mtemur]

OGH - I had the opposite problem a while back with an SME V arm. The sound got more brittle towards the inner part of the record. The last cut on each side was almost unlistenable, depending on the music.

Turned out to be incorrect overhang. I got a Wally alignment protractor and fixed it. Just a minute adjustment to overhang and voila!

Definitely sounds like an alignment issue.

Wally arc protractor is maybe the best protractor available but it’s not the best for SME or any sliding base tonearm. I recommend getting SME V’s original paper protractor directly from SME together with a spindle bush. IMHO It’s the best protractor for SME V. Don’t forget to roll a piece of tape around the spindle to fill the gap between spindle and the bush. This will provide a more precise alignment. BTW no photocopy or print out will substitute the original.

 

[mtemur]

Do you recognize this symptom:
Some of my LPs sound more hard and harsh at the outer tracks, and then mellow out from the middle and towards the end of this side of the LP, sounding better.
Could be due to antiskating (or azimuth) needing adjustment? Maybe too much a-skate?
Not sure, is it my setup, or the recording or pressing. I associate it with 1970s LPs especially (like Beach Boys: Holland, and e g Doors LPs). On my Holland original LP, the first track on side B (The trader) sounds poor compared to the tracks further in.

Part of the problem is wrong azimuth setting but main issue is the records. Records don’t have a flat profile in general. Even though they look flat they most certainly not. There is a lip at the lead in groove area which basically causes improper azimuth for first song and this anomaly gets worse if azimuth misalignment happens to be towards the other side. Some records are better manufactured than the others in this respect but a special manufacturing is required for a perfectly flat profile record. I have a couple of JVC pressed records from 70's meets that criteria.

 

[mtemur]

I have returned the new TFK quad. I asked the seller, do you have something more silent? "These tubes don't exactly grow on trees", he said. But OK, he will take a look.

IMHO those tubes are quiet enough but a full tube MC phono stage may not. Since finding Telefunken ecc803s tubes are almost impossible, maybe 7025 or Mazda chrome plates can be considered as alternatives. It’s a very hard task to find a quad matching your criteria. IMHO RCA 5751 can be an option to consider if slight decrease in gain is not a problem.

 

[mtemur]

"I finally got my damper refill (SME V) (it was barely one fifth full, not 1/3 empty - sorry). Cleaned the old fluid off with lighter fuel etc and filled the trough half full, paddle sitting in half depth and then in 1/3 depth of the fluid. Did I hear a difference? Yes. With the paddle half in the fluid, the sound was somehow slightly restrained, entire presentation seemed "dimmer". With a few counter clockwise turns and the paddle just dipping into the fluid, I heard a slightly clearer soundstage and the voice was noticeable brighter. Did I prefer it with the paddle not touching the fluid - yes if i want to have a much brighter sound but no if I want to hear a more realistic tonality of the piano and voice. So for me it was worthwhile getting the damper fluid. Best sound for me was with the paddle just inside the fluid."

I don’t recommend using silicone damper at all. It’s like trying to fix a problem with another one. Assuming that there is no problem with cartridge’s suspension or tonearm’s bearings then no damping is necessary. Damping acts like a sponge and diminishes details read by the cartridge. IMHO it’s best to look elsewhere to fix the problem you’re experiencing.

 

[audioquest4life]

I don’t recommend using silicone damper at all. It’s like trying to fix a problem with another one. Assuming that there is no problem with cartridge’s suspension or tonearm’s bearings then no damping is necessary. Damping acts like a sponge and diminishes details read by cartridge. IMHO it’s best to look elsewhere to fix the problem you’re experiencing.

That’s a quote from Vinyl Engine, not my opinion. I too have experimented with both my SME V arms. One with fluid and the other without. I prefer without.

 

[audioquest4life]

Wally arc protractor is maybe the best protractor but it’s not the best for SME or any sliding base tonearms. I recommend getting SME V’s original paper protractor directly from SME together with spindle bush. It’s the best protractor for SME V. Don’t forget to roll a piece of tape around the spindle to fill the gap between spindle and bush. This will provide more precise alignment. BTW no photocopy or print out will substitute.

How do you roll tape around the spindle and keep the same distance from spindle as each time you wrap the tape, invariably an unequal deviation of distance will occur from the spindle to various points of the template. It won’t be perfect, at least the way I envision wrapping the spindle with tape, and not removing the platter. The SME V templates that came with my V Arms were always loose with the spindles and was also an issue and SME never provided any directions as to how to cinch the spindle or template holes to make them snug. I guess if you get it done correctly then you can use it. However, the Wally tool is fairly straightforward as well and you can use the mirror to align the cartridge. That is what it I have been using for a while now.

J.R came to the house and spot checked my alignment and he was impressed. So, if I can do it, so can anyone else. It’s part of the toolbag. I have the V templates in the toolbox as well, but can’t figure how to cinch up to spindle without fumbling with tape and the variances of uneven tape splatter. I think any ideas on how to do this (make SME V template cinch to spindle) procedure should be reserved for the tonearm forum. That would be helpful for us.