yup
remember - I'm muuuuuuuch less cryptic than Pa is, at least when I bug him enough to actually deserve a reply
and, in 99% of cases, he gives me answer just vaguely related to question, which I'm usually understanding after 5 additional steps made
keeping me on tip of my toes, that's my Pa
remember - I'm muuuuuuuch less cryptic than Pa is, at least when I bug him enough to actually deserve a reply
and, in 99% of cases, he gives me answer just vaguely related to question, which I'm usually understanding after 5 additional steps made
keeping me on tip of my toes, that's my Pa
I understand... but the question was "What is gain of this wonderful piece?"
That's why I quoted Family Feud.
The full question was
"Name a state with gambling casinos"
Now, we all know that Vegas has casinos... the anwer was Nevada, not Vegas.
Anyhow, the Macho 252 SIT seems to have a bit too much gain for the typical tube preamp.
That's why I quoted Family Feud.
The full question was
"Name a state with gambling casinos"
Now, we all know that Vegas has casinos... the anwer was Nevada, not Vegas.
Anyhow, the Macho 252 SIT seems to have a bit too much gain for the typical tube preamp.
No, actually it's Steve Harvey.. the guy who crowned the wrong Miss Universe...
Dawson was borderline lecherous.
So, you're building the puck, not the SIT?
Actually being cryptic is good, it forces one to think and stay sharp. None of us are getting any younger. I much appreciate Mark Johnson and Nelson Pass for that (and you Aleksander of course!). They give me a clue….then leave me be. Once you have derived the answer yourself, you never forget how you derived it. That’s how it works for me anyway. The only time they seem to intervene is when danger lurks. But you usually save us before that!
Best,
Anand.
Best,
Anand.
Last edited:
Well, Eons ago in school we had a way of doing things.
After a loooong derivation and proof, we'd finish it with a QED and a little note" "Details are left to the engineer".
Several of our text books were like that.
Sometimes, you want to know why things are the way they are.
Sometimes, you just want the answer without having to derive it.
Vegas!
After a loooong derivation and proof, we'd finish it with a QED and a little note" "Details are left to the engineer".
Several of our text books were like that.
Sometimes, you want to know why things are the way they are.
Sometimes, you just want the answer without having to derive it.
Vegas!
My amp is puck. If it becomes a thing, balanced, Super Symetrical whatever handle, yes it would be straight puck. Seems more stable for my uses.
Fishing for more outputs, already have sits if they become needed! Maybe SET version?
problem is that there are numerous examples of lazy bstrds keeping production of tube preamps either constructed in Yore or recently constructed by Yore standards, while already having New Now, where 2Vrms is got from source directly
ending with as poor SODs, using tube preamps from Yore, hovering Volume knob in between 8 and 9hr for full blast, whatever amp is, just because we must have latest digital blingie, while using Kosher old amplification
moral of the story - with modern sources, for modern made amp, in most cases no gain in preamp is recipe for sonic bliss
+6db as cover for all sorts of recordings
horses for courses
conclusion - I rather see it as any tube preamp I know of (and remember - there is hardly any being made properly while also having inductive volume control inside, which is my personal standard) being in position to deserve even being in same room with XA252, not! the other way around
Well, but it's nice when your tube preamp can drive the F4 directly, huh?
In that particular case, the F4 being driven 'normally' you get to hear the sound of the preamp with nothing in between it and the speakers.
However, you are ignoring the 900 lb gorilla in the room. The efficiency of the speakers.
Maybe what the Macho 252 needs is a front end gain control... remember those older ARC preamps? They had both gain and volume controls.
I got a feeling that using a preamp with a 20Vrms swing does bad things to the 252 SIT. Specially when combined with even 90db/w speakers. It' an amp designed for 2Vrms sources and 96db/w speakers.
Yeah, I think we've hashed in PMs how we both prefer using transformers for voltage gain/loss. From a Physics stand point it seems the most efficient and least compromised. It sounds good too.
In that particular case, the F4 being driven 'normally' you get to hear the sound of the preamp with nothing in between it and the speakers.
However, you are ignoring the 900 lb gorilla in the room. The efficiency of the speakers.
Maybe what the Macho 252 needs is a front end gain control... remember those older ARC preamps? They had both gain and volume controls.
I got a feeling that using a preamp with a 20Vrms swing does bad things to the 252 SIT. Specially when combined with even 90db/w speakers. It' an amp designed for 2Vrms sources and 96db/w speakers.
Yeah, I think we've hashed in PMs how we both prefer using transformers for voltage gain/loss. From a Physics stand point it seems the most efficient and least compromised. It sounds good too.
certainly yes, and that sort of preamps is - again - exactly suited to have great output swing, being constructed as that
though, majority of those, even with highish gain, are simply going nutz when seeing 2Vrms at input grid; and those are not going nutz with 2Vrms at grid are rare as hens teeth
- they (majority) are not made to have 2Vrms at input; they will sing, but having greater THD than Papa's H2 and my SissySIT combined
F4 is made to do exactly that
not problem of mine; mine is to make amps/preamps/whatever in whichever fashion I like, just because I like
combining with speakers - I did my combining(s) in my spaces, same as anyone else need to do in his own
not in my world; and then, no one is able to make product able to meet every possible need; that's why we have different speaks and amps (power) and preamps (gain and whatever) to combine them using brain
I'm not sharing your sympathy for ARC gear; what I had to learn from them I did ( at least tried), now I don't think I have anything interesting to see in their schematics, and certainly even less interested in listening of any of those
finally
and how that old ARC drek is made, taking years in account - having occasional sputter going from output wouldn't surprise me ....... just seeing overenthusiastic voltage regs while actual signal stages on verge of mediocrity ....... well, my blah sensation is lasting short and actually right away reminding me how old I am ........ decades ago started messing with xerox copies of these and building them ..... just to end up dissapointed later, when seeing and using Real McCay
if anything , after decades of messing with funny parts, got to the point that all my Fetishes are matter of choice and certainly vehicles for fun.......... but I really have no special preference (anymore) for any parts
there are clever solutions and less clever ones ........ and stupid ones
I'm perfectly capable to make a mess with any sort of parts .... most expensive and least expensive, irrelevant
Yes, a couple of years ago we changed the screws for the Dissipante/Deluxe chassis since many customers were complaining the old self threading screws were not the best. We have also changed the old heatsink brackets with new ones which are a single piece per side instead of two to make everything more robust and easier to assemble
I have one. Never in normal circumstances gets my foot tapping, usually. I seem to need gain. B1 worked great when fed pearl 2. That combo had gain, and I didn't seem to notice anything missing. Most every other instance I like a little gain.
I think my only Preamp move left is Iron Turtle. I would like to try the Muse on the Iron Pre before moving to that, but seems to be the path.
Too modest Also, a tad less degen and no output resistor, and reduced input resistor value. Forgot something? Probably…
A worthwhile upgrade to the B1 rev 2 is to double up on the JFETs for more xcon, current and even lower (half) output impedance.
One cool aspect of the B1 rev 2 is the simplicity, so pretty straightforward to put on a breadboard and perhaps a tad easier than the rev 1 in that respect.
I run mine with a crappy but linear reg, supply caps of good quality on the pre board to reduce psu inductance effects and make a bit up for the lameass psu. Also doubled up on the jfets, removed all degeneration including pots, and the output resistor. Drives very short low capacitance cables pretty good, and into the AJ Zen SS which is easy to drive, it is pretty splendid.
Of course only temporary, until I can afford the turtle package.
Edit: this whole hobby is full of temporarinezzez.
Also, a tad less degen and no output resistor, and reduced input resistor value. Forgot something? Probably…A worthwhile upgrade to the B1 rev 2 is to double up on the JFETs for more xcon, current and even lower (half) output impedance.
One cool aspect of the B1 rev 2 is the simplicity, so pretty straightforward to put on a breadboard and perhaps a tad easier than the rev 1 in that respect.
I run mine with a crappy but linear reg, supply caps of good quality on the pre board to reduce psu inductance effects and make a bit up for the lameass psu. Also doubled up on the jfets, removed all degeneration including pots, and the output resistor. Drives very short low capacitance cables pretty good, and into the AJ Zen SS which is easy to drive, it is pretty splendid.
Of course only temporary, until I can afford the turtle package.
Edit: this whole hobby is full of temporarinezzez.
Last edited:
