Wright Sound Company Phono Preamplifier - A Pictorial

[Deang]

Oh yes...I read it all. Everything, everywhere. My eyes are sinking into the back of my head and my significant other was deeply disturbed by my appearance this morning. I assured her I was fine, and muttered something to her about Mobile and some POS Scott amp.

I am fully expecting some hum. Hell, the SuperAmp "hummed", and it was clearly audible through the woofers. Once the music came on, it was a non-issue.

Also, keep in mind that the RF7's are NOT as efficient as Heritage, and may not even be as efficient as Klipsch claims (sorry BobG). In my room, using test CD's and music -- I get something close to 99-100db/w.

Remember too, I do tend to listen at slightly higher SPL's than most here. I think it will be O.K.

Received this email from the seller recently. I thought you might find it of interest.

"Hi Dean. I have only run the 300BXLS. I would have tried the 842's next, as I have heard great things about them. The input/driver tube is the 6EA7, and there are many out there. I found the NOS RCA's are best, but I have not heard that many. I suppose the reason for that is that the amps are very quiet already into my Thiels. I built these with great attention to detail, keeping wires close to the base, twisting pairs as detailed in the directions (loose, tight, etc.). Adding the Black Gates even quieted it more. BTW, the Black Gates are not fully broken in yet. These amps will get even better. I recommend using 3 Versapods #5 under each amp to eliminate any vestige of tube ringing. I use Synergistic Master Couplers with them, plugged into the wall. My power conditioner is the AudioMagic Stealth, which is the best I have heard, and which caused me to sell my P600 Power Plant, but the Apollos sound better without it. I bought boxes and packaging materials today, they will be double boxed and shipped individually. I gotta say, I am going to miss these guys. If you decide you don't like them, call me first, please. Dave"

[mike stehr]

70% circuit design, 30% parts quality?

I remember reading this somewhere.

[Pland]

Hi Guys,

Some general observations are in order:

1.None of us has ever heard a Scott 299 or Eico HF81 as they sounded in 1960 or so.Accordingly,any observations about the sound of original components in either circuit is speculative horse****.

2.I've never heard Craigs' russian caps in a 299,he's never heard Auricaps,Kellys' never heard a 299 at all.By definition,there's no way for any of us suggest that one cap preference is better than another.I've heard Xicon,Sprague 715,Illinois(complete crap),hovland(excellent), Auricap(equally good and cheaper),and Electro Cube,in a Scott 299a,and b.I bet that if you locked me and Kelly and Craig in a closet and swapped caps,we'd reach a consensus on the relative sound of each,if not an agreement on preference.Ditto on resistors.

3.I completely agree with Craigs' approach to lock down all voltages via checking and correcting resistor values.I believe this has more sonic impact than resistor type.

4.Having owned both a 299a,and an HF 81,I honestly believe that PIO's would probably suit the Eico well.I think they would denegrate the pace of a 299(which is not as quick as the Eico).Craig and Kelly can argue the point when they've both actually heard the combinations.

5.Kelly,**** or get off the pot about buying this amp.You're the only person who hasn't said"I'll take it".Tell me if you want it.Otherwise,let one of the other forum members have it.

6.You can all get pissed off at me for pushing your respective buttons.The cocktails are on me when we get to meet in person .

Best,

Pat

[mobile homeless]

Jesus... Nice post.

Get a grip. It's ALL speculative horse s h i t, Pater, including this and the post above. I've been out of town for the last three days so Welcome Back.

I just don't totally agree with your opening line. Frankly, any assessment of any original piece of gear is obviously speculative; on the other hand, when you have a working model with all original parts that is performing relatively well, one can attempt to ascertain the impossible and gleam some educated theories on the original sound as it is playing. And while we might agree on some of the sonics of these parts, our opinions on whether they improve the sound will be in the out box. Ole Thorsten thinks all oil caps are slow, ponderous horror. I dont agree. So the conclusions are where the difficulty lies. But I can safely say that adding a potpourri of MIT RTX caps throughout the entire amp will probably change the tonal characteristics, as will going oils. Good or bad? Someone will likely see.

I just don't see the reason for putting MIT caps throughout but hell, it's an experiment. I have never been too happy that the Auricaps are actually metalized poly but hell, what can you sa? Anyway, I just wanted to hear this piece of gear and perhaps work something out; Dean and I were exchanging mail on the subject. I'll wait till next time if it's a problem; or I was thinking of buying it and then selling it to Dean or figuring something out. Will all those MIT and other options, I am not sure I can afford the beast. Dean, it's all yours if you want it right away.

kh

EDIT - In all actuality, I would like the amp, just not with another $90 of boutique parts throughout. I think I wrote a post in that sale thread asking you what caps you put in. Craig making sure it's up to snuff DOES seem like a good idea and he has been through these things more times than I have my two Webers in that misbegotten 72 Bavaria of mine!

[Deang]

Kelly, I really think you might have mis-read Pat's "tone". He's seems to be fairly direct, and seemed to me -- just making some straightforward observations.

I understand what you are saying when you say that since it's in working order with the original parts, one can somewhat deduce what the original signature was/is -- even though some of the parts might be running in a degraded state.

I also understand what Pat is saying, and it makes sense as well.

The bottom line is that it ultimately comes down to preference. Pat says he liked the Hovlands in the 299, but there is no way to tell if I would like the Hovlands in the amp.

Part of all this is mental as well. I have a high degree of confidence and trust in the RelCap products. I was willing to go with what I trust -- and let the chips fall wherever. I just figured if it sucked-- it wasn't like it couldn't be undone.

Are you sure about this -- I don't think Pat was trying to pee in your Cheerios or anything:) Why don't you give it a whirl? You know I'll buy it if you end up deciding to sell it.

[mobile homeless]

Yeah, well I edited that post upon re-reading Pat's post. Dean, did you put any of the MIT products in your amps or preamp? I know the MIT caps were big in the late 80s and early 90s; hell, I have a damn boat load in my Cary pre, including the cathode follower circuit! In fact, the entire thing stem to stern is MIT besides the ELNA and Solen in the PS.

Anyway, I did want the amp to review and finally hear the Scott 299. When all these others started chiming in, things got complicated. And when I went out of town and came back to the MIT explosion, not to mention your sudden turnaround purchase of the Apollos, waters were even more muddied. I did want to work something out but was wondering how at this stage.

I did write a post asking PAt the simple question as to WHAT type of caps he did put in the unit. If I were to take it, I might let Craig look it over since we have been debating on these damn things and make sure it's up to his liking with the buzz fixed. Then I would take it without too many more mods. If Pat put some decent caps in there, I dont see any reason to go in there full bore. But I have been very interested in finally hearing it.

kh

PS- btw, you know you are never to actually READ my post till I am done with my six edits!!! heh...

[Deang]

Works for me.

Glad you went back over his post.

I wasn't aware Pat did anything to it, but yeah, if he did -- then why mess with it for now.

In the AES DJH stuff, if it's film and foil -- it's a MultiCap.

Remember, I fall square in the middle between you and Al K. I don't know what it is about me, but I just always believe the truth lies somewhere between two points.

So, maybe a few Multicaps, a couple of Hovlands, a Solen here and there, and some of Craig's chewing gum:)

Something I thought about today while driving around at work is the completely different signature of the bass on my DQ's after yanking the one electrolytic and replacing it with the 80uF AudioCap. I still haven't decided if I like what I did to those things on the low end. The bass is full bodied and fatter, and definitely slower than the electrolytic. I lost some speed and attack with that change.

Bet those old amps are chock full of electroytics aren't they?

[mobile homeless]

Did you actually say putting in the MIT etc made your bass slower? THis is interesting. Is that what you meant to say? That the electrolytics were faster sounding?

BTW, Dennis uses ALL Jensen Copper Foil Oil coupling caps in the DJH Super Amp. He removes all the electrolytics in the POWER SUPPLY and replaces them with film and foil, probably a mixture of Solen and perhaps MIT, although my bet is Solen.

I do know that Dennis loves the Jensen Copper Oils and counts them as the ultimate upgrade in ALL his SET amps and the Super Amp as well. IF your Super Amp had MIT in the coupling position, it would have to be custom ordered.

kh

ps- According to Pat's orginal post, he said he replaced the caps.

[Mike Lindsey]

Let me just add this... before I sent my 299a to Craig, it sounded horrible. It hummed horribly (even at low volume), on both line stages and both phono inputs. Some of the sound processing features didn't work. The scratch filter didn't work, there was some scratchiness on all the knobs, etc.

When I got it back from him, I couldn't believe it. The hum on the line inputs completely disappeared! And that's with the volume at 10 on 104db speakers! They are dead quiet! A slight hum on the phono does not start until the volume is at 5 to 5.5 (about 100db on my La Scala's), and even then you have to have your ear up to the speaker. All the buttons and knobs are functional and quiet.

Here is a list of everything Craig did to mine. Bear in mind, I paid $120 for it and it was in a lot worse shape than the one Pat is selling...

1- 10000 Pf Ceramic Disc Cap 1.65 x 1 = 1.65

4- .1 MFD Orange Drop 1.75 x 4 = 7.00

4- .022 MFD " " 1.25 x 4 = 5.00

4- .047 MFD " " 1.45 x 4 = 5.80

2- .0012 MFD " " .85 x 2 = 1.70

1- 10 uf @ 50V Axial Lyctic 3.50 x 1 = 3.50

1- 4.7 @ 250V " " 2.25 x 1 = 2.25

6- 100K @ 1 Watt Power resistors .25 x 6 = 1.50

2- 3.3 ohm @ 1 watt " " .25 x 2 = .50

15- various Low Noise Metal film(phono) .35 x 15 = 5.25

1- Multi section NOS Lyctic Can 15.00 x 1 = 15.00

4- Russian Mil. Spec 7189's Matched 7.00 x 4 = 28.00

2- Jan Phillips 6U8As 4.00 x 2 = 8.00

Misc suplies Deoxit and Solder 5.00

-----

Total Parts 90.15

Shipping 350.00 insurance Guess 17.00

------

107.15

Paypal fee 3% 3.25

Total 110.40

I still haven't upgraded the tubes yet and am somewhat curious to know if a better PS and coupling cap would make a difference, but I can tell you I am very happy with this unit. The phono is simply outstanding!

Mike

[Deang]

Kelly,

The AE-25 DJH had the Jensens as coupling caps, but where film and foil tins were used, they were MIT. Polypro caps were Solen.

The DQ's used mylar caps throughout, with the exception of the circuit for the woofer and midwoofer-- where an electrolytic was used. So, I yanked the 80uf electrolytic out of the bass/midbass circuit -- and put in an AudioCap (strapped to the bracket). Now, I did change out the inductors for this circuit, but the values were identical, with the exception of a slightly lowered DCR on the bass shunt.

To MY ears in MY room, it sounds "slower" in the bass than what I'm was used to out of a DQ. It's a more full bodied, somewhat fatter sound. Not the "tappity tap" sound I remember. Whether the electrolytic is "faster", I don't really know. It is possible that there is now slightly more output in the lower registers in relationship to the rest of the drivers. This would upset the balance a little, and that may be what I'm hearing. When I use the SVS, and cut at 50Hz, I can get seamless integration -- and the DQ woofer almost sounds "normal".

Overall however, the speaker is a much better speaker than before. The MITs and tweeter change create a very smooth and open sound, with no discernable grain. Imaging is vastly improved, with instruments now floating between the speakers, instead of the left/right image they were known for. There is a little less transient attack than the stock version, but the pinpoint imaging and smoothness more than make up for that. When I drive them hard, they really open up -- completely enveloping me in the soundfield. I still think they are breaking in however, because everytime I turn them on, the sound is a bit more effortless, and it seems it takes less on the attenuator then the time before to get the same effect.

I still prefer the crisp, tight, effortless sound of the RF7's, and when I listen to them, I forget about the speakers. The DQ's are a lot of fun, but they never get out of the way, you always know you are listening to speakers. Their is a veil over the music, and it's noticeable. It is only at high SPL's that the DQ's really let go. However, It's rare when I want to hear anything that loud.

I have considered selling them, and taking the Heritage plunge, but I really want to wait and see what happens after a couple hundred hours.

At any rate, I'm babbling and off topic. I would characterize the MITs as on the slightly warm side of neutral, and smooth as glass.

[mobile homeless]

Well, you know that most of what you were hearing with the Super Amp was the oil coupling caps as these are more actively in the circuit. In effect, you haven't heard the MIT in the coupling position; they have just been in the power supply and in crossovers and these are different applications. If you had that Super Amp, I would suggest you try changing out the all important Jensen Copper Foil Oil coupling caps for some MIT. I can tell you, it would be a huge difference and I personally think for the worst.

As for Al, remember who said oil caps roll off the highs dramatically (although there is a difference in use via the crossover vs the coupling cap). You had the Jensen oils in the main coupling positions in your Super Amp. Did you find that amp rolled off sounding? Also, you value Dennis and really admire him as a designer. Dennis Had was one of the FIRST to publicly dispel the distortion myths via single-ended tube amps and to make a differentiation between the DIFFERENT TYPES OF DISTORTION. The type of distortion prevalent in solid state switching devices is MUCH more disturbing and harsh leading to more hard sound. Frankly, I am trying to see the middle ground you are saying you occupy. You seem to prefer quality tube amps over solid state via efficient speakers. You preference for amplifiers (when proper tubes were installed) was toward a unit employing the Jensen oils in the coupling position. When you finally delve into low watt single-ended, you will see the affects there as well. Someday you will leave your fear behind and try some 300B or 2A3 amps. Quite frankly, they sound like the most open, neutral, life-like amps I have heard to date, surpassing most solid state offerings in clarity; in other words, distortion is the LAST thing on your mind. I personally think you could have gone with some 300B amps at the least. But, I know your reservations.

Again, I am still trying to find the middle ground you occupy. I am not against film and foil caps. I think they can do an amazing job. On the other hand, I don't toss out tube audio nor oil caps because of measurements when the measurements conflict with listening evaluation, which should be the final arbiter. Tube amps are amazingly linear devices. And the simplicity of a SET amp run in the right conditions does anything BUT BRING DISTORTION sonically. And oils caps done properly can be some of the most musically correct caps I have heard. Personally, I think writing things off leads to more closed minds than open and the middle ground is lost. Check your preconceived notions at the door and don't use Science to close the mind. When measurements conflict with experience it is time to take a good hard look at the tests. Some advances need to be made as to how the tests relate to listening. In the 70s, some of the best measuring solid state amps came to pass with some outstanding distortion figures. As stated, many of these amps are anything but listenable today. Why? The over-use of negative feedback to achieve these distortion measurements, thus resulting in more hard, glassy sound.

I value what brings real results musically. If those $200 Exotica Caps foilsfrom Percy bring the next step of Nirvana, so be it. Ditto with the Bees Wax Jack Elliano caps. Ditto with the Jensen Silver Foil jobs. And if a $3 cap made of questionable material pops up, and sounds amazing, but makes little sense, I'll trust the ears first. To me, the middle ground is right here...

kh

[Deang]

Yes, I really like the DJH Super Amp. I will probably buy another someday.

I can't argue with anything you said, as I understand the points made fairly well. Still, I think specs are important, and a good sounding tube amp specs out fairly good in most areas, and a bad sounding tube amp specs out horribly. There is a place for the numbers, and they shouldn't be totally discounted.

I am where I am now, because I found out for myself that a 15 watt pp amp sounded better than one of the better solid state amps on the market. The Super Amp however, is a well designed unit with good parts and attention to detail. I don't believe ANY tube amp would have sounded better than the Bryston. I just think a good tube amp will spec out better than a bad one. That's all I meant by "middle" ground. The numbers have a place -- that's all. I agee that SOME of the numbers don't mean anything, and there are yet numbers to be found for things the brain itself hears.

So now I will find out the difference between SET and PP, and find out if it is indeed "better". I'm testing the waters so to speak. Just putting my foot into the water to see what it feels like. But even if the water feels good, it will be difficult for me to let go of the watts. Watts mean headroom, and more headroom means less distortion. I think there's a spec for that somewhere:)

[mobile homeless]

The oringal Cary Audio 300se SET monos with the external chassis filter cap option were some of the WORST measuring amps in existance; and they just happened to be some of the most musical, natural, devoid of artifacts amps I ever heard, and this on a pair of 89dB, but easy impedance load, speakers! Obviously, powering up ye olde HALL ORGAN recording and turnng it to 10 will induce clipping and audible distortion. But that is not what it's made for; in addition, the SET amp with no negative feedback exhibits most benign clipping characteristics of just about any amp out there.

I dont know what you are saying here. That Super Amp that you loved measured worse than a Adcom GFA-555 in all the stock measurements that the Specs brigade worships. In fact, your Super Amp measures worse than an average $150 Yamaha receiver from Best Buy, this once again, in the types of measurements that the average public, and even a good many engineers, use to analyze the amp's performance.

And two amps measuring in at 30w with the same distortion measurements can sound TOTALLY different based on other parts and circuit implementaion. Ditto with a SET amp at 3.5w. Once you get past the road blocks, you can actually delve into some real science that is EXPERIMENTAL and not relying on outdated modes. The role of your speaker impedance and sensitivity is very importnat in that use of something like a SET amp, just as you have found out. A few years ago, people would have laughed you off the street if you ever said your 30w amp was delivering better bass and sonics than a 200w average SS bruiser.

I am a BIG BELIEVER in testing for design work. I also think specs ARE important. But one must not lose site of the testing. When people in the 70s thought the ultimate was low THD, and they realized that all the public was looking at this figure, they did EVERYTHING to achieve it. Too bad the sound of the amps became horrifying. Low distortion is a good thing. But the relationship is more complex and the different types/variables sometimes dont get measured in the test. Some of the testing needs to be revamped. Even most of the top engineers and designers are aware of this.

Give Dennis a call and ask him his take on distortion and measurements and the misuse and misunderstanding of both.

kh

[Deang]

My SET mono-blocks will play louder than your SET mono-blocks

No need to call Dennis about that, we've already had that discussion. Have you ever read the following from Dennis on the Cary site? He may design SET amps, but I believe he prefers triode P-P.

"To illustrate a couple of vertically bi-amplified home systems, I would like to share two examples used in my home:

System number one has a pair of B&W 801 Nautilus loudspeakers. This loudspeaker is a three-way design with a 15" woofer, a midrange driver and a tweeter. The crossover has bi-wirable separate inputs for the woofer and one for the tweeter midrange section. I have a pair of the new Cary Audio Design Rocket 88 stereo amplifiers driven by the Cary SLP-2002 preamplifier. One of the Rocket 88's is for the left channel and the other is for the right channel. This is called a vertical bi-amp system.

In this usage, one stereo amp is used for each channel with one channel driving the 15" woofer and the other stereo channel driving the midrange tweeter. Two separate sets of speaker cables are used for each loudspeaker. The inputs of the Rocket 88 amplifiers are joined together with combining interconnects that Cary Audio now offers. In this case they are balanced to balanced "Y" connectors. I am running the channel that feeds the woofers in the ultra-linear 40 watt per channel mode with the speaker impedance switch set at 4 ohms. On the same Rocket 88 amplifier the midrange tweeter channel is run in the 20-watt triode mode at 8-ohm output. The end result is astonishing. The sound stage width and depth increased appreciably and even when played at extremely loud levels the presentation stays focused and life size. The sonic improvement over a single stereo amplifier is not subtle.

System number two consists of a pair of Magnapan 1.6QR Planar loudspeakers. This system uses two V12 stereo amplifiers. I have one channel of a stereo V12 amplifier running in the ultra-linear 4-ohm position for the main bass & midrange panel and the other channel operating in ultra-linear 8-ohm position for the tweeter panel. This gives me great balance with more air in the high frequencies, along with great control in the bass & mid-midrange. Again, I've gotten fabulous results, even better than a single pair of V-12 mono blocs!"

[mobile homeless]

No way. Maybe with those speakers he is running which NEED watts to drive them. But Dennis is not stupid. He knows marketing and he also knows what will keep his company afloat in the USA. The amps DEAR to his heart are not the V-12. Rocket 88, or even the big 805C Cary SET. His favorites are the 300se and the 2A3 Monos. I still like his SET amps better than his PP and I have owned and listened to a number of his PP amps. And to be honest, his SET amps dont compete with some of the smaller companies.

kh

[Deang]

Think he's got some Moondoggies tucked away somewhere?