Ron’s New System
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Simply because Ron could have some additional information that is not covered in this post - some people come here to learn, debate other people opinions and have a nice time, others love to show their bullying abilities.
I think the subject can become more complicated than that - see this very interesting link
https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=vinyl&m=1100528
Yes, I remember figuring this out at one point as the likely explanation. Thank you for reminding us!
I think no. a benz lp 0.36mV is the same level here i hear no diffrence. A lyra clavic d.c : 0.25mV (5cm/s, 45° peak).It's significantly quieter, it also says peak not 1khz.
Last edited:
microstrip said:
This is not my field, but I assume that good values depend very significantly upon climate and soil material and soil conductivity. I'm making this up but maybe in the Netherlands the typical resistance to ground is lower than can be achieved in the desert with a chemical ground.
The proposal I received from Lyncole XIT Grounding of Torrance, CA, had options for a resistance to ground of less than 10 ohms, and for a resistance to ground of less than 5 ohms.
Other documents indicate I think that I selected the less than 5 ohms proposal. This involved a web of a chemical ground plane array as well as a vertical ground. Right now both ground systems are connected together at my listening room sub-panel.
Not to jinx anything, but in the same room, with a much simpler system, I used to have to use cheater plugs on the VTL amplifiers. In the new complicated system, with a mix of tube and solid-state electronics, and balanced and single-ended connections and cables, and Jadis amplifiers, and 86dB of all-tube phono stage gain, I don't seem to have any ground hum. This suggests to me that the whole chemical ground thing may be doing something good.
This is not my field, but I assume that good values depend very significantly upon climate and soil material and soil conductivity. I'm making this up but maybe in the Netherlands the typical resistance to ground is lower than can be achieved in the desert with a chemical ground.
The proposal I received from Lyncole XIT Grounding of Torrance, CA, had options for a resistance to ground of less than 10 ohms, and for a resistance to ground of less than 5 ohms.
Other documents indicate I think that I selected the less than 5 ohms proposal. This involved a web of a chemical ground plane array as well as a vertical ground. Right now both ground systems are connected together at my listening room sub-panel.
Not to jinx anything, but in the same room, with a much simpler system, I used to have to use cheater plugs on the VTL amplifiers. In the new complicated system, with a mix of tube and solid-state electronics, and balanced and single-ended connections and cables, and Jadis amplifiers, and 86dB of all-tube phono stage gain, I don't seem to have any ground hum. This suggests to me that the whole chemical ground thing may be doing something good.
Last edited:
Just for yucks, the Eva Cassidy Spotify cut with 15 watt Wavac on 75 inch ribbons direct drive in an appx. 9 foot equilateral triangle listening field with hand held Galaxy 8 phone, through the maelstrom of YouTube and phone compressions. Bass panel has the bigger Wavac.
Nevertheless, if you have a sine wave and it’s peak amplitude if 5 units, the rms (root mean square) value will be 5x.707 = 3.54.
Historically some manufacturers have given their peak voltage spec for 5 cm/sec peak velocity, and others have used rms values.
I am not saying all manufacturers use the same rating scheme. Though a standard helps you compare. I am just noting that 3.54 is the rms value of 5 peak. Peak and rms output follows.
It’s really not an important point and certainly not worth dwelling on. All of these vinyl discussions end up in the ultra trivia domain. The preamp’s volume control will cover a multitude of sins.
Peak here refers to the amplitude of the test tone, which is generally at 1000 Hz for rating cartridges.
The rms value of a sine wave with 5 cm/sec amplitude is always going to be 3.535 cm/sec, regardless of the frequency of the sine wave.
Did he adjust SRA by ear or using test records or optical tools?
I think the whole point is important, people should be aware they are comparing oranges with lemons unless the read and understand the whole point. For example, van dan Hul MC cartridges are known to have an higher voltage high output than some others. But when we read VdH literature
"More accurately spoken the RMS output voltage of a cartridge is quoted for a sinusoidal groove velocity waveform with a RMS value of 5.7 cm/s. (The amplitude of this sinusoidal velocity is exactly 8 cm/s.; a factor of Square_Root(2).) The often mentioned reference velocity of the modulation of 5.6 (or even 5) cm/s. seems to be a written simplification/
truncation of the actual 5.656854249... (5.7) cm/s RMS.
The output of a magnetic phono cartridge is linearly proportional to its stylus’ perpendicular velocity.
For the amplitude of the cartridge’s output voltage you have to use the amplitude of the stylus velocity by multiplying the often given RMS value of the velocity by a factor of SQRT(2)."
But Shure says
"The output voltage of the M104E is 5.0 millivolts at 1,000 Hz at 5 cm/sec peak velocity. "
Ortofon just says
Technical data, MC 2000 MkII, MC 3000 MkII ; Output voltage at 1000 Hz, 5cm/sec.
and Lyra says
Output Voltage: 0.56mV@5cm/sec., zero to peak, 45 degrees (CBS test record, other test records may alter results)
Consumers will surely be confused!
Perhaps such an Amber Alert could be issued from an appropriate jurisdiction other than my system thread?
maybe in his conspiratorial mind you had something to do with the inactivity, hence your thread
I have found another contender!
EAR 534
-- Class A (push-pull)
--EL34s
--bridgeable (I don't know what the resulting impedance is) for about 90 watts
but, it does use negative feedback
I wonder how this would sound compared to JA200?
EAR 534
-- Class A (push-pull)
--EL34s
--bridgeable (I don't know what the resulting impedance is) for about 90 watts
but, it does use negative feedback
I wonder how this would sound compared to JA200?
It specifically states low negative feedback. I could put tiny amounts of feedback on everyone's favorite SET's and they'd never even know, but on multi tube gear it might stop the tubes from getting used up in a hurry.
If you think Jadis doesn't use any you are very wrong. Judge by the sound, not the marketing.
BTW I use a custom EAR designed phono atm, and it sounds amazing.
I don't see a reference to negative feedback in that review. Or are you deducing that from the test results?
If EAR sparks your interest, I would recommend the 519 (or 509) mono's -- if you can find them, that is. Back in the day, I traded my Jadis 80s for a pair of 519. As I remember it, the EARs had more high frequency extension, clarity, and punch than my Jadis; the Jadis had a sweeter midrange. I used them to drive Apogee Calipers
So, this is a two-way setup? RD75 mid/high and Analysis Audio bass panel? Or are you also driving a tweeter and some subs? Wavac MD-811 on the RD 75 and Wavac MD-572 on the bass panel?