When the AC and the recording are good, the K&K tracks big choruses and piano fortisimos cleanly, as well, the first time in my hi-fi experience I have had a phono stage that can do this. 

The trouble with the really big stuff is that it's often the recording/pressing itself that gets swamped.

I can usually hear the engineers twiddling knobs to compensate.

Before I installed and adapted the ML2s, I had pretty much given up on a wide range of recorded classical music; especially the big stuff.  But even though I am primarily concerned with previously-off-limits classical now, I still don't have nearly the system headroom to do full-tilt orchestra/chorus, cannons, pipe organs, etc.

However, FWIW, my present limits with classical music repro are not imposed by the K&K.

Best regards,
Paul S

This post is the phono-relevant part of info carried over from my recent "better tubes" post in the ML2 thread.

Subsequent listening has established that the electricity during that session was better than I'd thought at the time (dammit!).  Be that as it may, the combination of decent electricity and  better input tubes for the ML2s yielded bass and apparently-unlimited tracking and wide-band power like I've not gotten to date, and frankly I had not thought my system capable of this level of performance.  No noise, no fade and no "quit" from the K&K during any of this.  I mentioned in the ML2 post that harmonics were not fully developed yet, but since I have gotten better in the past it means that the K&K can do it/is not the culprit now.

So, I take this to mean that the K&K is still more than holding its own in my system.  In fact it has helped me to get considerably more from my system by "improving" right along with other impovements, and it has helped the ML2's new input tubes with redeeming my "fading" cartridge.

Now, if the effing power would only stay good...

Paul S

Paul S wrote:

I have reason to suspect that my beloved large Cardas couplers have continued to loose HF past the point I described as "settling".

Paul S wrote:

then everyone here will just read, "gullible". However I admit to being totally hypnotized by the Duelund spiel, which I find oddly compelling despite no real, "serious" information apart from the sort mystical, quasi-reverential rhetoric that attends Feastrex, Shindo, Audio Note, etc. "literature". Oh, well... too bad 4.7 uF only comes as 200V! Otherwise, I would be obliged to pony up almost $1k... for 2 CAPS!

drdna wrote:

Actually, I believe they can be tailor made to your exact specifications, which at that price they should be.

It is not a thread about cup but I still….

This is always an interesting question to me – where is the threshold between rational and irrational when I think about capacitors.  The expensive caps made to exact specifications sound like rational but there are no expensive caps that need to hit exact specification. The small caps on some cases need to be very exact but slam caps are not expensive. The large and expensive caps do not need to be exact, nether in uF number, nor in leakage, nor in impedance, nor in any other specification. It is not to mention that capacitance almost always is very flexible parameter and precision of value is necessary only in case of caps use for filtration. However, capacitance doe not filter itself but only along with impedance, so it always possible to play with impedance to moderate the required value of capacitors. Therefore I do not mind the caps to be cheaper and only at fixed values.

Now about the threshold between rational and irrational. Duelund makes huge 300uF caps, 25 kilograms with 1 kilometer of metal in each.  I am sure it is insanely expensive but I question if it is justifiable. It is imposable to control tension and properly damp 1 kilometer of foil in those caps. I never heard them of course but I would very much would like to see those 300uF Duelund caps compete with regular commercial grade electrolytic that would be 1000 times smaller and 1000 less expensive.  I have a feeling that Duelund will not be effective, particularly if electrolytic is used with active basing.

OK, let to look from a different perspective – my favorite perspective – cost bur solution. The 300uF, low voltage Duelund caps probably meant for speakers crossovers. Those values in speakers crossovers are useful only for low-passing of bass (the area where active based electrolytic destroy any competition) . So, what Duelund offers for low-passing of bass? A $2000 capacitor? Does anybody feel that the Duelund’s solution price-wise very much competes with idea of multi-amping? Do anybody understand that using a dedicated amp for bass and a few nF capacitor in amp’s input is order of magnitude more interesting solution then to use a “magic caps”?

Well, I am not against of what Duelund offers but I would call to some sanity in this subject. Their small, up to 5uf caps might be good but why shell they be expensive?

"Cap problem"?  Naturally, it was the BEP, again.  @#*&%!!!

This afternoon the electricity was as good as it's ever been, and things sounded even better than I ever planned (ie, almost as good as I could imagine...).

IOW, the Cardas cap is NOT a problem, in and of itself.

IOW, it looks like my "phono problems" will be solved as soon as I figure out the BEP.

Paul S

Rooting around for manufacturers' operating curve/info on 6922s I came across a short paper I got years ago from electronics genius Roger A. Modjeski.  In a nutshell, RM talked about internal variables in tubes that affect their electrical characteristics, and hence their sound.  He specifically mentioned the effects of ESR and other electrical paramenters on circuits, along with inevitable EQ shifts resulting from the individual tube's effect on loop gain due to its simple and in-circuit gain characteristics in RIAA circuits.  Cold water in one's face, to say the least.

To think of tubes like this certainly puts a new twist on old observations about new vs NOS tubes, or one brand vs another in a given circuit.  And since no "circuit" is complete until the fat lady sings, this is effectively causing me to re-think my approach to tube selection and use.

I actually prefer to use SS wherever I think I ccan get away with it.  Since I have been unable to get around tubes for certain applications, perhaps I will go back to where I was with the AI M3A, which is to say, open to experimenting with operating points.

Regarding RAM's own "products", it may have been about 1988, or thereabouts, that I "heard" Modjeski's original RM-9 amp and RM-5 phono-preamp.  I bought the amp because it was dead neutral; and I actually passed on the phono-preamp for the same reason...

I put this post in with the K&K because of my previously-stated idea that changing operating points might be the biggest difference between the MOSFETS in that unit, and RAM's ideas seem to build on those thoughts.

Paul S

Here is the link, though I have no idea whose words he is quoting:

http://twogoodears.blogspot.com/2010/02/again-about-duelunds-coherent-audio-pio.html

The caps are $1000 per 630V/1uF. So, I wonder what those super expensive caps might be used. The 630V suggest it to be used in powers supply. However 1uF in nothing in PS. I know that there are many fools out there who make 300B/2A3/45/10 amps with 4-8uF B+ filtration but those amps sound like shit and “better” caps would not help to them.

To use Duelund in speaker level crossovers would , make more sense but it needed 100V AC in there and the huge 630V would  be hardly usable, not to mention that 100V cap would be 3 times less expensive.

The use of the Duelund in line-level filtration would make more sense. However at the line-level 630V hardly needed and RL filter would kill any, even the best C filter.

So, the only use of Duelund I see for bypass of PS. If so then why people talk about good sound of Duelund but do not mention what were the main filtering cap? The bypass kike only at HF, so commenting about the Duelund sound I think people need to inform at what frequency the Duelund cap is kick in.

It is nothing to do with Wisdom.  It is my principle of application of “cost” as a common sense design tool. I do not bitch that Duelund caps are expensive. I just try to find a rational solution for using them that would embrace their price. My argument is that with $1000 per 1uF the Duelund caps not useful. Let me show it to you.

The high quality super-expensive cap makes since to use in first order high-pass filters for HF drivers. Let pretend that we have 8R driver then at 2.000Hz we need 10uF per channel, at 500Hz we need 40uF per channel. No one would suggest $80K of capacitors in this filter. With 16R driver and crossover point of 1000Hz we have 10uF. With lower voltage of caps, not he 630V, the cost would go 2-3 time lower, so I presume that 20uF of 200V would be around $3-$4K. With this cost of capacitors in filter the total coast of the solution begin to be competitive with a cost of multi-amping solution with DSET.

Let say that a cost of HF DSET for the same driver will be $5K-$7K. In this HF DSET for filtration purpose it might be used a small fraction of mF and very low voltage cap (it might be Duelund) that would be MUCH better than any larger Duelund cap. It is not to mention that in multi-amping it might be used the RL shunt filtration that would be light miles away and superior then ANY capacitive filtration. The cost of multi-amping and Duelund C-filtration is competitive but the multi-amping   has so much more advantages!

So, my point is that there is only restricted cost in speaker-level crossover. When this cost goes up to much (like in case of using Duelund caps) then here is always a multi-amping DSET consideration as an alternative. An multi-amping DSET has disadvantage to be costly but if one already waste time for better caps then why don’t do it properly and to invest the virtually the same amount of money for a pair of extra DSETs?

A big bonus is that pitch and harmonic structure have changed "correctly" to make them perfectly acceptable with my present speakers (a lazy boy's dream...), and the system, with LP source, is strong and rich enough to re-mine my record library.  I am even getting the elusive downward-developing harmonics, which is unbelievably cool.  I am amazed and delighted with the musical insight this affords.

I was sitting there listening today (Rubinstein's "25th Anniversary" Concert at Carnegie Hall), happy as a clam, when the left channel stuttered, then cleared its throat a few times, and then the soundfield suddenly opened up in all directions to swallow me whole.  I have had this sort of experience before, when the electricity was great, but never with such a range of clear energies and frequencies in the soundfield.  It's like a new drug.

Paul S