Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community

erik2A3

Regulars
  • Content Count

    737
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

106 Excellent

About erik2A3

  • Rank
    Forum Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I've followed Bruce Rozenblit since the early 1990s. His OTL amplifiers, line-stage preamps, and phono preamp are, in the truest, most positive sense of the word, extraordinary.
  2. Hi Bruce, On my bench, on hold until after my back surgery tomorrow. I should be able to start getting into it 'lightly' in a week or so. Happy to share a "Kodak Moment" right now if interested. Being a stereo SET, it's a heavy amp, so can't turn it upside down to work on it until I heal up a bit.
  3. Hi EmilC - Just a bit curious about your observations here -- though let me say first I don't own or use any of Bob's crossovers. I make my own, as well as wind my own chokes. Describing something - anything - as the "weakest link" is fine! Just as I've told my Art History students for decades that "not liking" a work of art is all well and good. I just prefer specific supporting information. And of course we need to always acknowledge the fact that there are many absolutely satisfied customers of Crites' products. In light of the above, can you be more specific about what it is (specifically) that makes it the weakest link?
  4. Just thinking that mods are always a possibility. It's freshly built (awesome, by the way!!), and I guess I would recommend becoming familiar with its in-born sound signature first -- which I'm sure you were also implying. As you indicated above, Justin, "Its sonics are lovely." Always in agreement with using a choke in the PSU, the requirement of course being adequate chassis space. Thanks for sharing this Matt0404! The lighting on the new chrome and transformers is elegant looking; really nice!
  5. Looking forward to following this great thread Seti! Will you guys please post some images of wiring too? Fun!
  6. I'm generally in agreement with all of the above Jeff. A note about lead length (with which I also agree!) is that one needs to remember that line-level inputs and speaker level outputs are unavoidably influenced by the users lengths of IC and speaker cable. I totally agree that best practice here would see the shortest possible lengths of wire both inside and outside the amplifier. Dynaco, Leak, and others always put their RCA inputs as close to the input grid as possible, up at the front of the amp. And that's good. As convenient as are input and output jacks on the back of the amp, that location is also usually in the same vicinity as mains AC current and other power supply components, which, as you observed, can potentially pollute delicate input signals in areas of high input impedance - which seems to make the possible influx of noise all the more likely. (this last sentence seems awkward and ridiculously long to me...) With the revised Laurels here, the output was for all intents and purposes free of hum (both 60 and 120Hz), as well as buzz and/or any other annoying irritants. Our electrical environment is very good in this new (well, new to us) AZ house; the one in Texas was really just terrible. Equipment was also often plagued by pesky ground-loop hum and EMI/RFI that was not present in components individually. There are ways to deal with that, some of which being safer than others, and I was able to address it effectively (ferrite, ground-shunt input caps for RFI, etc.). And the dreaded earth-ground lift via 3-to-2 prong 'cheater plugs.' Years ago we had some fun 'discussions' here about this! The 3-tier Moth Si2A3 is now upside down on my workbench awaiting surgery... (it also has input and output connections on the back, which I admit is convenient). At leas they are on the side opposite AC power cord connections.
  7. Looking really fabulous! I have the same question. Remember the time-honored 'one-hand in-your-pocket' when taking anode readings like that!
  8. Yes, you are correct. I often include extra bits of information in my posts for those who may not be familiar with them. And your question: A brand new pair could definitely be made, and all parts are readily available. I'm of course referring to the Moondog as circuit, not the packaging. As for improving the circuitry, that is a much more complicated issue. What aspect of the circuitry? I think I do understand what you're asking me though - what can be done to make it a better Moondog, correct? We can use my makeover as an extreme example, and what's left, while quite good sounding to my ears, is most definitely NOT a Moondog. That's why I'm glad I have another pair that will be left 100% Moondog, even with the bunches of modifications that I know can be done in the name of improvement (which, at the end of the day, might not be as good as the original version). Ron Welborne designed all of these kits so they could be more straightforward to build for those who may not be familiar with schematics, etc, and it's already a very, very good design. Lead lengths could be shortened, and more direct connections to grids, plates, and cathodes could be made, etc. but the circuit would remain the same. But sure. You could use the same chassis you have, which is THE Moondog, and, if you were so inclined, completely redo the wiring. This is essentially what I did with the Laurel IIs in this thread. There are a couple of things I decided would be best left alone since they were doing their jobs well and the associated craftsmanship was good. But the rest was re-done, while still maintaining the essential Laurel II design. In other words, I absolutely did not redesign it. One of the main things I addressed was the proximity of certain parts of the circuit. I relocated a number of large components, as well as solder terminal strips, in order to 'open things up a bit' for better cooling as well as noise reduction. Those same sorts of things could be done with the stock Moondog. I hope this help!
  9. Blackbird: Are the hum-null potentiometers on your monoblocks working ok for you?
  10. Thanks for your kind comments Blackbird. In reality, these are really only the shell of my former Moondogs. Well, there are aspects of the power supply that are similar, but that's all. I am very fortunate, though, to have a second pair of Moondogs not yet fully built; and that pair of monoblocks will be left totally as they were designed by Welborne Labs. The Moondogs and my Lowther horns were purchased as a sort of promotional venture between Lowther America and Welborne Labs in 1990s. I was already really interested in single ended tube designs at that time, but the Moondogs just really define all of this for me. There is another forum member who owns a pair of the amps that were bought a bit earlier, when W. Labs was using transformers from MagneQuest. I guess I honestly look at the work I did above as something I wish I hadn't done, but now have the opportunity of remaking them into a pair of Laurel IIs - and because we were lucky enough to find a second pair of Moondogs. I'm going to be rebuilding another amp I have from that time period - the Moth Audio Si2a3; and want to consult with Jeffrey Medwin regarding the use of a low-stored-energy power supply for the Moth. In fact, he has already offered some very interesting insights. As usual, I've gotten away from myself again! I really just wanted to thank you for your nice compliment. I hope your newly re-capped Moondogs are giving you lots of listening enjoyment! .
  11. ...and so it came to be that the Welborne Labs Moondogs inherited the same platform as the Laurels above, and thereby making use of half sections, only, of two 6SN7 input and driver tubes -- whereas the tube compliment of the Laurel II consisted of either a GZ37 (one of my favorites) or a 5AR4 rectifier, paralleled sections of a 6SL7 (just like my Moth Si2A3) and the metal envelope 6AC7. My Moondogs are no longer really Moondogs. They had undergone a couple of changes over the years, and so how ended up as the 300B circuit shown here -- with direct coupling in the input stage. I'm seriously contemplating reworking this circuit into that of the Laurel II. While I would describe this amp as very fast (basically meaning good HF response) and 'clean' sounding, I found the Laurel II to have an organic sort of richness that I don't detect in the couple of other 300B designs I've tried.
  12. You have an amazing setup Delicious2! I think those 402s will sound really good with an excellent single-ended 300B behind them! I HAVE to get a pair of those horns!
  13. I really enjoy this kind of work, and the reward for me is in the process - as well as of course the outcome! The amplifiers are now on their way back home, and this is the part - shipping - where I sometimes get a little nervous.... Tubes aglow!
  14. You are welcome! Glad to help get these great amplifiers up and running well again! Jeff: There is indeed a pecking order in a queue of several such projects, and I just told my wife yesterday that the Moth Si2A3 rebuild was next! After that I decided it would be fun to build an amplifier consisting, ONLY, of parts I happen to have on hand right now, and using our heavy-duty cheesecake spring-form pan for the chassis. Thanks for remembering the Moth! Visually, it's definitely one of my favorites. I'm primarily interested in re-working the power supply.
×
×
  • Create New...