uzzy

Super Wammer Plus
  • Content Count

    6,215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

uzzy last won the day on June 22

uzzy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,778 Excellent

About uzzy

  • Rank
    Grumpy Old Git
  • Birthday 07/06/1951

Personal Info

  • Location
    Northampton, UK

Wigwam Info

  • Turn Table
    Systemdek IV
  • Tone Arm & Cartridge
    Mission / Decca Gold
  • Digital Source 1
    Marantz CD6004
  • Digital Source 2
    HB Burnit Pro
  • DAC
    Cambridge DACMagic2
  • Pre-Amp
    AR SP9
  • Power Amp/s
    Hafler DH200
  • My Speakers
    Art Impression
  • Headphones
    Audio Technical ATH 911
  • Trade Status
    I am not in the Hi-Fi trade

Recent Profile Visitors

4,263 profile views
  1. uzzy

    On a mission

    Funny you should say that - I always fancied one UNTIL an old customer from Guildford HiFi came in complaining he could not get his Gales to sound as good as they did in our dem room with other kit using the top of the range Mission (shaped) amp and pre. I said bring the pre and power round to mine (I was using Gales at the time with an Audionics B2 preamp and the good old Hafler DH200). He came round and we had an hour listening to my system - and he said I wish mine sounded like that. So we slotted the mission pre and power into my system and sat back and ... bloody awful by comparison. The sound became closed in and pretty awful .. so we slotted out the Mission Pre and slotted in the Audionics pre amp and .. a massive improvement but still not as good as with the DH200 .. so we slotted the Mission Pre on the Hafler and it was awful by comparison .. no depth, no width and no dynamics. so we concluded at the end of the day the Preamp was very poor and the power amp was average but nowt to write home about. I will say the Gales are a difficult load to drive so perhaps with a higher impedance speaker the Mission Amp may have given a better performance but there is no doubt the pre amp was a massive weak link in the pairing. That was our conclusion - and for the show my recommendation would be to stick a Meridian 101, 103D or 105 on the end of the Mission Speakers. They are from the same era or thereabouts and I think they would compliment each other more ..the other choices that spring to mind (we sold loads of them) from that period would be NAD, A&R Cambridge AR60
  2. I was lucky I guess working in the trade for five years helped .. However, I made one mistake - doing bedroom systems for each of my daughters - the first was put together around a Pioneer A400 amp - when it came to the second I could not find an A400 second hand so on the strength of reviews I bought the original Mission Cyrus amp .. god it was awful, no depth, no guts - nothing to commend it (other than it worked) fortunately an A400 appreared in a local second hand shop soon after which I bought and the Cyrus was promptly sold .. Moral of the story being - if you have not heard something do not buy it on others' advice unless you know the person recommending and trust their ears.
  3. uzzy

    Recommend me a DAC

    All DACs sound different - hard to say which one is "right" .. to be honest you need to give them a listen (annoy local dealer or members in here to go visit when you can). Your Arcam 5 is a decent player .. all I can say is lots will recommend what they have and I do not know if they will offer any comparison to justify the recommendation. If you play CDs a lot then the life left on your Alpha 5 may be limited (10 -12 years average life for a lazer mechanism) .. so the question for me (if i was in your position) would be do I get a new "better sounding CD player" or do I buy a DAC and feed it from my current player until it dies then I can get a transport for about £250 (player with digital out) to feed the DAC thereby minimising my cost over coming years? I bought a Cambridge upsampling DAC some years ago because I thought I would give one a try (I seem to remember it was about £200 and on offer for 150 in a Richer Sounds Sale). At the time I was using a Meridian 506 20 bit machine - highly reviewed and rated and cost £1200 .. I also had an older Meridian 206 which i picked up cheap second hand. My findings were that both Meridian players as good (if slightly different in presentation) than both the Meridians. The Meridians died and were irrepairable (discontinued laser mechanisms) so I replaced it with a Marantz CD6004 .. which sounds much better through the Dacmagic than through its own analogue outputs .. So for a reasonable DAC that does a good job for not a lot of money I think the Dacmagic holds up well. There are some Dacmagic 100s for sale on ebay at the moment for £125 .. and for a DAC under £200 being a user and happy I think that is quite a bargain Ohttps://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CAMBRIDGE-AUDIO-DacMagic-100-DAC-Wandler-Digital-Analog-Converter-schwarz-black/382471203335?epid=1906748552&hash=item590d0f6a07:g:wIAAAOSwTspdGiFJ
  4. Bloody hell as much as a that - - two inches of jumper on terminals leading to wire probably not much better than 5 amp cable in the loudspeaker (depending on make - ok so my Arts have Kondo cabling inside) ... Personally I would make my own using a meter of 522 strand OFC cable .. but i am a cheapskate
  5. Some speakers of this era had drivers with a bayonet fitting .. so god knows how you get into them unless there is a special tool (or if the screw holes for conventional fitting are under the cover and you can knock it round with a hammer and something in the screw hole - but god knows how you get it back if you do.
  6. DIdn't they like the resistance - or was it the inductance or capacitance .. As we all know that kind of action is waste of time as should they wish to try and take someone to court they would find it a tad difficult to prove their cables were better than another cable without measurement. Also don't they realise no publicity is bad publicity ... it beggars belief lol
  7. Funnily enough when the dog chewed through my Sonik LInk (now black rhodium) interconnects I did the same and they are still in situ. I think they may be a difference but as the Sonic Links are buggered I cannot do a comparison but it sounds fine with the Maplin stuff to my ears. As to speaker leads (and I guess for interconnects) there is an argument that the majority of an electric signal passes up the outside of the cable and so adding more strands or a smaller diameter gives a greater surface area for the signal to flow. In measurement terms though the only difference that can be measured in cables is Resistance and Capacitance .. I chose 512 strand (in a 4mm cable) for my speaker connections as to my ears it gave me the best balance from bottom to top of the frequency range, I found in my comparisons single or few wires results in less bass and an emphasis on mid and top end (others may have a different opinion and that is fine but I am just explaining my findings and why I made my decision on speaker cables). If you compare prices of just OFC speaker cables you have to wonder who is fooling who lol
  8. Good shout - but it also could be the transformer is getting old and noisy .. (as it has with my original Hafler DH200 but you cannot hear it when the music starts)
  9. Mind you if you put it on with Cushelle bog roll it should soften things up a tad
  10. Last I heard he was receiving treatment in Japan .. so it will have to be someone else you talk to at EAR .. fingers crossed TdP makes a full recovery bless him.
  11. well update your profile you naughty boy
  12. So definitely a cleaner sound then
  13. Ok your EAR 834 has the following spec (the original) Specifications: • Maximum output: 30V • Noise (un weighted): -80 dB (1HF) • Tubes: ECC83 x 3 • MM Input sensitivity: 2.2 mV for 1 V @ 1kHz (53dB) • MC Input sensitivity: 0.22 mV for 1 V @ 1kHz (73dB) Your cartridge is pushing out 0.4 mv which is twice as much, so logic would suggest that the 834 is delivering 2 volts to your preamp (same as a CD) .. if I have got that wrong I am hoping @rabski will step in and tell us the real answer. So most modern preamps would be happy with this on a line stage .. older ones not so much. As the EAR is such a good phono stage if i was in your shoes I would stick an attenuator in the circuit rather than take any other action .. now the question is do you put it between tonearm interconnect and 834 or after the 834 .. I am hoping Rabski will help us out with that one but a little voice inside my head (probably wrong) is saying use it in front to deliver half the output (0.2mv) to the 834 as that is virtually on spec for optimum. @rabski your expertise please to put this one to bed.
  14. All I can say is - my current pre kicks out over 1.5 volts and my Power amp wants 1volt .. i have been using attenuatprs for years between pre and power and it made everything sound so much better. It gives you back control where you have a usable volume range on the pre (not too quiet to too bloody loud in a fraction of a turn) - I got Golden Jacks from a guy but he is no longer advertising so it is down to Rothwell now I guess. I should add before that I had a preamp that was a perfect match to the power but only had auxilliary inputs expecting 150mv and when I got a CD again the pre was far too loud so I had some Golden Jacks made for that too (wired the other way around you plugged them into the CD player and then interlinked to the preamp, whereas the ones for power amp to preamp fit on the back of the amp) and never noticed any compression or alteration of the sound .. but it was different i guess as the CD player was pushing the old line inputs to the limit with 2 volts .
  15. and he probably thinks hand sanitisation is shooting someone's hands off