Phono Preamp Parts Upgrade for Better Sound?
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 01. 2020
- I previously picked up and compared a couple of inexpensive turntable preamps. Can I make them sound just as good as more-expensive models just by swapping a few parts inside?
Featured music:
"日常" by Dan Mason (danmason.bandcamp.com/album/s...)
"Lights, Camera, Action!" from the Sonic Mania soundtrack (data-discs.com/products/sonic...)
"Exhale" from the Celeste soundtrack by Lena Raine (radicaldreamland.bandcamp.com...)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please consider supporting my work on Patreon: / thisdoesnotcompute
Follow me on Twitter and Instagram! @thisdoesnotcomp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Music: "As Real As It Gets", " Blue Nights and Yellow Days", "Dirty Treasure", "Golden Hour" and "Sunset Dew" by Epidemic Sound (www.epidemicsound.com).
Intro music by BoxCat Games (www.box-cat.com). - Věda a technologie
One thing is certain: Little Bear's output sounds like a low quality mp3.
How to make hifi sound like lofi beats to relax and study to...
I was really shocked by how poor that thing sounds.
Or an AM radio.
I thought my tweeters had died
I'm not happy with this kind of sound comparison. That can a) sound completely different with your ears and in your home. b) Depending on what I had for lunch and my mood afterwards, the result may differ. Joking aside, I mean that it's completely subjective. A frequency response analysis would be very helpful.
What do we want to achieve here that the bass, middle and treble controls cannot do? A better noise ratio? Then this is the absolute wrong measuring method. Using spectrum analysis and distortion factor measurement is mandatory.
Such a preamplifier should actually only do one thing: adjust the level to the norm with as little noise and distortion as possible. In addition, with the record player, the dynamic compression based on the physical medium must be reversed by a filter.
Introducing sound shaping elements (or the desirability of them) into the equation is a bad thing as you introduce unnecessary variables into the equation, like all over-engineering is.
BTW: You can criticize every single point i made and be right with it. That the sound fits to your liking is the goal. This is legitimate and, ultimately, different for each of us.
.oO (I just sometimes don't understand the whole uprising because human ears aren't necessarily the crown of creation. Especially when we get older, hehehe)
TI: all your chips are belong to us
Louis Rossmann would approve of that much flux
It’s still not enough for him
Bigger the glob, better the job!
maybe Colin.. for a future video can get a vintage Marantz or Marshall ... and compare it with the SONY... "listen" (with a CD player.. instead of a Turntable) if there really is so much difference as the Pro guys say ... :-)
---
For those who have not seen the previous video... Colin @This Does Not Compute.. compare these little crap boxes ... with a real Hi-Fi amplifier.. (a SONY if I remember correctly)... and obviously... they sound bad compared to a real applicator......... and it wasn't even a professional Amp like a Marshall or a Marantz .... it was a mid-range end user SONY Hi-Fi........
Don't delay, use more flux today!
@@ThisDoesNotCompute And another piece of advice that Lois would also give: We cut the wires before soldering! Not afterwards. Unfortunately you can never see that, because everything is under flux flood :)
Thanks for the video and for showing the preamps.
P.S: Have you ever thought about it: Simply changing components in this way can have an impact. With a precisely set operating point of a transistor, it can make a difference if the subsequently changed effective resistance of an expensive capacitor is suddenly in the circuit. Of course you have to measure that. Then you know whether the whole effort made any sense at all :) If you can't provide this evidence, then .... No, it doesn't matter because tinkering is fun.
I think the roll off of the high end is caused by their choice of “capacitance” in the RIAA circuit not the choice of capacitors used (cheap vs good caps).
CZcams's compression is making it near impossible to tell the difference between them.
aye i always laugh when i see videos on youtube about this
I can hear s little difference. But who knows how much is getting lost in translation.
Not necessarily. A common thought is that a lossy format or filter I'll call C when applied to two less lossy things such as A & B where A & B are of two distinct distinguishable qualities will make each of A & B equal in terms of quality or fidelity. Sometimes this will be true and sometimes it will not be true.
For example take a piece of graph paper with a quarter inch grid and on one row for 6 inches black in every square and call this line A. On a 6 inch line several inches below line A black in every other square starting with the first square being black and call this line B. Let each black square represent data and each blank square represent lost data. Line A obviously is lossless and line B is lossy.
Now apply another lossy scheme equal in terms of total lost data to that found in line B equally to both lines by leaving the first square of each line unchanged and erasing the next two squares then leave unchanged the fourth square and repeat the pattern for the next 5 inches on each of line A and B. The end result is line A which started with 24 data points is reduced to 12 data points and line B which started with 12 data points is down to 6 data points but you can still tell which line A or B was of better quality with respect to data.
Presumably my little example also applies to audio data so without knowing precisely how the CZcams scheme meshes with each audio format one can not really make a guaranteed conclusion as to what to expect. Also, it in general is an interesting math problem and while that is my field I honestly don't know if a theorem has been validated from some conjecture regarding this issue but it would be a bit fun to work something out regardless.
Footnote: If you say yes but the the lossy scheme that was applied equally to line A and B was equal to data loss to that of line B and not worse as CZcams must surely be then try this scheme. Erase the first 3 squares then save the fourth square and repeat. Line A then has been reduced to 6 data points and line B has been reduced to 0 data points and again the difference in quality is still notable.
Or maybe there's actually no difference.
Good video! Very helpful for my Nobsound NS-08E.
Interesting video thanks for taking the time to do this.
Awesome video! On a side note, what do you think of that Ortofon 2M Red? I was thinking of getting one to replace my current cartridge in my TT.
Thanks! Clear, short, in point!
Very interesting that all that work produced such minimal improvements. I have two home stereo receivers from the 80s and 90s that sound phenomenal with their on board phono preamps, but when looking for something modular for roughly the price of these old receivers I just can’t see the justification unless I had some incredible power amp that required a preamp. You went rather deep so we might avoid falling into some mid level upgrade rabbit hole, much appreciated!
so good!!! i love it!! thank you!!
Awesome Video👍✌️
OMG. Finally someone on CZcams who actually knows what they are talking about. Subscribed!
Great video, Colin. Tube amps are pish for listening imho. Top marks for music choice. LOVE that Sonic soundtrack.
12:06 Well, the Little Bear has produced some Schiit audio eh?
No Schiit!
@@misterhat5823 You can say that again, especially when the low-end preamps are absolutely Schiit beyond belief.
Great video, thanks!
Great Video!
Thanks for a straightforward video with no audiophile opinions thrown in. Before and after both sounded the same to me on both preamps. I could hear the obvious treble snuffing on the Little Bear. I was hoping you'd have shown if the ground loop buzz went away from the Music Hall. Hard to hear with music playing.
I don't hear any difference from my smartphone loudspeaker... LOL! GREAT VIDEO!
Thanks for doing this! I have that Little Bear. I found mine added audible noise.
I think it's the RIAA EQ causing it to sound dull in comparison.
Hi is there any way I could connect a mp3 player to my ceramic cartridge input on my stereo valve amp the cartridge plugs into a 3 pin socket barry
Do you have any suggestions for pre-amps or receivers that have more than one input?
Also, I still can't get over how blatant that rebrand and markup is, it's crazy!
No difference at all, I am wearing Sennheiser Momentum over ear.
I was listening through the HD6XX from Massdrop and could only notice a little less harsh highs with the music hall mini.
Are those the equivalent of the HD650s?...anygood?
yeah.. listening with DT880's and a Creek OBH-11.. difference is pretty minimal at best..
well , so i don't buy momentums.. listening to dynaudio's there is plenty diff
You must have really bad ears, i can hear every change.
You got yourself a new subscriber 🙂👍
Even as an amateur DIY tinkerer, those original solder joints on the music hall made me cringe. Great video.
I bought a used Rolls vp29 off ebay for $15. Replaced all the electrolytic caps and changed to the LM4562 opamp. I used Elna Silmic ii caps in the signal path instead of Nichicon gold. I put a Panasonic 25v 1000uf in the power circuit. If you use Elna Silmic caps you will have to position them away from the screw that mounts the pcb. They are much wider than the stock caps. The sound difference is very noticeable. Even my wife noticed. The highs and lows are more balanced. I listen to alot of classical and jazz music and I can hear more instruments. Better instrument separation makes those genres of music more enjoyable.
Music Hall mini after "upgrades" would have my vote.
I'm about to do a similar modification to a Pyle PP444. Curious if you can suggest a suitable replacement for the JRC4558 opamp. Thanks!
I could hear the differences in all the mods. The ones on the Dance Hall Mini made the most improvement. Changing the valves and the op-amp in the Little Bear did make a slight improvement to the sound, but it wasn't enough to take it from not good to OK. Enjoyed the video however!
So much for the better quality from tube preamp, at least in the case of the Little Bear. The Music Hall sounded much better even before the improvements. I have a Cambridge preamp and it I just love it.
Im using fx audio tube 03 preamplifier and connect it to PHONO of my denon stereo amplifier,but there is sound distortion when volume up to 11 o'clock of my tube 03 preamp while 9 o'clock of my main denon amp?I try connecting to auxiliary and CD line of my main amp,even full volume of my preamp there's no distortion but low sound ?why is it?tnx for your answer ,kindly enlighten me
My friend purchased the FX Audio 03 and got me intrigued so I bought one as well. Took the advice of some of these youtubers and did modifications like replacing the caps with 5% Wima 1uf 250v., matched pair of GE 5654's and did some op amp rolling- I currently have OPA 2132's but am waiting to receive some OPA1612's. I am not sure how much time was put on the new parts on the video, but one thing you have to do is put 50-70 hours minimum of break in to the parts or you won't hear ultimate results as the top end will sound harsh and edgy when parts are new. But, after the break in time woah! look out!.. I can't believe the transformation! The proof was doing a before and after comparison with my friend's stock unit. After listening to my modded out version all night on his system (he has Martin Logan's so the resolve of this system is high) we plugged his stock unit back in and it sounded muddy and rolled off by comparison. On my system, after the mods, the FX Audio 03 pre has made my system sound faster and tighter like I just plugged in an amplifier that had an added 300 -400 points extra dampening factor. the bottom end is so much tighter, less woolly and more delineated. I am running it through an auxiliary input on the preamp side to my Kenwood integrated with one kaveat: I have determined the Aux input can safely handle as much as the 10:30 position on the FX Audio 03 volume before it pushes that circuit on the Kenwood into distortion as the output of the FX Audio 03 is just a little too hot to run up any more. The rest of the gain I control on the Kenwood integrated and for a full sound I can run that volume control as much as 11:00 or 11:30. Even though I have spent at least as much as the preamp in parts for upgrade, I don't know another pre amp under $1000 that can give me this performance. My next step is to run it directly to my power amp but I haven't summoned the bravery to do so yet. Also, since there is only one input, it limits my choices and would force me to constantly reconnect source components. Luckily most of my sources run through my DAC (streaming, CD transport to DAC and optical from my TV set so it already covers many ball parks). I haven't experimented with an inexpensive phono pre as I already have a pretty good one that will run a moving coil but I don't think the inexpensive Chinese ones will give you very good performance without heavy modifications and even then, the phono circuit of an even inexpensive Japanese receiver will be way way better. As the video presentation here has determined, the RIAA circuit in these Phono preamps just aren't very good.
Curious how difficult it would be to remove the phono stage from a non-operational integrated amp and make it a stand alone piece. I am very new to vinyl and haven't any real knowledge of such things so I understand if its a ridiculous question but for someone who can't afford a quality preamp at the time but can certainly find broken electronics at an attainable price i would at least learn something and get to practice my soldering,but could it work?
Were these specified to pass the full audio range? Are these specified to output low distortion? Leaving on no name caps? Did you have to adjust other components values?
tbh I do not hear any difference an I was wearing the audio-technica ATH-M70x Wired Headphnes
I have a pair of ATM50x myself, there didnt sound like much difference in the Music Hall. Little Bear sounded no different.
@@s_ludge huh well I was like using a surround sound amplifier from sony as the audio souce (It has hdmi so I connected my pc up to it) and that could be the problem (or it could be my hearing since I can only hear up to 18000 - 18500Hz!
@@s_ludge make audio comparisons via youtube is basically worthless since yt as high and low frequency limitations
@@t_leite Making audio comparisons with your own two grown ears is pretty useless. No offence, but as said, these are your individual own pair of ears. Everyone has a different pair as yours and they are all good, pretty and important:)
Just use something like audacity in FFT mode and then you can make reliable statements. Even with a video on CZcams.
I am glad that I not bought this Little Bear thing few years back and bought full tube Yaqin and changed its chinese tubes to NOS. From this two from you presented this solid state is much much much better.
Big improvements
The aluminium SMD capacitors are too big to be part of the RIAA equalisation, they are hundred of uF while passive filters require nF or pF. Such big capacitors are typically used for IC power supply or output decoupling. I doubt changing all those caps would change the sound, to me that seems like a wrong filter design.
Changing the op-amp doesn't affect the signal level because the gain is defined by the resistors in the feedback chain.
Only thing it would affect is noise really.Even cheap, modern op-amps have decent parameters, that high cut on the second preamp is a design flaw, and that harsh top sounds like improper cartridge loading(input impedance). Also those big electrolitics have no effect in RIAA curve, they just remove dc bias and filter the power supply.
I heard your exact results. Only the MH mini's sound was improved from the parts swap, even though I suspect proper grounding led to the biggest improvement I heard on the MH mini.
Since the line level is good, then could it be the RIAA equalisation is wrong, ie, it rolled off too early?
Do you have a flac version of the differences in sound quality? I think youtube's compression is really messing up the difference.
A pity he didn't have a download link - I don't know why anyone tries to evaluate audio via CZcams
Or, how about this... there's no discernible difference!
plz upload the raw wav's cause yt compression is pretty bad, it's only a 131kbps AAC stream
I have both phono stages and the same issues with the music Hall mini. However with the little bear I don't have any complaints but that was after doing some tube rolling because the ones that came with it are horrible and my system is a little bright so the little bear works good with my set up.
If I can tell the difference on what I am listening to this with, the difference must be drastic in person.
Specifically the harmonics induced with the GE valves. They had a nicer harmonic tuning to my ear.
hehe yeah i once got myself a little naked tube-hybrid headphone preamp that uses 6J1 kind of tubes and when i got it it had a nasty buzzing and when i checked the solder spots i saw one of them not even being soldered. So i fixed that myself and boom, the buzz was gone. I also replaced the stock tubes with some of these ge5654 tubes and also switched the standard Op-Amp on this thing with a different one. However that did not really increase the soundquality all that much and it sounds still pretty shrill and midrange heavy but i still keep it for further tinkering to make it better cuz it's fun to work on something like that.
Nice video, but will be nice if you could share a high bit rate MP3 of Flac file with the samples so we can hear the diferences as the youtube compression ruins everything
I have the rolls belari. I replaced the wall wart with a high output transformer, 4 amp vs. .9 amps. Made a HUGE difference. Supposedly shortens tube life but I haven't noticed. I run an ortofon 2m black (huge upgrade over red) and a friend who has a $12,000 preamp was impressed with level of detail. Creates a very good sound stage that punches way above it's weight.
music hall before&after was the only perceivable difference on my system. Didn't notice jack between the little bear, opamp or tubes.
The Music Hall Mini seems to sound much better (before and after mod) than the Little Bear. This doesn't mean I think it's amazing, it just means that comparatively it sounds better. You and I both know that CZcams compresses it's audio so what I hear is definitely not what you hear. All in all, I say toss the "tube" amp and next time get hardware that actually uses tubes to amplify.
Update: I just finished the video and heard the Music Hall Mini costs 100 bucks, wow that's a chunk of change. I'm glad you paid for it and not me ;)
On a side note: If you ever want to make a video about CD MP3 players from the early 2000's I would love to donate my working Rio SP250 with the wired hand remote.
This was really informative especially considering how many channels talk hi-fi without any EE background whatsoever. It goes a long way to address the immense amount of snake oil that is typical to channels that focus on equipment.
I'd absolutely love this kind of breakdown in regards to answering a similar question that many entry level hi-fi folk encounter: does a recapped vintage hifi reciever outperform a modern entry level hifi amp like the offers from Cambridge Audio, NAD or even a lightly used entry level Marantz or Yamaha? Furthermore, how does the phono pre amp circuitry compare between these two different eras? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each system when accounting to age and modern vs past manufacturing process? If somebody just wants decent sound without chasing the audiophile dragon, what's the better value?
I'm not sure I'd be able to get to producing a video like that soon, but it's definitely some food for thought. In terms of old receiver vs new receiver, as long as you're comparing similar technologies (i.e. both are class AB, etc) I think the differences won't be dramatic. Newer equipment will have the benefit of better precision in parts manufacturing and modern soldering/assembly processes, but for non-audiophile equipment it'll be designed down to a price. Since vintage gear has the benefit of depreciation over time, you could pick up something that was very high-end in its day for a much lower price now. In the end, the better value is simply whatever fits in your budget and sounds good to you -- don't let yourself succumb to analysis paralysis.
Thanks for the advice! Based on your input I found a wonderfully well kept 1981 Yamaha R-500 for $50. It sounds perfect. I appreciate the input, it really shook me out of overthinking!
Wonder why you only changed the electrolytics and not the rest of the caps.
Best phono preamp I have ever come across is the Morrison. Finest speakers as well, expensive, but premiere engineering.
The problem now is in RIAA equalization circuitry. I guess it needd a full rebuild removing all old parts.
I doubt that would help, the designers have probably cheapened (as in simplified) the circuit, heavily distorting the curve. A rebuild would only remove audio distortion, not repair the distorted curve.
@@paulstubbs7678 Indeed, a mod and repair. I know that sometimes the mod can be difficult or useless if the PCB (printed board) is badly designed in the first place. This only leaves the space for reusing the outer of the amp case for aesthatic purposes if possible.
Great video, very interesting. Also amazing image, what camera are you shooting with?
These days I’m using a Panasonic GH5. It’s served me very well.
My opinion on the Music hall upgrade...
The ground wire fix is right on
Filling the solder and trimming the bottom leads are right on
I would leave the original cap there, the extra lead required to install the new cap introduced noise since they act like an antenna, so I will skip that and I suspected one would get better result. I would also leave the op amp alone since they are usually operate well.
For the little bear, seems to me the GE tube gives the most bang for the buck, the sound seems more airy and open.
I have a DAC in order and I will circle around to try this when it arrives.
I turned the CZcams channel to 1080 resolution and I can hear the difference on the little bear, but that may not mean the same in person.
I have a Nobsound ns10p tube buffer (line level in and out only) with the upgraded GE tubes. It's a very similar looking device. The replacement tubes do seem to noticeably improve the sound stage compared to the stock tubes.
It's similar because Nobsound=Little Bear. Same company.
the little bear is actually making a difference when listening to the noise on the piano LP. Not that i would want this , but there is a slight change
==
thank you ;-)
Little Bear was improved dramatically by the better tubes. The opamp didn't seem to make as much difference. And I don't think I made it up in my head, since I wasn't looking at the screen when I noticed the difference.
made no difference at all with the new tubes.. and if you wasn't looking at the screen how would you know which one was playing? improved dramatically?? little bear sounded shite.. the other cheaper pre amp sounded better after the upgrade
@@09danstart I looked up after hearing. Derp. And I didn't say anything about the music hall.
Hello I follow you for quite a while now. I think the problem of sound quality is not the component themselves but a cheap design of the circuitry. Happy new year !
You’re wallpaper is nice to look at least.
I use a fairly cheap preamp board from china based around the 6j1 tubes for input to my amp, not phone and had good luck with a set of russian drop in replacements, they worth a go - also the board is too, it's far easier to modify if you're wanting a starting point.
Outstanding work, its like day and night on the Music Hall👍🏻👍🏻
But on the other end the Little Bear isn't worth it imho.
What's the name of the 1st song on min. 06:30 ? - EDIT: Found it, thanks😎
The system deleted my post because I tried to link to another site.
I said that it would make sense to invest in an inverse RIAA network so that you can measure RIAA error
which is probably the largest contributor to sonic differences. This was confirmed by Walt Jung in either Speaker Builder or Audio Amateur many years ago and also by Tomlinson Holeman in his AES paper. With the inverse RIAA network you could put it in a loop back on a sound card and then use something like RightMark to test the frequency response. It would be interesting to see if a tube unit that puts the tubes in the RIAA feedback loop sees changes in frequency response when rolling tubes. When the gain is finite the RIAA correction depends on the forward gain.
Im blind where are the links to the gear?
You should try a kit with full tube amplification. Maybe one like the Hagerman Bugle or from VTA.
That all sounds the same to me but I am using the headphones that came with my $2 radio. 😂😂😂
Watching this comparison really kinda brought home that audio isn't once size fits all. I quite liked the modded music hall mini in the first comparison, but none of the options in the middle comparison (perhaps it's just not suited to vinyl to my ears) where as in the last one I preferred the sound of the tube modded little bear (though probably with it's original op amp. It sounded like the new op amp was amplifying some sort of backround hiss.
I was just about to say that the limitations of the Little Bear are in the RIAA circuit... and then you said it yourself. It could also be down to the cartridge loading too, it’s obviously fixed on this unit but it could be wildly out of spec for your cartridge (which would make it out of spec for the vast majority of MM designs).
If you get flux all over the board then wash the board, give it a good scrub with a soft bristle brush and flux remover or failing that dish washing liquid and rinse well. Water won't hurt it but mopped up flux can be very damaging to a circuit board. Just make sure the board is completely dry before reconnecting and powering up.
I agree, I could not detect any remarkable differences unlike the original comparison in which with eyes closed I always detected the Sony preamp was the responsible piece of electronics.
Me at 6:33: Oh this is neat, I like this music
Me at 7:25: :oooooooooooooo Sanic
The best cheapest upgrade is to get some nine and washers and put them between the cartridge and headshell and make sure it's tightened tight
This is the issue with cheap pre-amps. If you play around changing the op-amps inside it can sound a lot better. The tubes in the T7 are used as a buffer to add the harmonics that tubes are known for, but the op-amps definitely can let it down, but it primarily is the attempted RIAA that really lets it down, and new caps don't fix it. It is values of components that are not quite right. I believe the Little Bear T11, that seems to use more tubes, sounds a lot better, but you do pay a bit more for that.
Could it be that the little bear is overdoing the RIAA equalization stuff?
Oh phono preamps... specially cheap phono preamps... The main issue is the way the manufacturer decided to implement the RIAA curve which usually ended being not a RIAA. It will miss the bass corner at 50Hz, the 500Hz bass turnover or the 13.7 dB treble rolloff at 10khz or all three at the same time. Even much costly units sometimes have one of these parameters wrong. I cannot believe that the only curve in the entire history of LP recording that had been largely described, with all kind of papers and measurements it's so difficult to replicate by the average manufacturer.
I hold the view that the vast majority of Chi-Fi equipment only works out well for those who are satisfied with just-above average to reasonably-good sound quality. Of course there are some products that perform way better than they cost, but I prefer to think of them as the exception rather than the norm. Though videos like this makes me appreciate reviews of such products even more, it means I don't have to put my own money at risk.
clearly huge difference much better, nice mod. still have good ears and was once a DJ. Nice job
$100 with a free ground loop? Oooft!! Riiiiipppp
The reality is for all you young people NO VACUUM TUBE will work on 12 volts. ALL tubes require 6.3 or 12 volts for the filament and a High voltage PS for the plate voltage. As the CZcamsr points out the tubes in this silly box are simply just wired to modify the sound. This is NOT a vacuum tube preamp. In the end if you are going to buy a tube amp make sure it plugs into the 110 volt power. Other wise it is simply audio B.S.
It would have been interesting if you had first measured the RIAA eq curves to see if they were anywhere near accurate. I'll bet that in both cases, they deviate substantially from the correct response curve. IMO, both of those preamps are simply poor designs. They use only one op amp stage, (the IC's themselves are dual op amps, meaning they use one per channel) and that single stage topology is barely adequate for both gain and the feedback based RIAA eq. The TI datasheet for the LM4562 shows the right way to do it using 2 opamps per channel, and I'm sure it sounds way better. As for the Little Bear, I doubt the tube stage is anything more than a rudimentary buffer. Basically it does nothing but add distortion. The Music Hall is not only crude, it also looks like it was put together by an amateur. I did a much better job on my earliest Heathkits. I can't believe they're asking $100 for that piece of junk. No excuse for this. As for good, cheap phono stages, I've found that the ART DJ Pre II is about as good as it gets for well under $100.
Hi I just bought a retro computer, what can I do on it? I bought it because it looked cool, but now i feel like I water my money because I dont know what to do with it. It would be great if someone knowledgeable could lend me a hand.
How retro are wee talking? 1980s 8088? 1990s 486? Late 90s Pentium? You can play dos and early windows games, learn to program with tight limits, make midi music, read/write floppies, attempt to get it online, etc. Check out the vogons forum
I own the T7, and it sounds great without any issues with highs. Also, I don’t think 5654w is any better than the stock 6J1 with T7.
A Stan Warren (PS Audio) one-off 'black box' I bought for $2 at a thrift shop sounds Very good to me.
The Marantz CD-400B CD-4 demodulator is another.
One more? Sansui AU-710 (AU-717).
I'm guessing the first preamp was poorly "Wave Soldered."
Especially the "little bear" sounds creepy,- originally as after the modification! But the music hall also doesnt sound good - pre as post.
I fear there isn´t much to recover with this mods.
little Bear's sounds got potential though, sounds like there is a design fail or it could be if you interchange little bear's 91k&1nf *2 (if those are in the sound path) with metal film and nice caps it will sound way better.
mmm no they are not in the sonic path..
the blob works like a looking glass hahaha
Have you tried the Fluance? It's only $80 for y'all in America.
I haven’t tried it, but it did catch my eye.
The little bear T7 sounds great in my system. Not worse than my project Phonobox2. So there must be something going wrong with the rest of your audiogear. You might have a synergy-problem that causes the poor highs in your equipment, using the little bear. Or it also can be the ortophone Cardridge. I have a nagaoka MP110, and this deliveres great high end sound! And, it also could be,, that my preamp is a tube preamp!1 So, no matter if i use the RIAA Stage of my Preamp or only the Little bear, there are always two sets of tubes in the line...
I am planning on purchasing a tube preamp to sort out the fact that the AV Receiver I am planning to get (Sony) doesn't have a preamp included.
The littlebear is on my list, and it's known to have had issues at the beginning but the v2 release is better made and with the gain on top like the one in the video. It's highly recommended to change the generic chinese tubes which sound like crap!
my turntable has a pre-amp built in, as well as my amp
That's too bad. You can have a tech bypass those and get a decent one.
As with guitar amps And if you understand how caps work the only tonal difference different caps make is dependent on their value. since signal never actually passes thru a cap,(it charges and discharges allowing current to flow thru the rest of the circuit.) 10 mf is 10mf. Now the chips could make a diff but didn't seem to. And yes my guess is the tubes are more for show than go as they need a couple of hundred volts to work as an amplifing device. entertaining video tho.
I actually found GE tube somewhat smoother 😀
Kids! Tube amplifier with an IC as output stage? Phono stage with an opamp? Gimme a break :)
it's a shame you didn't add a chip socket for your op-amp. Would have been easier in case you wanna do op-Amp "rolling".
"After" has more range. However it's very subtle. Not sure worth the time. (my opinion of course) Yes I know we're comparing a CZcams upload. It's relative sound to be judging.
For what is supposed to be an "audiophile" brand, the build quality of that Music Hall pre-amp is appalling. I think even a $12 Pyle pre-amp is assembled more carefully than that!
Yep. I could understand how they would rebrand another preamp to fill a gap in their product line -- apparently this is way more common with audio equipment than people realize. The fact that the unit is faulty out of the box (the ground buzz), though, I think does more harm to their brand than good. I noticed they now sell a Music Hall Mini Plus model, and I'd be curious what it looks like inside, but I'm not sure I'm willing to spend $150 to find out.
Well, I as well could not hear as much difference either, except for the fix on the buzz. I would have liked to listen to these in person, because I believe that anything that is transferred in digital is just desensitized. I agree with your assessment, except that you did not factor in your time into these projects. I understand you can justify it with, "I did this to make a You Tube video" or "for personal gratification" but it is still your time, and your equipment. What if someone did not have those skills and equipment, or the desire to add to their skillset, or absence of time to perform the task? They would have to spend time to find a technician, and pay them to perform the task.
I would say that the best deal to be had, when searching for the best analog audio, is still to find a good second hand receiver. From your last video, imho the best sound was from the Sony receiver you already had. With little to no improvement from your upgrades to these preamps I suspect that is still the case. Plus if you are looking for some great sound for your office or other area, and you are limited on space, the receiver is the best option, since these components share a mostly common form factor and can be stacked. Even "cheap" receivers (60 watts per channel as opposed to 300 watts per channel) sounded great if you only want a little sound for your area. I know the preamp is smaller, but you are still going to have that turntable sitting somewhere and it isn't going to get any smaller. Preamps are really only an option if you absolutely need one, like if you have some kind of a set up that you can't part with.
But this video has value in that it does share the knowledge that, the Little Bear is about the same quality with either set of components and the Music Hall has a ground issue. It also demonstrated skills to replace components of you happen to have defective units. Thankyou for sharing!
On your pervious Video you said that there LEDs to light up the tubes on the little bear. That’s very suspicious... Also there doesn’t seem to be any high voltage circuits to support a tube amplification stage. IMHO these „tubes“ are for show only. A real tube would have a red glow during operation and get quite hot. No wonder that changing out the tubes didn’t have any effect.
The Little Bear’s RIAA EQ is most probably poorly designed..