Bgw amp plus eq for free!

[RMC]

Hi Grumpy,

Thanks for the input on the 50° and 60° sensation benchmarks. I didn't know these. Definitely feels more like 60+ than 50°...

In my view, the distributor's tech went for easy way out the door with amp bias adjustment, probably to move on to the next waiting repair job, not wanting to go on a "fishing expedition" trying to find where that heat problem comes from...

Hopefully this won't become an expensive running bill at $75/hr. Though I like this versatile little amp, if troubleshooting/repair seems to be going the pricey way, I'll stop the bleeding, and consider instead getting another similar Ashly amp in the near future. Regards,

Richard

[RMC]

I raised recently in another thread an issue I have with the AT LP120 turntable. The tonearm's precision when being balanced isn't that good in my view, more specifically for low tracking force cartridges. I know this is more a DJ type turntable than a High-Fi one, but still for the money requested here I think one could have expected a better performing tonearm than what it is in reality. My older Technics SLQ2 was clearly better in this regard.

The tonearm appears to have more friction than it should, I assume cheap gimbals or bearings were used on this one. Though not stated, it could be more appropriate for heavier tracking force cartridges in the 3-5 gr. or so range, however it came with the AT95E cartridge rated at 1.5-2.5 gr. ( 2.0 gr. recommended) which seems optimistic in view of tonearm. A heavier tracking DJ type would seem more appropriate to me.

With lighter tracking cartridges such as AT 408EP, Shure M95ED and V15 type IV I have, among others, working in the 1.00-1.50 gr. the tonearm's insufficient precision just doesn't cut it. So, not really a general purpose turntable that would do fine for both DJ and quality Hi-Fi listening. More geared towards DJ, though Audio-Technica tries with the supplied cartridge to make it look like a good all around turntable...

So I decided to replace this turnable purchased about a year ago and seldom used with another one that has a better tonearm while still being a Direct Drive. The wife will get the AT LP120 to put in the Video/Audio system cabinet in the living room upstairs, replacing a pretty old Technics (still going), this way the AT remains in the house in case I ever need to use a more DJ type turntable/cartridge.

Two wrenches in the wheel though at this time: first the LP 120 may not fit in the cabinet's audio section with shelves and glass door, its too tight by one or two millimeter(s) based on width measurements taken, second getting a 3 gr. or so tracking cartridge from AT, would be safer since upstairs its all older hardwood floors where the stylus may skip at light tracking forces of 1.00-1.50 gr. with living room "traffic". I don't intend to provide nor lend my AT ATP-3 or Shure SC35C DJ cartridges, the former is impossible to replace/even find stylus for, the latter is getting harder to replace or find original stylus for since Shure stopped making cart./stylus summer 2018 and folks have since stormed the stores, a few left though...

I have a few ideas good or bad to get the TT in the cabinet like: loosen the cabinet's screws a bit, if any, to get it in, but I don't really know as it was delivered all assembled many years ago, weighs a TON being large (MDF with wood imitation cover, pretty rigid) and I don't see screws; "grind" or sand a little the turntable's base sides (doing that inside the cabinet she'll shoot me!); use some lubricant on TT base sides to push it in with just a tiny bit of force. BTW putting the TT on top of the cabinet or replacing the latter isn't an option (i already asked!), that would have been too easy... Any other ideas welcomed!

The best replacement turntable compromise I have yet found is the AT LP5. It has Direct Drive, a better tonearm and no frills. The reviews seen on it were positive. The drive system specs are the same as those of the LP 120 (Torque, Wow and Flutter, S/N ratio) which makes me feel it may have the same high torque drive system as the LP 120. But LP5 has different platter, nice rubber mat, etc. I also liked the Denon DP-400 however its belt drive is a deal breaker for me.

The LP5 comes with a "cartridge alignment and overhang adjustment template", which isn't supplied with the LP120, that looks like a little red flag against the latter's tonearm. Also, the AT 95EX cartridge, which looks like an improved AT95E, is designed for and supplied with the LP5. The LP 120 and the LP5 both come from the consumer division of AT Canada (surprisingly for LP 120), and only their premium DJ LP 1240 belongs to the Pro division. With the recent price decrease here of the latter it now retails for the same money as the LP5. Even so I'm less interested in that mammoth turntable (LP 1240).

Pitch control, strobe and target light (LP 120) are nice to have, more so for mixing, but probably not must have in my case, therefore I could live with an LP5. Consequently, if DJ features and higher tracking forces are more important for ones use then the LP 120 would make sense. If on the other hand precision and higher fidelity aspects are more important in view of the usage, as in my case, then the LP5 is a better option.

Finally, with regards to the Rolls RA 200 MOSFET amp, considering the latest price given to me this week for that unit I think I'd probably hate myself for a long time if I didn't go for it at this point in time. I'll chew on the above a little more and make a decision shortly...

Richard

[nofun]

I raised recently in another thread an issue I have with the AT LP120 turntable. The tonearm's precision when being balanced isn't that good in my view, more specifically for low tracking force cartridges. I know this is more a DJ type turntable than a High-Fi one, but still for the money requested here I think one could have expected a better performing tonearm than what it is in reality. My older Technics SLQ2 was clearly better in this regard.

The tonearm appears to have more friction than it should, I assume cheap gimbals or bearings were used on this one. Though not stated, it could be more appropriate for heavier tracking force cartridges in the 3-5 gr. or so range, however it came with the AT95E cartridge rated at 1.5-2.5 gr. ( 2.0 gr. recommended) which seems optimistic in view of tonearm. A heavier tracking DJ type would seem more appropriate to me.

With lighter tracking cartridges such as AT 408EP, Shure M95ED and V15 type IV I have, among others, working in the 1.00-1.50 gr. the tonearm's insufficient precision just doesn't cut it. So, not really a general purpose turntable that would do fine for both DJ and quality Hi-Fi listening. More geared towards DJ, though Audio-Technica tries with the supplied cartridge to make it look like a good all around turntable...

So I decided to replace this turnable purchased about a year ago and seldom used with another one that has a better tonearm while still being a Direct Drive. The wife will get the AT LP120 to put in the Video/Audio system cabinet in the living room upstairs, replacing a pretty old Technics (still going), this way the AT remains in the house in case I ever need to use a more DJ type turntable/cartridge.

Two wrenches in the wheel though at this time: first the LP 120 may not fit in the cabinet's audio section with shelves and glass door, its too tight by one or two millimeter(s) based on width measurements taken, second getting a 3 gr. or so tracking cartridge from AT, would be safer since upstairs its all older hardwood floors where the stylus may skip at light tracking forces of 1.00-1.50 gr. with living room "traffic". I don't intend to provide nor lend my AT ATP-3 or Shure SC35C DJ cartridges, the former is impossible to replace/even find stylus for, the latter is getting harder to replace or find original stylus for since Shure stopped making cart./stylus summer 2018 and folks have since stormed the stores, a few left though...

I have a few ideas good or bad to get the TT in the cabinet like: loosen the cabinet's screws a bit, if any, to get it in, but I don't really know as it was delivered all assembled many years ago, weighs a TON being large (MDF with wood imitation cover, pretty rigid) and I don't see screws; "grind" or sand a little the turntable's base sides (doing that inside the cabinet she'll shoot me!); use some lubricant on TT base sides to push it in with just a tiny bit of force. BTW putting the TT on top of the cabinet or replacing the latter isn't an option (i already asked!), that would have been too easy... Any other ideas welcomed!

The best replacement turntable compromise I have yet found is the AT LP5. It has Direct Drive, a better tonearm and no frills. The reviews seen on it were positive. The drive system specs are the same as those of the LP 120 (Torque, Wow and Flutter, S/N ratio) which makes me feel it may have the same high torque drive system as the LP 120. But LP5 has different platter, nice rubber mat, etc. I also liked the Denon DP-400 however its belt drive is a deal breaker for me.

The LP5 comes with a "cartridge alignment and overhang adjustment template", which isn't supplied with the LP120, that looks like a little red flag against the latter's tonearm. Also, the AT 95EX cartridge, which looks like an improved AT95E, is designed for and supplied with the LP5. The LP 120 and the LP5 both come from the consumer division of AT Canada (surprisingly for LP 120), and only their premium DJ LP 1240 belongs to the Pro division. With the recent price decrease here of the latter it now retails for the same money as the LP5. Even so I'm less interested in that mammoth turntable (LP 1240).

Pitch control, strobe and target light (LP 120) are nice to have, more so for mixing, but probably not must have in my case, therefore I could live with an LP5. Consequently, if DJ features and higher tracking forces are more important for ones use then the LP 120 would make sense. If on the other hand precision and higher fidelity aspects are more important in view of the usage, as in my case, then the LP5 is a better option.

Finally, with regards to the Rolls RA 200 MOSFET amp, considering the latest price given to me this week for that unit I think I'd probably hate myself for a long time if I didn't go for it at this point in time. I'll chew on the above a little more and make a decision shortly...

Richard

Sorry, I would like to ask if you have the original layout. Looks sharp and clean.

[RMC]

After a few days listening to the Rolls MOSFET amp with various recordings I decided to get another one of these, now having it home. Therefore doubling my pleasure since I haven't heard yet, with these amps, a recording that would put them in any trouble. My QSCs sound ok, whereas the others sound great...

By definition, a studio amp like the Rolls should sound better than a SR amp, the former involving critical listening not the latter. And it does. Trying to determine what could make it sound good, other than the MOSFETs, I note the Rolls also has low phase shift and a very high Slew rate (100 volts/micro second) for that category (e.g. my ex-BGWs had 50v/ms, and the Bryston 2B LP has 60v/ms). Plus it runs pretty cool at normal levels, with no fan, and has a barely warm large heatsink at the back of the unit. A really fast/capable amp that's a delight to listen to.

Driving it with my NAD preamp, the Rolls had a very slight hum noise in one channel only when that gain control is turned between 10 and 2 O'clock, none below nor above that. This test with no music, while amp is on, speakers being connected to it and playing with gain controls with my ear close to each speaker, is a way to assess the amp's noise floor. In that particular case the NAD Pre was connected and on.

Driving it with a good old Mackie mixer reveals no hum at all in both channels, whatever the gain setting, even with unbalanced cables (to compare apples with apples). I've heard no such issue when the NAD Preamp drives the NAD Amp (but the latter has no gain controls). So I figure there might be some electronic "gremlins" between the NAD Pre and the Rolls amp. Doesn't bother me since the NAD and Rolls normally belong to different systems I use. The important thing is the Rolls being silent when driven by Pro gear, whether balanced or even unbalanced. Therefore not an amp fault.

There are lots of $40-50 or so phono preamps on the maket today to please vinyl fans and I still have a good number of vinyls too. Unfortunately, cheap phono preamps offer limited or no flexibility at all. Bellari (the audiophile division of Rolls) has a better solution at a reasonable price, the VP 549 (Rolls division having the small VP29 basic unit like others do, little more expensive than some but probably better made).

Bellari indicates "We spent a considerable amount of time developing the VP549. Hundreds of hours went into listening and improving the design." They seem to have their ears in the right place.

I figure if their phono preamp hearing is as good as their MOSFET amp hearing, then its also something to go for with the new AT-LP5 turntable (post # 49; tiny box on top being an extra oem headshell). Web bellariaudio.com/index.php/products/vp549-riaa-phono-preamp/

It's interesting to read on that page what they think about Surface Mount Technology parts vs thru hole parts. Looking through the front panel vents of the MOSFET amps with light I see no SMT parts in there, just thru hole parts on nice PCB, since Rolls applies the same philosophy. I asked my audio supplier, who has a large repair dept., what their repair techs think of SMT parts. The reply was not positive for SMT vs thru hole parts. Because I tend to keep my things for a long time, plus throw away audio isn't my cup of tea, I'm probably better off with equipment made of conventional parts.

The VP549 phono Pre has selectable cartridge load capacitance, a practical feature I previously had on another preamp, nice to get it back as my phono cartridges require different load capacitances. I certainly would have liked to have a setting in the 400 pf range for some Shures preferring 400-500 pf but can't have it all I guess. The max setting isn't that far, somewhat short, but the other cartridges like the V15 IV require 200-300 pf, plus the ATs are happy with 100-200 pf so they will be satisfied.

A direct headphone/line output on the phono preamp, as well as the rumble filter, are also useful features, though other gear has a HPF in that region. The unit's trim/gain control unseen before by me is another interesting asset for hot or lazy output cartridges.

When I picked-up recently the second Rolls MOSFET amp I ordered at the same time a Bellari phono preamp...

Richard

[RMC]

This past weekend I "cheated", I admit it, no regrets whatsoever, I'm even glad I did! The temptation was just too strong with almost a month waiting. But I did mentioned previously I was having second thoughts about not using the "beaten" demo Rolls amp I still have pending its replacement with a factory fresh unit.

First, other than bad cosmetic issues posted before, I did note the amp's left gain control makes a bit of noise, another good reason for not keeping that used donkey.

The temporary setup I use in the basement living room, pending the on-going spare time work in my audio room, can accomodate only a small pair of speakers. Those are England's Mission 2-way boxes I have for many years. Built on the dated principle of console top near field monitors with woofer on top and dome tweeter at the bottom of box, when correctly oriented, so the high frequency unit is at ear level or so when sitting at a mixer. They do sound better, as stand alone units, in the near field or so considering their size doesn't allow them to fill a large room. Today with waveguides being popular on some models the HF issue may change.

I didn't want to have the tweeters at carpeted floor level so I positioned the enclosures up side down with tweeters up, then put the boxes on small angled stands I made years ago since LF here is too bassy when directly on the floor. The CD player is fed to a NAD preamp which in turn feeds the Rolls amp. (Btw Eargle wrote a nice note on 2Pi VS 4 Pi mounted small speakers, Handbook of Sound System Design, P. 294).

One album, among others, I like to use to assess amps and speakers is Quincy Jones' Back On The Block. Well recorded and mixed by famous Bruce Swedien using the "Acusonic Recording Process D", also involving George Massenburg, Milab Microphone Laboratories, Brüel & Kjaer microphones, Monster Cables used at all steps and album Mastered by Bernie Grundman. Top notch all the way. Likewise for the list of singers and musicians. Pretty good album dynamics, many different sounds/instruments and voices (male and female) also from young teens choir. That album doesn't need any Sonic Exciter enhancement, its already among the better made popular music ones in my view.

My first impression is the amp sounds REALLY GOOD. Nothing short of a WOW! Well worth its studio amp designation. Effortlessly reproduces what's on the CD, no blurred passages on more complex material. It is fast and capable. Better sounding than the BGWs I had or the QSCs I still have, in the following ways.

Open mid and clearer highs, both much more articulated, and a nice sound stage even though I'm limited in space there having to put the boxes 4 ft. apart. The mid is really impressive and the highs are softer than the above amps. Male and female voices sound very realistic, same for children's choir.

The piano on George Benson's Turn Your Love Around is simply the best life like reproduction I've ever heard! Percussions? Santana's of course for all sorts of them: Bring-them-on. Wind instruments? Saxophone and trumpet nice and clear.

Never owned a MOSFET amp before so this is quite different to me from SR amps. Still, I didn't find any flaws with this one, bass is relatively tight also but would have liked it a bit tighter, however can't ask more from a small box 5 ¼" woofer... Should be much better bi-amped with my 2214H or 2205H cabs.

An amp reproduces the material its fed with. Garbage in, garbage out. Hence the reason why I choose program material for testing. Varied and demanding material to see what the gear has in the stomach. In the present case the verdict is easy, its a no brainer.

Since the Rolls amp sounds that good, I may well order another one in the near future, though after checking first with the Canadian importer/distributor's Product Manager what exactly he has in stock...

Richard

P.S. Just got news today my replacement amp has arrived at the dealer, I'll pick it up tomorrow...

[RMC]

Fed Ex delivery guy woke me up this morning, now it was for a good cause, not the usual soliciting...

Though the retailer wasn't truthful with its "in stock" mentions, at least this time it didn't end up being another bait & switch thing. Great!

The banana plugs are nice and can take up to 10 AWG wire, the Maestro ones shown before up to 7 AWG wire.

As for the RCA cables, well its even better than I thought, since I didn't know it used Quad wiring made of double twisted pair. More Quad wiring general info in the other post here. Pics # 560, 561 & 562

[RMC]

Hi MoD,

Yes, cool but heavy! I put it on a scale with attached power cord and get 20 lbs! (9 kg) This is built like a tank... and about twice the weight of recent comparable ones in terms of power output. But recent ones use class D or some other thing...

Richard

EDIT: I may have other stuff in the future to give away, who knows...

[RMC]

At last, my new toys have finally made it to their permanent residence. Picked them up yesterday, they are now lined up in their box in the basement for the time being, a few pictures to follow. I also got for the asking a small bag with a dozen and a half of various Euroblock connectors, which I never needed before (used mostly Neutrik or switchcraft XLR/1/4" connectors), but now Euroblocks appear everywhere (e.g. on my new Ashly amps, there may be some already in the boxes, which I don't know, some spares then!).

It will take some time to set up all the gear, more so since I need to pull out of the present rack a number of items to make space, reorganize everything, make many cable/connector sets and wait for a new rack... Some cabling is easier to reuse on something else, like those for the BGW amps given away, by simply changing the XLR Pin 3 hot connections to the present standard Pin 2 hot.

The easiest device to try quickly is probably the Rolls Sonic Maximizer (XLR/RCA), not rack mount, which I can plug fast in my hi-fi setup using RCA cables, between an Onkyo preamp and a NAD amp. A few things strike me about this not expensive "sonic magic" toy: Glass epoxy PC board, Pro grade connectors, silicone damped pots, subwoofer output with 18db/oct, USA made, vs tons of cheap throw away type of stuff from Asia. I guess there's still hope south of the border...

I did order at the same time, with a small deposit, the nicely US built 7 RU rack from Lowell (LDTR-718). Its all good metal construction (no cheap particle board here) appears being made to last forever, which I tend to like. The plan is to make a plywood base under the new rack to lift it up, put the new Allen & Heath mixer on top of that rack to end up at about waist level and it will sit next to the taller rack. Still need to figure out a logical way of spliting the equipment between the two racks though, this affects cabling length. Power (AC) distribution is another matter I need to tackle here...

As more or less expected in post # 20, the new rack is... not in stock with the Canadian importer/distributor! The vendor confirmed to me that since the Internet purchasing craze or wave even importers/distributors (and retailers) don't keep much stock anymore, except popular fast moving items. The couple of weeks delay expected doesn't bother me too much here considering that expense will then go towards the new 2019 audio budget, as I wished. 2018 money is gone now, except for the following issue, if reasonable.

While being there, I also dropped the overheating QSC amp with one of the the repair technicians on-site for testing/repair estimate, even providing a good such unit for comparison purposes, the tech thought it was a nice idea to have a good reference on-hand to compare with, in case its needed. Plus I gave him a USB flash drive with all the QSC amp info I have (schematic, service manual, owner manual, specs, etc.). Helping him to succeed, indirectly helps me! Wasting time looking for manuals on the Net doesn't.

Finally, I got a nice price (only) on the Rolls studio amp (RA 200, MOSFET, etc.) mentioned previously. Better than expected, but I want to see first the outcome on the QSC at the repair shop. This may orient or not my thinking about another amp, Ashly or a Rolls, in the new year. Rolls thinks differently and does things likewise, which I tend to like here, in addition to still making some stuff in the US.

Richard

P.S. I may post later a note I wrote recently about the mixer's choice made, sort of the control center of it all, and some issues related to it...

[RMC]

"Thinking out of the box"I got another idea for the AT LP120 turntable location/installation, if it won't get in the audio cabinet properly: put it exactly out of the box! There's an empty corner of 18"+ wide next to the right side of that cabinet. I could put it there on a table or base I can make and fit the thing there, also away from risks of "accidents", it would sit right next to the audio section of the cabinet.

Maybe I don't have to extend the TT's RCA/ground wires, but if need be I've done that in the past for a small length addition and had no hum/noise problems, but I stay away from AC and speaker wiring...

That location is a little less practical since the cabinet's door opens towards the right, where the corner is, but it may well work as a second best or last resort type of option...

BTW If interested and want to know more info on the AT LP5 turntable (e.g. tonearm data) have a look at the following:

- The attached Australian Hi-Fi Magazine test of the AT LP5 turntable and cartridge (no copyright mention seen on this document). Contrary to doc title below its a test of the TT AND cartridge.

- Google the European version of the product brochure called "AT LP5 Brochure Eng Eu A4" which gives lot more info, but its copyrighted, so not attached here.

- Google the AT LP5 Owner Manual, also copyrighted. P. 7 shows specs, though in the tonearm specs there seems to be a typo about stylus pressure adjustment range given as 0 to 2.5 gr. This is contradicted by the European brochure (0-5 gr.) and by close pictures of the tonearm on US and Canada sites showing the range on the counterweight goes ABOVE 3.5 gr...

- Google "How To Align Your Turntable Cartridge" its on AT's Australia web site but when you get at the right page it will show NZ in top right corner for New Zealand (same site for both I guess). It shows a little more info for the LP5, but also in the text the cartridge overhang numbers for AT LP 120 and LP 1240.

Why this relevant info is so far from the main market, being the USA? That's beyond me. However, I assume European and Australia/NZ documents provide more info than US or Canada possibly because they have better product information disclosure legislation.

Richard


AT LP 5_phono_cartridge_review_test[1].pdf

[RMC]

I did pick up the replacement amp on tuesday. This one is in much better shape than the previous demo unit. And it has that same great sound.

However, after three evenings of testing (2 with the demo and 1 with the new amp) I realized my listening patience has changed somewhat with the Rolls amp, not for the better, in cases of not so well recorded material (i.e. dull, no life, no ambience).

These albums tend to get the "next" treatment faster. I assume this could be caused by the Rolls being a more revealing amp, specially in the mid, therefore aggravating the shortcomings of so so recordings. For example, a 1970s album I tried, remastered to CD (can't remember which one it was) didn't seem to cut it anymore, sounded more crappy and was taken out of the CD player fast. As if recorded inside an anechoic sound booth. Making me think it was good enough for the kitchen counter top Sony radio/CD player...

Maybe I was too hard on it. So I pulled out some other oldies (e.g. Elton John from early 70s). Songs also remastered to CD. "Your Song" recorded March 1970; "Rocket Man" recorded January 1972; "Don't let the sun go down on me" recorded January 1974. Well, these still sound quite acceptable to listen to, for Piano, horns, strings, voices, etc., forty something years later. So it doesn't really appear to be a time passed issue, but rather more one of an album's recording quality.

This leads me to a possible "drawback" of more precise or revealing amps: putting forward or emphasizing the weaknesses of some recordings. In other words, less tolerance for poor recordings...

Richard

[RMC]

Japan's Canare Cables has been involved with Quad wiring for a long time. For those who want to know a bit more about this Quad thing I'm also posting here two pages from an older Canare catalogue I have. I'm not associated with them in any way, but I do own a Canare microphone cable, not Star Quad, the L-2T2S being a slimmer version also Made in Japan. I've had this cable since the eighties or nineties, still in perfect shape, certainly my preferred one vs others I have mostly from Digiflex. Canare cable isn't cheap compared to some others (about $1 CAD per foot or meter depending on model, no connectors) but it certainly is quality built and durable. Digiflex does offer some Canare cables with connectors but these are a premium option $. The L-2T2S may well outlast me... Pics # 564, 566 & 568

Richard

[RMC]

I'm glad to report the BGW 100B has found a good home to continue serving...

I'm posting here a few pictures of the QSC 1100 Pro amp, another small size one, for comparison purposes only (not for sale nor give away). Its interesting to see how technology evolves within the same category, eleven years later.

BGW 100B made Dec. 1979 VS QSC 1100 made Dec. 1990. The former weighs about 20 lb. and the latter 12 lb. Miniaturization of components may also play a role in this, as well as somewhat thinner steel. In 1991 the latter one sold for $895. in Canada.

The more recent one has smaller depth, is lighter, uses a toroidal transformer, has XLR/1/4" TRS/Barrier strip, Dip switches, etc., similar output but adds 2 ohms capability, 8-4-2 ohms 50/70/90 W, 8-4 ohms bridged 140/160 W, plus 2 DB dynamic headroom. EDIT: for minor corrections.

Richard

[RMC]

[MoD]

Newer amplifier is build in more efficient manner, what can you say about difference in sound?

[RMC]