Wright Sound Company Phono Preamplifier - A Pictorial

[No Disc]

I puchased this preamp a few weeks ago and just got around to cleaning it up, inspecting it, and taking some photos of it. I don't have my turntable, so I cannot tell you how it sounds....yet.

I don't recall seeing any good photos of this Preamp anywhere on the net so while I was cleaning it up I decided to make a web pictorial of it for all to see.

I've made some notes, which might contain some errors ... but have a look anyway.

Wright Phono Preamp Pictorial

Link: http://home.attbi.com/~tbabb/wrightphono.html

p.s. Mobile - The Web layout might look like something you have seen before.

- tb

[NOSValves]

Nice page and great Photos !! Bet you can;t wait to put that baby to the test.

Craig

[Deang]

Excellent work.

What are all those wires for;)

[No Disc]

Craig - You betcha.

deang - I've been told they are important, so I'm going to leave them in for now.

- tb

[mobile homeless]

Yeah, that page does look familiar! Indeed.

Well, it is quite clear that no one will ever accuse ole George Wright of playing the boutique parts game! I always wondered what his designs would sound like with more esoteric parts. The whole parts issue is so relative and variable depending... Also, some circuits seem to take advantage of certain parts more than others. The Wright Phono looks like a plethora of pedestrian parts probably in a nifty little design that sounds much better than it looks on the inside. It's hard as hell to gauge where the parts weigh in here and how much certain upgrades would better aspects of the sound. It's tempting to drop the electrolytics from the power supply. And the caps in the phono stage itself look for all the world like the numbers residing in Robinson's EICO. Who knows. Nice shots, Tim. Look forward to hearing about it. Havent heard a thing negative and I think all the Wright gear sounds musical, despite or because of what's within. Nice first shots online of the Wright interior - Good job!

In comparison to Wright gear, I think the Moondogs sound like a more expensive amp with a blacker background, more defined lows, and possibly an overall more solid, powerful sound. There seems to be more quiet between the notes. Yet, the WRight stuff always sounds very musical and filled with life. I think it has an excellent midrange, quite possibly a lot to do with the smaller MagneQuest TFA-204 output transformers. These really are sweet little transformers but not as extended in the lows as the DS-025. I think the better parts add to this quiet and quality sound...just not necessarily to the improvement of the midrange.

kh

[jazman]

Tim,

Nice work with the photos. Next is the listening!

Klipsch out.

[edster00]

Tim,

Nice shots of the phono stage! Like everyone else I am looking forward to a listening review.

[NOSValves]

Kelly,

My thoughts when I looked and the under chassis parts were the same as yours. He sure doesn't waste money on any High dollar caps and resistors or Electrolytics. I just didn't want to sound like I was putting down Tim new toy and also I bet it does just fine with the provided parts. Its really hard to say just how much difference any of the audiophile caps and resistors really do in these Units but if Deang has it his way we will find out LOL !!!

Craig

[mobile homeless]

I think parts DO make a difference but it depends on the circuit and their position and use. Hard and fast rules just cant apply here, just as in everywhere else in life. I personally would not load that ole Scott with MIT RTX type caps even if they were available because the sound would not be in the fine character of these amps (talking vintage in general). I have them throughout my Cary preamp, however. I have changed my mind on parts quality so many times that I have just come to the realization that the hard and fast rules just done apply. Cap X does NOT always work the best in all the circuits attempted. Also, with some gear, there is a law of diminishing returns when some of the differences are masked by other things.

As for George's gear, he concentrates on putting the big ducats in his output iron. He also uses common sense parts that might not register high on the boutique list but sound good in his circuit. That being said, I think some improvement can be wrought by rolling in other options, though I have found his stuff to sound so balanced and nice, it begs the question why. Still, I think some better sonics could result with some upgrades.

As for the Deang requests, I thought this amp was coming to me with an option to keep which might get problematic with the sudden insertion of MITs throughout! heh... I think this might change the character of this amp - I know I wouldnt want those in my EICO. I would want to discuss this with him first.. Ole Dean kind of took the ball and ran with it while I was floating off cyberhell (I only wish the UNC tarheels had done the same with the ball against Maryland).

kh

[NOSValves]

Mobile,

actually I agree. I would never buy those caps for the Scott either. I also wouldn't ever install Auricaps in Hf-81 or a Scott. Beginning to think they all color the sound compared to the factory Originals.

Craig

[mobile homeless]

I am now really prone to keeping the stock caps, even the sorry *** ceramic discs, in this vintage units AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. I think there really is something to this, although I know of the safety factor and the politically correct thing to say. When HAVING to change, I think moving to a quality cap is a good thing, but ONE THAT STILL KEEPS SOME OF THESE CHARACTER INTACT.

I dont think the insertion of the MIT caps would COLOR the amp as much as change the character which is not always a good thing. I am really moving towards putting in parts in these amps that dont corrupt what they did so well in the first place.

But no, I sure as hell am not removing my MIT caps from the Cary unit and deposting a bunch of lousy caps. But I am coming to realize how parts integrate with certain units and situations.

The more you learn, the more complex and variable the answers become.

kh

[Deang]

Kelly, I actually wasn't exactly sure how it was going to work. What you said is what I initially thought, but our email exchange Friday night left me wondering.

Your strong feelings and preference of the Eico over just about anything, had me thinking you might just let me have it.

At any rate, It was a fun thread.

I agree that the different caps and resistors would change the sound of the amp somewhat, but that is actually the point -- to take something good, and make it much better.

I do understand what you are saying about leaving the original circuits as intact as possible -- that does make sense. But it also makes sense that parts degradation over time, changes the original signature of the amp, and if anything -- the new parts restore the piece closer to the original voicing. At least, that's what I thought.

I do believe these parts would raise the Scott to a completely different level. There is a reason people like Dennis uses the RTX caps, and other RelCap caps in their products.

[mobile homeless]

Dennis' favorite coupling cap, by the way, is the Jensen Copper Foil Oil.

Obviously, I know WHY people change these caps. Hell, look at me! I have been messing with upgrades galore since the 80s, many having to do with caps and resistors. I KNOW the difference that can come with attention to parts; I believe I stood on my head more than a few times in this vary forum preaching this aspect.

On the other hand, PARTS DONT ALWAYS WORK LIKE YOU WANT THEM TO! And some work better in certain applications. And while a vintage oil might not be my choice in a phono stage, I think there are places that it would be perfect. Ditto with certain film/foil caps. Ditto with the expensive copper foil oils as coupling.

Just throwing in the top dog caps in a circuit can sometimes bring very disppointing results.

kh

[Deang]

Bob Gassel recently related the same thing to me when I questioned him regarding changing caps in my RF7's. In fact, his response was verbatim to what your last statement was. I didn't really agree when I read what he wrote. I have some mixed feelings when you say it as well. OTOH, I am extremely limited in experience, and I'm not about to force by half-assed opinion on anyone -- especially you or Craig.

I should probably use the money to buy some KR300BXLS anyways. I hear they redesigned the tube and it's much better than the earlier type. I'll try to keep some money back if you decide to give up the Scott.

At any rate, I hope I didn't offend you, I'm a typical Type A personality -- prone to confusion and asininity)

[mobile homeless]

Offend me? No, no. I think we have come to an understanding and know each other fairly well via posting. At least, that is the way I feel in the matter. While we may argue and disagree, I dont think you close your mind off to anything or anyone, all the while keeping the questioning aspect flowing, something I respect highly and something that I dont always see. You seem to always be questioning which is a positive (as long as you CAN do some enjoying of the moment and dont question only for the sake of questioning without seeing the good in the answer, or lack of, from time to time).

I think this question of parts is VERY complex and not always a simple answer. Notice how I didnt write OFF boutique parts or $$$ upgrades. Notice how I didnt write OFF oils OR film/foils. I believe that parts ARE important, but can bring about undesired results depending. One answer doesnt alway answer many questions, even if they read/sound very much the same.

Mainly, I am trying to make the point that blindly putting in the latest, greatest part does not always bring the latest greatest revelation. And sometimes, you just might get EXACTLY what you asked for, and this is not always a good thing! heh....

kh

ps- On the KR tubes, you might find at the end of the path that many of these beast just dont get the sonic SOUL award. I meant to ask, however, have you considered the VV52 from them?

[Deang]

"...have you considered the VV52 from them?"

I have a boatload to learn about SET, and these amps in particular. Seems I spent forever on the Welborne Forum over the weekend. Read most of your posts about the Moondogs as well -- I was wore out last night.

As of yet, I don't know much about what tubes I can run in these things. I knew about a AVVT32, but nothing about the VV52.

Adding to the confusion is they had some problems early on with the Apollos in relation to the KR tubes. The amp originally put out 22 watts with the 300BXLS, but I guess there was too much voltage on the plate (or something to that effect), and the Apollos were chewing through the tubes. According to the seller, Ron W. had owners change out some parts, and in doing so, reduced the output of the amp to 18 watts. KR also made some changes to the 300BXLS, and I guess in the end -- the Apollo/KR combo became very good.

You mentioned something about KR possibly going under. I suppose your information might be better than mine, but my understanding is that they are starting to do much better than in the past. At any rate, I read most of the posts about the KR tubes, and forum members seemed to be equally split on them. I also read Ron W. FAQ on his amps, and apparently, the Apollos themselves aren't going to win any awards in the SOUL department. They apparently are a nice step up from push-pull, but not on the level of the Doggies. OTOH, I'm expecting these to match up well to the RF7's and my somewhat obnoxious listening habits. I'm going for tone more than timbre anyways. I don't think "timbre" applies much to the stuff I listen to. At any rate, it might not be a bad idea to try some tubes that offset the soullessness (is that even a word) of the Apollos.

So, what can you tell me about these "VV" tubes? Who makes them, and are they "drop in" -- or does it require changing out a cap or two?

[Jobman]

tbabb or Mobile:

Do you know wether this particular Phono Preamp, or the WLA20 are considered "low impedence"? Is that what most passive preamps are?

Thank

Jobman

[mobile homeless]

I went digging for a post I saw recently and came up with this from Ron. IT is a bit troubling considering the Apollos are going on some pretty sensitive speakers with the RF-7. I would inquire about the amount of hum with the former owner/builder. Ironically, this was also a also problem with George Wright's 2A3 monos (though for different reasons). Believe it or not, he voiced the original amps on 88dB speakers and had no idea of the hum when hooked up to speakers in the 98dB and above range! Hence the new mod that he does to the amps with hum. Take a look at the below post of you havent already:

First you must understand that the Apollos were specifically designed to operate with less efficient speakers and especially not horns in the 105dB range. Therefore I did not go the extra mile to make sure they were super quiet. This is not a cop-out in anyway. If you look at the majority of amplifiers on the market they will be noisy on very efficient speakers simply because they were not designed with the intent of ever being used with horns. Even some of the low power (<10 watts) amps on the market that ARE designed to be used with horns are not very quiet.

Because of the amount and size of iron in your amp (2 chokes, 1 power transformer, 1 output transformer and 1 interstage transformer) there are a lot of magnetic fields within the amp that made it very difficult to get the noise output below 1mV. Most Apollos measured in at about 1.5mV which is quiet but not quiet enough for 100dB+ speakers.

There are a few things you can try to reduce the hum but I can't really guarantee that you will ever get them quiet enough for your speakers. You might consider amplifiers like our Laurels or Moondogs which are very quiet and will have a much nicer midrange than the Apollos too.

You can add another 10,000uf of capacitance across each of the filament power supplies (driver stage and output stage filament supplies).

You could try paralleling a small capacitor (.001uf to .047uf) across each filter choke. This value would have to be determined experimentally due to the variations in the Hammond choke parameters.

The above two mods might knock a few more millivolts off the output noise....or it might not.

- Ron Welborne

[/blockquote>

I thought you find this pretty important especially considering your speakers. It shows Ron was struggling with it too in response to a customer partnering the beasts with very sensitive speakers(thankfully, even more sensitive than yours). Here's hoping you dont have much of a problem here.

kh

ps- See the lovely 14 revisions? That was an attempt to remove that moronic "blockquote" tag. Please shoot me.

NOTE:

Dean, just wondering if you saw these comments in Positive Feedback? I imagine you have. It also mentions the midrange and noise, but has A LOT OF POSITIE COMMENTS AS WELL. This midrange seductive nature REALLY comes with the lower watt SETs. I personally think you would have been fine with going down, even to Moondog level but thought this might be an interesting experiment. Talk to the builder about the hum.

http://www.positive-feedback.com/ambackissues/WelborneApollo.htm

[Jobman]

MH:

Ok, very interesting.

So, if I was looking at adding a DAC that was a High Output Impedence" unit, such as a Cal Sigma DAC, that would not be a good match then, correct?

Jobman

[mobile homeless]

Ummm...this is the general consensus but I didnt really realize that that 20 was that much of an impedance problem. Can you audition it to see?

kh