Connoisseur Definitions 3.0 preamplifier - is it still among the best?
- Thread starter Roysen
- Start date
Treitz3: Thank you for the kind welcome!
My memoirs, nothing more (the Lyra-Connoisseur project is in hibernation right now, and I hope it is temporary)...
br, jonathan
My memoirs, nothing more (the Lyra-Connoisseur project is in hibernation right now, and I hope it is temporary)...
br, jonathan
Part 2
AFAIK, Petr's time crunch was the impetus for the Connoisseur 2.0 (circa 1991) - a phono stage design which kept air-dielectric construction for the amplifier sections, but used a regular circuit-board for the voltage regulators. The voltage-regulator circuit-board allowed Petr to use a more complex topology than he would have cared to build on the old 3-D maze, and this more complex topology kept the overall performance at least as good as the 1.0 - probably better.
Although the 2.0 amplifier sections continued to be built with air-dielectric construction, they did have a circuit-board, which the regulated power rails (and ground), mounting holes for mechanical components such as heatsinks and pillars, and auxiliary circuits such as DC servos. All in all, it was substantially easier to build than the 1.0.
But it was not enough to enable Petr to build enough phono stages for sale in Japan, and Petr increasingly made us aware that he wanted out. So in 1994 I and Stig bought Connoisseur and moved it to Japan, and we renamed it Connoisseur Definitions.
Petr came to Japan for some time, to help us learn how to build and repair the 2.0, but this proved trickier than we thought. I learned how to build a 2.0, but it became clear to me that the board design and transistor module construction allowed too much inconsistency, making it impossible to keep ready-made transistor modules ready to use for new builds or repairs. Each phono stage was an entity unto itself, and I would find myself needing to measure the space available on each phono stage before I could make replacement transistor modules for it.
Keeping a design like the 2.0 in production meant that I would need to become a full-fledged phono preamp builder, with no time to work on cartridges or the other things that I wanted to. It was therefore with relief and regret that we terminated production of the 2.0.
We needed a new design to replace the 2.0, and at first, Petr took the lead. But these early design proposals were not built due to complexity, difficulties in getting them to work, and my assessment that they didn't solve the fundamental issues with the 2.0.
I requested Petr to take a different design approach, and I outlined the circuit characteristics that I was looking for. This was the start of what was to become the 3.0. At first this phase was quite productive. Both Petr and I would propose circuits or circuit ideas (Petr contributing the majority of the fully-developed circuits, myself contributing mostly interesting circuit fragments), and we were inspired by each other's ideas. However, the project gradually succumbed to featureritus, and I was fully as guilty as Petr. Wanting to take the next step beyond "air-dielectric", I proposed "vacuum-dielectric", and designed an elaborate chassis concept that would allow this to happen. For his part, Petr designed various circuits that were fascinating in their approach, but a bear to get working properly.
After a year or two of piling elaborate concept upon elaborate concept, I had to concede that we weren't getting close to our goal of having a new phono stage design. So I went through all of the amplifier topologies that had been proposed up to that time, and selected what I felt were the most promising candidates. I further cleaned up the circuits and built them onto a set of 2.0 circuit boards (the 2.0 circuit boards, being mostly air-dielectric, allowed me to build in pretty much any circuit that would fit into the physical space available).
I called the result the 2.5, and it worked really well. We played it for customers that had very elaborate audio systems (TOTL FM Acoustics full setup etc.), and they likewise agreed that the 2.5 was convincing enough to put into production.
Since we now had a sort of solid foundation, I gave Petr more freedom on the power supply and voltage regulator designs. The two of us had been discussing that it would be really nice if the 3.0 design didn't use any electrolytic capacitors at all, and Petr designed a voltage regulator concept that enabled this. His voltage regulator had an output voltage of +/-35VDC, but called for an input voltage of +/-144VDC. The thinking was that the voltage regulator would shave 109V off the 144V inputs to get to 35V, and in the process it would also shave off every last morsel of noise and distortion, while the 144V raw power supply would give the voltage regulator tremendous energy reserves - enough that the usual electrolytic capacitors could be replaced with film caps. In essence, rather than using sheer capacitance to store the energy reserves, we used high voltages.
We found that ASC made some nice-sounding high-voltage polypropylene film caps of maybe 50uF, and we contacted them and asked them to make us a custom cap with as much capacitance as their winding machines would allow. The result was a 190uF capacitor that was bigger than many beer cans, and we decided to use 12 of these per power supply (2280uF). We also wanted amorphous-core power transformers, so we bought the cores from one company, spools of high-purity copper wire from another company, and delivered this to a transformer manufacturer in Berkeley to have it built into melon-sized custom power transformers (with dual 102VAC secondaries). The rectifiers were fast/soft recovery types in big power packages, and everything was wired up with high-purity solid-core copper wire in teflon tubing and no circuit boards. Each power supply was big and damn heavy, and there were two of them per preamp (one per channel).
But there was a price to be paid for ditching the electrolytic capacitors, and that price was heat. We decided to use two voltage regulator sets (positive/negative) per channel, one for the phono section, the other for the line section, and with a 109V drop on each voltage regulator, it was clear that we would be dissipating a tremendous amount of heat.
I looked at various off-the-shelf heat sinks and didn't find anything that I liked, and that was what lead to the machined-from-solid chassis, with integrated heatsinks (again machined from solid). Despite the heroic chassis, the 3.0 still ran fiendishly hot, and we had to reconsider the chassis dimensions and materials a few times until we were able to get the chassis temperature down to 50~55 degrees celsius (which is still hotter than you would want to touch for longer than a few seconds).
At the same time, I was working on the circuit board designs, first to engineer out the mechanical inconsistencies that the 2.0 amplifier boards and transistor modules had, and next to get Petr's voltage regulators working. I had selected some fancy high-frequency ceramic-loaded circuit-board material which had good electrical properties, but it turned out to be mechanically and chemically rather weak. I drilled holes in the amplifier boards and inserted teflon standoffs to create the mounting points for the air-dielectric, but in practice the bonding of the standoffs to the circuit board was not nearly as secure as I would have liked. This was a key reason why I later vetoed exports of the 3.0.
The problems with the fancy board material were particularly acute with the voltage regulator boards, as the company that applied the artwork to the raw board material had used some kind of glue to laminate the board layers together (these were multi-layer boards), and we found that the voltage regulators would work at first, then fail with short-circuits. At first we suspected that the components were overstressed due to the heat or high voltages and were failing, but putting in higher-rated component didn't solve the problems. We found out who the culprit was when we stripped off the components from a failed regulator board, measured the board itself, and found short-circuits(!). So we cut the board apart, and discovered that the glue layers had turned black in places, and these areas showed very low resistance (or short-circuits). I envision that it was a combination of the high voltages, high currents and high frequencies which caused the glue layers to gradually carbonize and turn conductive - needless to say I changed board materials ASAP (smile).
However, Petr's voltage regulator designs also proved troublesome, and even with a revised circuit-board material and layout, it took some time before we understood what kinds of transistor parameters to prioritize for each location (even using the same model transistor).
It took a bit longer to sort out all of the remaining issues, but the 3.0 finally launched in 1999, and we submitted it to Stereo Sound (the thick, coffee-table audio magazine) for review, and they gave it a Component Of The Year award, which was pretty nice (smile).
To provide a summary of who did what on the Connoisseur Definitions 3.0, Petr Mares did the majority of the circuit design work. I set the overall design goals and contributed some circuit ideas, selected which of Petr's circuits to use, built and debugged them, did the circuit-board layout (including the air-dielectric design), handled other tasks like designing the nude metal-foil coaxial attenuators, and defined the general mechanical structures (including keeping the wood away from over the circuits, which was one of the big problems with the 2.0) and overall layout (that three-knob design). Yoshinori Sasaki (then ScanTech's sales chief, now CEO of a separate company called ScanTech Hambai) did most of the chassis and mechanical design. Jim Sweeney designed and made the the wood cabinet (including the side-scoops). And Richard Less taught me how to use the EDA program Protel 98, which I used to design the circuit boards of the 3.0.
In retrospect, managing the 3.0 project was a question of how many new and wild ideas it was possible to keep in the pot without having them overwhelm me, or at least seriously disrupt the balance of the overall design. Given my abilities at that time, the main reason why I could shepherd the 3.0 into production was that I was able to jettison enough of the complexity to get the project down to a size that I could keep in my head. Being in my position got a bit uncomfortable some of the time, but it was a great learning experience, and I am happy that I could work with Petr, Jim, Sasaki, Richard (and Stig) to make the 3.0 a reality.
kind regards, jonathan
PS. Please let me know if anyone wants to hear about the 4.x and the 5.
AFAIK, Petr's time crunch was the impetus for the Connoisseur 2.0 (circa 1991) - a phono stage design which kept air-dielectric construction for the amplifier sections, but used a regular circuit-board for the voltage regulators. The voltage-regulator circuit-board allowed Petr to use a more complex topology than he would have cared to build on the old 3-D maze, and this more complex topology kept the overall performance at least as good as the 1.0 - probably better.
Although the 2.0 amplifier sections continued to be built with air-dielectric construction, they did have a circuit-board, which the regulated power rails (and ground), mounting holes for mechanical components such as heatsinks and pillars, and auxiliary circuits such as DC servos. All in all, it was substantially easier to build than the 1.0.
But it was not enough to enable Petr to build enough phono stages for sale in Japan, and Petr increasingly made us aware that he wanted out. So in 1994 I and Stig bought Connoisseur and moved it to Japan, and we renamed it Connoisseur Definitions.
Petr came to Japan for some time, to help us learn how to build and repair the 2.0, but this proved trickier than we thought. I learned how to build a 2.0, but it became clear to me that the board design and transistor module construction allowed too much inconsistency, making it impossible to keep ready-made transistor modules ready to use for new builds or repairs. Each phono stage was an entity unto itself, and I would find myself needing to measure the space available on each phono stage before I could make replacement transistor modules for it.
Keeping a design like the 2.0 in production meant that I would need to become a full-fledged phono preamp builder, with no time to work on cartridges or the other things that I wanted to. It was therefore with relief and regret that we terminated production of the 2.0.
We needed a new design to replace the 2.0, and at first, Petr took the lead. But these early design proposals were not built due to complexity, difficulties in getting them to work, and my assessment that they didn't solve the fundamental issues with the 2.0.
I requested Petr to take a different design approach, and I outlined the circuit characteristics that I was looking for. This was the start of what was to become the 3.0. At first this phase was quite productive. Both Petr and I would propose circuits or circuit ideas (Petr contributing the majority of the fully-developed circuits, myself contributing mostly interesting circuit fragments), and we were inspired by each other's ideas. However, the project gradually succumbed to featureritus, and I was fully as guilty as Petr. Wanting to take the next step beyond "air-dielectric", I proposed "vacuum-dielectric", and designed an elaborate chassis concept that would allow this to happen. For his part, Petr designed various circuits that were fascinating in their approach, but a bear to get working properly.
After a year or two of piling elaborate concept upon elaborate concept, I had to concede that we weren't getting close to our goal of having a new phono stage design. So I went through all of the amplifier topologies that had been proposed up to that time, and selected what I felt were the most promising candidates. I further cleaned up the circuits and built them onto a set of 2.0 circuit boards (the 2.0 circuit boards, being mostly air-dielectric, allowed me to build in pretty much any circuit that would fit into the physical space available).
I called the result the 2.5, and it worked really well. We played it for customers that had very elaborate audio systems (TOTL FM Acoustics full setup etc.), and they likewise agreed that the 2.5 was convincing enough to put into production.
Since we now had a sort of solid foundation, I gave Petr more freedom on the power supply and voltage regulator designs. The two of us had been discussing that it would be really nice if the 3.0 design didn't use any electrolytic capacitors at all, and Petr designed a voltage regulator concept that enabled this. His voltage regulator had an output voltage of +/-35VDC, but called for an input voltage of +/-144VDC. The thinking was that the voltage regulator would shave 109V off the 144V inputs to get to 35V, and in the process it would also shave off every last morsel of noise and distortion, while the 144V raw power supply would give the voltage regulator tremendous energy reserves - enough that the usual electrolytic capacitors could be replaced with film caps. In essence, rather than using sheer capacitance to store the energy reserves, we used high voltages.
We found that ASC made some nice-sounding high-voltage polypropylene film caps of maybe 50uF, and we contacted them and asked them to make us a custom cap with as much capacitance as their winding machines would allow. The result was a 190uF capacitor that was bigger than many beer cans, and we decided to use 12 of these per power supply (2280uF). We also wanted amorphous-core power transformers, so we bought the cores from one company, spools of high-purity copper wire from another company, and delivered this to a transformer manufacturer in Berkeley to have it built into melon-sized custom power transformers (with dual 102VAC secondaries). The rectifiers were fast/soft recovery types in big power packages, and everything was wired up with high-purity solid-core copper wire in teflon tubing and no circuit boards. Each power supply was big and damn heavy, and there were two of them per preamp (one per channel).
But there was a price to be paid for ditching the electrolytic capacitors, and that price was heat. We decided to use two voltage regulator sets (positive/negative) per channel, one for the phono section, the other for the line section, and with a 109V drop on each voltage regulator, it was clear that we would be dissipating a tremendous amount of heat.
I looked at various off-the-shelf heat sinks and didn't find anything that I liked, and that was what lead to the machined-from-solid chassis, with integrated heatsinks (again machined from solid). Despite the heroic chassis, the 3.0 still ran fiendishly hot, and we had to reconsider the chassis dimensions and materials a few times until we were able to get the chassis temperature down to 50~55 degrees celsius (which is still hotter than you would want to touch for longer than a few seconds).
At the same time, I was working on the circuit board designs, first to engineer out the mechanical inconsistencies that the 2.0 amplifier boards and transistor modules had, and next to get Petr's voltage regulators working. I had selected some fancy high-frequency ceramic-loaded circuit-board material which had good electrical properties, but it turned out to be mechanically and chemically rather weak. I drilled holes in the amplifier boards and inserted teflon standoffs to create the mounting points for the air-dielectric, but in practice the bonding of the standoffs to the circuit board was not nearly as secure as I would have liked. This was a key reason why I later vetoed exports of the 3.0.
The problems with the fancy board material were particularly acute with the voltage regulator boards, as the company that applied the artwork to the raw board material had used some kind of glue to laminate the board layers together (these were multi-layer boards), and we found that the voltage regulators would work at first, then fail with short-circuits. At first we suspected that the components were overstressed due to the heat or high voltages and were failing, but putting in higher-rated component didn't solve the problems. We found out who the culprit was when we stripped off the components from a failed regulator board, measured the board itself, and found short-circuits(!). So we cut the board apart, and discovered that the glue layers had turned black in places, and these areas showed very low resistance (or short-circuits). I envision that it was a combination of the high voltages, high currents and high frequencies which caused the glue layers to gradually carbonize and turn conductive - needless to say I changed board materials ASAP (smile).
However, Petr's voltage regulator designs also proved troublesome, and even with a revised circuit-board material and layout, it took some time before we understood what kinds of transistor parameters to prioritize for each location (even using the same model transistor).
It took a bit longer to sort out all of the remaining issues, but the 3.0 finally launched in 1999, and we submitted it to Stereo Sound (the thick, coffee-table audio magazine) for review, and they gave it a Component Of The Year award, which was pretty nice (smile).
To provide a summary of who did what on the Connoisseur Definitions 3.0, Petr Mares did the majority of the circuit design work. I set the overall design goals and contributed some circuit ideas, selected which of Petr's circuits to use, built and debugged them, did the circuit-board layout (including the air-dielectric design), handled other tasks like designing the nude metal-foil coaxial attenuators, and defined the general mechanical structures (including keeping the wood away from over the circuits, which was one of the big problems with the 2.0) and overall layout (that three-knob design). Yoshinori Sasaki (then ScanTech's sales chief, now CEO of a separate company called ScanTech Hambai) did most of the chassis and mechanical design. Jim Sweeney designed and made the the wood cabinet (including the side-scoops). And Richard Less taught me how to use the EDA program Protel 98, which I used to design the circuit boards of the 3.0.
In retrospect, managing the 3.0 project was a question of how many new and wild ideas it was possible to keep in the pot without having them overwhelm me, or at least seriously disrupt the balance of the overall design. Given my abilities at that time, the main reason why I could shepherd the 3.0 into production was that I was able to jettison enough of the complexity to get the project down to a size that I could keep in my head. Being in my position got a bit uncomfortable some of the time, but it was a great learning experience, and I am happy that I could work with Petr, Jim, Sasaki, Richard (and Stig) to make the 3.0 a reality.
kind regards, jonathan
PS. Please let me know if anyone wants to hear about the 4.x and the 5.
Definitely! Cool story...an enjoyable read about how such a legendary pre came to be! thanks for taking the time.
Absolutely fascinating material, Jonathon, thanks for sharing! This sounds like a variation on the so-called Manhattan style of construction for RF, something I came across some time ago. And something I put in the back pocket to try one day ...
Your experiences and work is an excellent example of how if one really, really wants to get a circuit to work "correctly" that you have to go beyond the concept of electronic construction by materials list game: it literally becomes a scuplture of physical materials, whose unwanted behaviours have to be held in check ...
Frank
lloydelee21: Legendary? maybe. Bonkers? absolutely 
!
I'd be genuinely surprised if any other company were to follow closely in the footsteps of the 3.0, or for that matter the 4.x or 5. And if they ever did choose to do so, they shouldn't be surprised if their production staff were to go on strike.
cheers, jonathan
!I'd be genuinely surprised if any other company were to follow closely in the footsteps of the 3.0, or for that matter the 4.x or 5. And if they ever did choose to do so, they shouldn't be surprised if their production staff were to go on strike
.cheers, jonathan
Thanks Jonathan for setting the history straight! I am very satisfied with the 3.0 and will not replace it unless there is another product from a resurrected Lyra Connoisseur which would be as similarily in a class of its own as the 3.0 was when it was introduced. My assumption of the history is based on bits of pieces of what I have found on the internet and some rumours. It is good to know the real story. I guess I was really lucky when I shipped my 3.0 to Europe and there was no damages to either of the three chassis or its interior.
Concerning the 5.0L, I read somewhere that there are two versions (single-knob and dual-knob) and that you designed the single-knob version but someone else (maybe Scan Tech Hambai and Sasaki) designed the the dual-konb version. I also read somewhere about a prototype for a 5-0P. Was this also your design?
I really hope you will be able to resurrect Lyra Connoisseur. I assume the newly formed Qualia from Japan (also distributed in the US by Allen Perkins and Immedia) does not have anything to do with you or Scan Tech Hambai even though their new Indigo Reference Preamplifier looks very similar to the dual-knob Lyra Connoisseur 5-0L?
BTW, I will soon install the Lyra Olympos on a Rockport Sirius III.
Thanks,
Roy
Concerning the 5.0L, I read somewhere that there are two versions (single-knob and dual-knob) and that you designed the single-knob version but someone else (maybe Scan Tech Hambai and Sasaki) designed the the dual-konb version. I also read somewhere about a prototype for a 5-0P. Was this also your design?
I really hope you will be able to resurrect Lyra Connoisseur. I assume the newly formed Qualia from Japan (also distributed in the US by Allen Perkins and Immedia) does not have anything to do with you or Scan Tech Hambai even though their new Indigo Reference Preamplifier looks very similar to the dual-knob Lyra Connoisseur 5-0L?
BTW, I will soon install the Lyra Olympos on a Rockport Sirius III.
Thanks,
Roy
Last edited:
Hi Frank: Every one of the Connoisseur lineage has used air-dielectric construction, but the nature of that air-dielectric construction evolved and changed over time.
The 1.0 didn't use bespoke circuit boards, and therefore the construction was fully free-form (the only degree of building consistency was whatever Petr maintained with his hands and soldering-iron).
The 2.0 traded air-dielectric construction for the voltage regulators in favor of more complex, advanced circuits. The amplifier circuit boards remained as air-dielectric, but acquired clear zones for positive, negative, and ground, input and output nodes, and the locations of the output devices were specifically defined. But between those points the physical construction was still quite amorphous. For example, the input devices on one board could be 5mm left of where they were on the other board, and the amplifier would still work well. But if anything subsequently failed in the boards, the replacement transistor module would need to be formed to mimic whatever deformities that the original transistor module had. Needless to say, this slowed down repair and maintenance, and my impression was that it also slowed down production.
My opinion was that all transistor modules should be pre-formed as one work operation, mounted to the circuit boards as a separate work operation, and the transistor modules for one board should be fully interchangeable with those from any other board. The physical design of the 2.0 didn't lend itself to this approach, and wasn't sufficiently methodical and rational for serious production IMO.
When designing the circuit boards for the 3.0, I split up the total board surface area into smaller, more numerous zones, by using teflon standoffs inside the circuit as well as at the input and output nodes. I made molds and jigs for fabricating the transistor modules so that they would be of uniform size and shape, and since the air-dielectric transistors were mounted upside down on the circuit board, I had the tapered crowns of the transistors machined flat so that each transistor module would be completely stable and couldn't rock when it was placed on the circuit boards.
This combined approach proved to deliver a greater degree of precision and consistency in building the 3.0 circuit boards, and the performance of each amplifier board became more uniform (when building the 2.0, every now and then you would manage to make a board that oscillated at very high frequencies, and need to tear it down and start over again).
>if one really, really wants to get a circuit to work "correctly" that you have to go beyond the concept of electronic construction by materials list game: it literally becomes a sculpture of physical materials, whose unwanted behaviours have to be held in check ...
I see it as finding a balance between superior construction (air-dielectric, 3D) and more complex circuit topologies. The end-goal is to find superior performance, but which path does the designer choose?
If the designer chooses air-dielectric, the increased pain of building the circuit will be a deterrent to using more complex circuits. And if the designer chooses more complex circuits, he probably will want to stay away from air-dielectric construction.
Needless to say, if the builder has superior manual dexterity, or if the designer is capable of devising more precise air-dielectric structures, it becomes easier to encompass both air-dielectric structures and complex circuit topologies in a single product.
Those lines of thought lead to the design concepts for the 4.x and the 5.0.
kind regards, jonathan
The 1.0 didn't use bespoke circuit boards, and therefore the construction was fully free-form (the only degree of building consistency was whatever Petr maintained with his hands and soldering-iron).
The 2.0 traded air-dielectric construction for the voltage regulators in favor of more complex, advanced circuits. The amplifier circuit boards remained as air-dielectric, but acquired clear zones for positive, negative, and ground, input and output nodes, and the locations of the output devices were specifically defined. But between those points the physical construction was still quite amorphous. For example, the input devices on one board could be 5mm left of where they were on the other board, and the amplifier would still work well. But if anything subsequently failed in the boards, the replacement transistor module would need to be formed to mimic whatever deformities that the original transistor module had. Needless to say, this slowed down repair and maintenance, and my impression was that it also slowed down production.
My opinion was that all transistor modules should be pre-formed as one work operation, mounted to the circuit boards as a separate work operation, and the transistor modules for one board should be fully interchangeable with those from any other board. The physical design of the 2.0 didn't lend itself to this approach, and wasn't sufficiently methodical and rational for serious production IMO.
When designing the circuit boards for the 3.0, I split up the total board surface area into smaller, more numerous zones, by using teflon standoffs inside the circuit as well as at the input and output nodes. I made molds and jigs for fabricating the transistor modules so that they would be of uniform size and shape, and since the air-dielectric transistors were mounted upside down on the circuit board, I had the tapered crowns of the transistors machined flat so that each transistor module would be completely stable and couldn't rock when it was placed on the circuit boards.
This combined approach proved to deliver a greater degree of precision and consistency in building the 3.0 circuit boards, and the performance of each amplifier board became more uniform (when building the 2.0, every now and then you would manage to make a board that oscillated at very high frequencies, and need to tear it down and start over again).
>if one really, really wants to get a circuit to work "correctly" that you have to go beyond the concept of electronic construction by materials list game: it literally becomes a sculpture of physical materials, whose unwanted behaviours have to be held in check ...
I see it as finding a balance between superior construction (air-dielectric, 3D) and more complex circuit topologies. The end-goal is to find superior performance, but which path does the designer choose?
If the designer chooses air-dielectric, the increased pain of building the circuit will be a deterrent to using more complex circuits. And if the designer chooses more complex circuits, he probably will want to stay away from air-dielectric construction.
Needless to say, if the builder has superior manual dexterity, or if the designer is capable of devising more precise air-dielectric structures, it becomes easier to encompass both air-dielectric structures and complex circuit topologies in a single product.
Those lines of thought lead to the design concepts for the 4.x and the 5.0.
kind regards, jonathan
That would be something! Resurrect and then upgrade the 3.0 to jonathan's latest thinking!
Hi JCarr,
I find it very interesting to read about the challanges you had with handeling the heat in the 3.0. My 3.0 behaves quite differently from you description. The power supplies for my 3.0 doesn't get warm at all. However the preamp itself gets quite warm. I don't use the phono stage at the moment though.
Warm regards,
Roy
I find it very interesting to read about the challanges you had with handeling the heat in the 3.0. My 3.0 behaves quite differently from you description. The power supplies for my 3.0 doesn't get warm at all. However the preamp itself gets quite warm. I don't use the phono stage at the moment though.
Warm regards,
Roy
Hi Roysen and anyone interested in Connoisseur Definitions/Lyra Connoisseur
Great that you enjoy your Lyra Connoisseur 3.0 just like I do myself. This product was created in my company ScanTech by designers Petr Mares and Jonathan Carr. The product was launched in 1999 and remained in production until ca. 2002. The 3.0 was both a line & phono preamplifier.
Let me address your erroneous explanation of the companies involved. ScanTech was established by myself as a Tokyo, Japan based corporation in 1983. With designer Jonathan Carr, our company started cartridge development from ca. 1985. Some people still use our original model called 'Tsurugi'. The Lyra brand was established by ScanTech in 1991.
Connoisseur 1.0, and later 2.0, phono preamplifiers were originally designed and hand-built by a small California, USA business called Mares Design run by Petr Mares. Since ca. 1988 ScanTech imported and distributed over 90% of the production for sale in Japan. In 1993 ScanTech bought all rights to the brand and its designs and moved the production of Connoisseur 2.0 to Japan when the brand name was changed to "Connoisseur Definitions". Jonathan Carr took over as lead designer while Petr Mares remained on the design team until the launch of the 3.0 in 1999.
The original ScanTech company had in addition to being the manufacturer of Lyra phono cartridges (also designed by Jonathan Carr) and Connoisseur Definition preamplifiers also been distributing many foreign audio brands like Audio Physic, Electrocompaniet, VPI, Graham Engineering, Well Tempered etc. in the Japanese market. In the middle of 1999 the original ScanTech decided to stop its distribution activities in the Japanese market to become a pure manufacturing company.
All sales staff resigned from the original ScanTech and established their own ScanTech Hambai (the word Hambai means 'Sales' or 'Marketing' in Japanese. The original ScanTech granted the rights for the ex-sales staff to use the ScanTech name for the Japanese market and to take over all distribution of foreign audio brands that the original ScanTech had handled, and ScanTech Hambai did also take over sales and marketing of Lyra and Connoisseur Definitions preamplifiers limited to the Japanese market.
The original ScanTech released the 4.0 series preamplifiers in the year 2000 which became an instant hit and these were produced in far greater numbers than previous Connoisseur Definitions models. Like Jonathan Carr has explained; the 3.0 was never exported because of its fragile nature, and any samples existing outside Japan came from the second-hand market. However, from the 4-series onwards, the Connoisseur preamplifiers were also exported to various countries in the world.
In 2002 the original ScanTech was renamed to become Lyra Co., Ltd. and at the same time the Connoisseur Definition brand was changed to Lyra Connoisseur. The final change was to differentiate models for the Japanese market that remained 4.0 and later became 4.0 Advance based on the requirements by ScanTech Hambai and Japanese retailers (including the wish to keep Japanese market retail prices limited), while higher end models called 4-2 were developed by Jonatan Carr for foreign markets. These units were also the only ones Jonathan Carr personally were involved in producing each unit. Later these were elevated to 4-2 SE status as reviewed in HiFi+ and other magazines around the world.
Lyra Connoisseur 5-0L line preamplifier, originally designed by Jonathan Carr as a single-knob design was later redesigned to become a two-knob design to fit the taste of Japanese customers since the largest market for preamplifiers at this price-point still was Japan. For various reasons the 5-0L had a limited success and only sold in small numbers. However, it was survived and outlived by the more efficient and more ideal 4-series which has the more optimal chassis recipe for continuous pursuance of maximum audio performance.
Lyra Connoisseur 4-series production was discontinued in ca. 2006 due to the introduction of European RoHS regulations that prohibits import and sale of electronic products to the EU that contain any electronic part with lead and a group of other prohibited substances. Even though the Lyra Connoisseur could have continued to be sold in non-EU markets, the introduction of RoHS rules also lead to that many electronic component manufacturers took key components used in the Lyra Connoisseur (and many other audio products) out of production, and many of these electronic components were not replaced with RoHS compatible versions.
However, further development of upgrades by Jonathan Carr to existing Lyra Connoisseur 4-series preamplifiers (phono and line) continues to this day, so a 2012 upgrade to any old 4-series makes it perform at a much higher level than though possible at its discontinuation in 2006.
There is no connection whatsoever between the original ScanTech/Lyra/Connoisseur/Jonathan Carr/myself and the Qualia brand of preamplifiers despite a mistaken comment to this effect in Stereophile.
There is a possibility of a revival of Lyra Connoisseur preamplifiers, and you may also get to hear other Lyra branded audio electronics over time.
The original ScanTech company (which is separate from ScanTech Hambai), later renamed to LYRA, will celebrate a mature age of 30 years under the same ownership in January 2013.
Thank you for listening
Great that you enjoy your Lyra Connoisseur 3.0 just like I do myself. This product was created in my company ScanTech by designers Petr Mares and Jonathan Carr. The product was launched in 1999 and remained in production until ca. 2002. The 3.0 was both a line & phono preamplifier.
Let me address your erroneous explanation of the companies involved. ScanTech was established by myself as a Tokyo, Japan based corporation in 1983. With designer Jonathan Carr, our company started cartridge development from ca. 1985. Some people still use our original model called 'Tsurugi'. The Lyra brand was established by ScanTech in 1991.
Connoisseur 1.0, and later 2.0, phono preamplifiers were originally designed and hand-built by a small California, USA business called Mares Design run by Petr Mares. Since ca. 1988 ScanTech imported and distributed over 90% of the production for sale in Japan. In 1993 ScanTech bought all rights to the brand and its designs and moved the production of Connoisseur 2.0 to Japan when the brand name was changed to "Connoisseur Definitions". Jonathan Carr took over as lead designer while Petr Mares remained on the design team until the launch of the 3.0 in 1999.
The original ScanTech company had in addition to being the manufacturer of Lyra phono cartridges (also designed by Jonathan Carr) and Connoisseur Definition preamplifiers also been distributing many foreign audio brands like Audio Physic, Electrocompaniet, VPI, Graham Engineering, Well Tempered etc. in the Japanese market. In the middle of 1999 the original ScanTech decided to stop its distribution activities in the Japanese market to become a pure manufacturing company.
All sales staff resigned from the original ScanTech and established their own ScanTech Hambai (the word Hambai means 'Sales' or 'Marketing' in Japanese. The original ScanTech granted the rights for the ex-sales staff to use the ScanTech name for the Japanese market and to take over all distribution of foreign audio brands that the original ScanTech had handled, and ScanTech Hambai did also take over sales and marketing of Lyra and Connoisseur Definitions preamplifiers limited to the Japanese market.
The original ScanTech released the 4.0 series preamplifiers in the year 2000 which became an instant hit and these were produced in far greater numbers than previous Connoisseur Definitions models. Like Jonathan Carr has explained; the 3.0 was never exported because of its fragile nature, and any samples existing outside Japan came from the second-hand market. However, from the 4-series onwards, the Connoisseur preamplifiers were also exported to various countries in the world.
In 2002 the original ScanTech was renamed to become Lyra Co., Ltd. and at the same time the Connoisseur Definition brand was changed to Lyra Connoisseur. The final change was to differentiate models for the Japanese market that remained 4.0 and later became 4.0 Advance based on the requirements by ScanTech Hambai and Japanese retailers (including the wish to keep Japanese market retail prices limited), while higher end models called 4-2 were developed by Jonatan Carr for foreign markets. These units were also the only ones Jonathan Carr personally were involved in producing each unit. Later these were elevated to 4-2 SE status as reviewed in HiFi+ and other magazines around the world.
Lyra Connoisseur 5-0L line preamplifier, originally designed by Jonathan Carr as a single-knob design was later redesigned to become a two-knob design to fit the taste of Japanese customers since the largest market for preamplifiers at this price-point still was Japan. For various reasons the 5-0L had a limited success and only sold in small numbers. However, it was survived and outlived by the more efficient and more ideal 4-series which has the more optimal chassis recipe for continuous pursuance of maximum audio performance.
Lyra Connoisseur 4-series production was discontinued in ca. 2006 due to the introduction of European RoHS regulations that prohibits import and sale of electronic products to the EU that contain any electronic part with lead and a group of other prohibited substances. Even though the Lyra Connoisseur could have continued to be sold in non-EU markets, the introduction of RoHS rules also lead to that many electronic component manufacturers took key components used in the Lyra Connoisseur (and many other audio products) out of production, and many of these electronic components were not replaced with RoHS compatible versions.
However, further development of upgrades by Jonathan Carr to existing Lyra Connoisseur 4-series preamplifiers (phono and line) continues to this day, so a 2012 upgrade to any old 4-series makes it perform at a much higher level than though possible at its discontinuation in 2006.
There is no connection whatsoever between the original ScanTech/Lyra/Connoisseur/Jonathan Carr/myself and the Qualia brand of preamplifiers despite a mistaken comment to this effect in Stereophile.
There is a possibility of a revival of Lyra Connoisseur preamplifiers, and you may also get to hear other Lyra branded audio electronics over time.
The original ScanTech company (which is separate from ScanTech Hambai), later renamed to LYRA, will celebrate a mature age of 30 years under the same ownership in January 2013.
Thank you for listening
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Hi Guys, I seem to have been contributing to this thread in absentia, so I thought it only sensible to clarify the situation as regards the Connoisseurs that I use. Currently, I employ 4-2SE versions of both the phono and line stages. There is a power supply upgrade available that I'll be undertaking shortly, but currently they stand one generation behind the best available performance from the units. I have heard the upgrade on the line-stage only, and it is certainly significant.
Despite the lack of this power supply improvement, the 4-2SEs remain my units of choice when it comes to musical enjoyment.As reviewing tools they are remarkably honest and revealing, although somewhat limited in today's market by their lack of balanced connection, not something that worries me or seems to limit their performance). In particular, as impressive as either the phono or line-stage is, when used in tandem the whole is considerable greater than the sum of the parts. It's used together that the Connoisseurs really enter the realm of the special. Although I've heard units that can better the overall sense of acoustic space delivered by the Connoisseurs, notably the various ARC units and several CJs, and I've also heard units with a more rooted sense of top to bottom linearity and stability - the VTL 7.5 is a good example - nothing that has crossed my path can match the Lyras' ability to convey the subtle shape and delicacy, micro-dynamic definition and temporal placement of notes, whilst also retaining the speed and explosive energy that instruments can produce. Nothing does a better job of putting me in the same space as the musicians and the combination of poise, presence, immediacy and the almost preternatural sense of timing and ensemble that the Connoisseurs possess deliver more of the sense of a performance, more of the sense of real people, real voices and the energy that goes into and comes out of real instruments. In this regard, the Lyra units are essentially unique. Other products may do a better job with the cosmetics of musical presentation, or obey the rules more precisely: they may exceed particular aspects of the Lyras' performance. But none that I have heard (and noone gets to hear everything under representative circumstances, no matter what they claim, or what impression they give) can compete when it comes to cutting right to the heart and soul of the musical performance.
That's why the Connoisseurs deserve their legendary status - and why I continue to use them. Frankly, they are now so familiar as well as so engaging, that even if a better unit comes along and takes their place, I'd still keep them and use them - utter decadence to put 4-2s in your second system! So, in case anybody is in doubt, I continue to rely on the Connoisseurs because for me, they do a better job of the things that really matter (to me) than anything else I've heard.
One small observation/conundrum: I'm an absolute advocate of hyper adjustability in phono-stages. I want to see eq curves, loading and gain adjustments and can and have demonstrated just how vitally important these are to optimum musical reproduction and communication from LP. Yet the Lyra Connoisseur 4-2SE phono-stage has none of these facilities and a gain structure that's definitely a little odd unless you pair it with its own line-stage. Yet despite this, it is still the most musically communicative and emotionally convincing phono-stage I've heard - with only the Zanden coming close. Go figure!
Despite the lack of this power supply improvement, the 4-2SEs remain my units of choice when it comes to musical enjoyment.As reviewing tools they are remarkably honest and revealing, although somewhat limited in today's market by their lack of balanced connection, not something that worries me or seems to limit their performance). In particular, as impressive as either the phono or line-stage is, when used in tandem the whole is considerable greater than the sum of the parts. It's used together that the Connoisseurs really enter the realm of the special. Although I've heard units that can better the overall sense of acoustic space delivered by the Connoisseurs, notably the various ARC units and several CJs, and I've also heard units with a more rooted sense of top to bottom linearity and stability - the VTL 7.5 is a good example - nothing that has crossed my path can match the Lyras' ability to convey the subtle shape and delicacy, micro-dynamic definition and temporal placement of notes, whilst also retaining the speed and explosive energy that instruments can produce. Nothing does a better job of putting me in the same space as the musicians and the combination of poise, presence, immediacy and the almost preternatural sense of timing and ensemble that the Connoisseurs possess deliver more of the sense of a performance, more of the sense of real people, real voices and the energy that goes into and comes out of real instruments. In this regard, the Lyra units are essentially unique. Other products may do a better job with the cosmetics of musical presentation, or obey the rules more precisely: they may exceed particular aspects of the Lyras' performance. But none that I have heard (and noone gets to hear everything under representative circumstances, no matter what they claim, or what impression they give) can compete when it comes to cutting right to the heart and soul of the musical performance.
That's why the Connoisseurs deserve their legendary status - and why I continue to use them. Frankly, they are now so familiar as well as so engaging, that even if a better unit comes along and takes their place, I'd still keep them and use them - utter decadence to put 4-2s in your second system! So, in case anybody is in doubt, I continue to rely on the Connoisseurs because for me, they do a better job of the things that really matter (to me) than anything else I've heard.
One small observation/conundrum: I'm an absolute advocate of hyper adjustability in phono-stages. I want to see eq curves, loading and gain adjustments and can and have demonstrated just how vitally important these are to optimum musical reproduction and communication from LP. Yet the Lyra Connoisseur 4-2SE phono-stage has none of these facilities and a gain structure that's definitely a little odd unless you pair it with its own line-stage. Yet despite this, it is still the most musically communicative and emotionally convincing phono-stage I've heard - with only the Zanden coming close. Go figure!
Hi flat: Well, I have certainly broke a lot of prototype circuits in in-house testing (grin).
The BBPS circuit has evolved significantly from the original version, and it has gained in both performance, and I hope durability (for both 230V and 115V regions).
The latest BBPS family member is presently being refined and developed within the context of a new one-box phono stage design that I hope to launch toward the end of this year. Some of the testing will be geared to deliberately breaking things, to identify any potential weak-points in the circuitry, component choices or thermal structures.
If the BBPS performs with flying colors on the one-box phono stage, I plan to make a different but related version as a standalone power supply for the 4-series.
kind regards, jonathan
The BBPS circuit has evolved significantly from the original version, and it has gained in both performance, and I hope durability (for both 230V and 115V regions).
The latest BBPS family member is presently being refined and developed within the context of a new one-box phono stage design that I hope to launch toward the end of this year. Some of the testing will be geared to deliberately breaking things, to identify any potential weak-points in the circuitry, component choices or thermal structures.
If the BBPS performs with flying colors on the one-box phono stage, I plan to make a different but related version as a standalone power supply for the 4-series.
kind regards, jonathan
Similar threads
