Jump to content

andyr

Members
  • Content Count

    11,075
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

andyr last won the day on April 30 2016

andyr had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,038 Excellent

3 Followers

About andyr

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Melbourne
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just a few points re. the way you had the c'weight positioned in the above pic. If you want the arm to be set up optimally, then: 1. The knurled knob on the back of the c'weight should be at the bottom of the c'weight - not the top. You can see that the c'weight itself is set lower than the arm wand - this is so that the c.o.g. of the c'weight is as low as possible. When the knurled knob is on the bottom of the c'weight, the c.o.g. of the combination is lower than when the knurled knob is on the top. 2. This knurled knob performs 2 functions: screwing it in and out allows you fine control of the tracking force - after you've got this approximately set by sliding the c'weight towards/away from the pivot (and screwed in that grub-screw, to fix it in position). looking at the knob from above ... if it is dead in the centre of the c'weight then it has no effect on azimuth. If it is to the LHS ... it will tilt the arm - and the cart! - towards the left; if it is to the RHS ... it will tilt the cart to the right. The more to the left or right it is ... the more tilt it exerts. 3. The closer the c'weight is to the bearing housing, the better the arm sounds. You are using a heavier-than-ideal cart for the weight of your c'weight - in contrast, my own c'weight is right at the (inner!) end of the stub. (Duc made 2 different-thickness c'weights for me - which allows for a lot of flexibility in placement.) Can you make your c'weight heavier? Ideally, you get someone to machine you a secondary weight disc - maybe only 6mm thick - which you put on the stub in front of the main c'weight. Or use some suitably sized steel washers on the stub (and blue-tac them to the main c'weight). Andy
  2. Interesting comment, Ian. It would seem that damping applied at the pivot point (as in my G2.2) has a different effect to damping along the arm - like this 3009 kit. Andy
  3. Well, you continue to listen to vinyl, W! (That puts you into 'dinosaur' status! ) Andy
  4. Yes, the PU7. Contact the UK guy directly, to see whether he can still provide one. Andy
  5. Major tragedy, expat!! (I have a 12" Univector. ) But I would think Harry's tech may be able to assist. If they can't and you need a new 12" arm - I would suggest try the Audio Origami 12". I'm pretty sure it comes in a UP form, at 12" - certainly, the "normal" version has a 12" option. This would cost you significantly less than the "higher-up-the-food-chain" arms you mentioned. You certainly do! Andy
  6. Wow! There's a fanboi declaration! As I see it ... amplifier control over the bass drivers is certainly a vital issue ... but "the need for a sub" is to do with wanting to hear the deep bass in the recordings you have (like 16Hz in church organ music) - not whether 40Hz stops & starts well. For 16Hz - a sub is generally required, as few 'mains' have as low as 16Hz as their -3dB point. Andy
  7. Don't think so, W - JD's been associated with DV for about 25 years. Andy
  8. Agreed! Being neither retired nor unemployed, I don't have time to dig through crates, hoping to find something on my 'hit list'. Yes, a real problem. In the 'old days', you could find - and listen to - 20 second tracks on Amazon, to see whether you liked the song/album. Unfortunately, now Amazon don't seem to offer this service. Andy
  9. Thank you, Keng. That makes it easy to account for LP thickness differences! Andy
  10. As am I, av (happy with my generalisation)! I'm aware that an SME3009 is not a UP - and what I actually said was "SME3009 damping may well be a valid issue". And note - not all UPs need damping: sure, my G2.2 did but the Magnepan 'Unitrac' and Duc's 'Univector' that I am currently using ... don't have any damping. Andy
  11. Absolutely! Is VTA difficult to adjust? Andy
  12. I think that's a generalisation, av. I owned a Graham 2.2 UP arm for about 10 years. Graham recommended injecting some silicon fluid into the bowl surrounding the pivot - however, the level of fluid was critical. Too much and the arm sounded dead … too little was also a problem. Goldilock's conundrum at work. So SME3009 damping may well be a valid issue. That certainly does - however, an optimal support mechanism and an optimally designed plinth may not remove the need for some damping - around a UP, anyway. Regards, Andy
  13. Correct, Steffen - that was my expectation, too. Although I wasn't using 20AH batteries. The 8x 2.2AH batteries I was using cost me about $280 - so I shudder to think of what 8x 20AH SLAs would've cost! (I needed 4 to get 48v and 2 strings in parallel reduces the Zout of the SLA supply - which is important.) Andy
  14. At the risk of adding to the # of 'pointless posts', I will state what a group of us heard, a few years ago, when I was experimenting with different power supplies for my then new 'Number9' TT motor speed controller. I do regard SMPSes as generally inferior to a good linear PS. So, given the Number9 was supplied with a 48v SMPS, that day we tried out 5 different PS setups for the Number9: the supplied 48v Meanwell SMPS a 48v SLA supply - consisting of 2 strings of 4x 12v SLAs in series (to halve ESR), with a 40uF film cap across the outputs. a 48v linear PS that I built (an AKSA design). #3 plus an isolating transformer + hash filter between the linear PS and the wall. #1 plus an isolating transformer + hash filter between the Meanwell and the wall. Now: it's possible the linear PS I built was not a very good one - so, say, an Sbooster would've performed much better. (Unfortunately, though, Sbooster don't make a 48v version. ) it's also possible that, say, #2 would've performed better, had I used a much larger bank of caps across the outputs ... or more parallel strings of SLAs (which would've been costly!). But the result of the experiment was that #5 sounded the best! What that says to me is that SMPSes (well, Meanwells, anyway) inject hash back into the mains ... to 'infect' other components in your music system. The hash filter stops this. So a SMPS isn't necessarily inferior to a linear PS - but you need to have a hash filter (and probably an isotran) between it and the wall socket, for best sound. Andy
×
×
  • Create New...