New Products - Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down?

modwright · « **Reply #40 on:** 27 Mar 2018, 02:27 pm »

Hi Greg, the Tavish design is interesting and of course at an attractive price.

I am confident that our design will be QUITE competitive, given the pedigree of the PH 150 from which it is derived. I have not decided if it will be one or two boxes yet. It really depends on a couple of factors.

As for the $1K SS design, that is still on the drawing boards also and will follow in time.

Thanks,

Dan

JohnCh · « **Reply #41 on:** 27 Mar 2018, 02:34 pm »

Quote from: JMosch on 26 Mar 2018, 10:30 pm

IMO a pot is a bad idea. I think discrete setting where you know what it is works better.

But if you do use a pot make sure its hard to rotate and you need to use a screwdriver. The Audio Alchemy phono pre I am evaluating has pots for resistive loading and they move way too easy and its very annoying.

Is a detented volume pot a possibility and would that address this concern?

-John

modwright · « **Reply #42 on:** 27 Mar 2018, 02:40 pm »

While I hear you regarding the loading resistance, that it should be clear what the setting is, the variable gain is such that, being infinitely variable, you set it for your ideal listening and leave it alone. If we do this, it will be a simple potentiometer, probably with a distinct and limited range, but not with detents.

The only other way to go would be a distinct set of discrete resistor settings with specific attenuation. I just thought that the infinitely variable attenuation would allow for the most flexibility because everyone's system is different. You have preamp gain, amp and speaker sensitivity to consider.

Thanks,

Dan

GregC · « **Reply #43 on:** 27 Mar 2018, 02:49 pm »

Quote from: modwright on 27 Mar 2018, 02:27 pm

Hi Greg, the Tavish design is interesting and of course at an attractive price.

I am confident that our design will be QUITE competitive, given the pedigree of the PH 150 from which it is derived. I have not decided if it will be one or two boxes yet. It really depends on a couple of factors.

As for the $1K SS design, that is still on the drawing boards also and will follow in time.

Thanks,

Dan

Hi Dan,

I am a fan of your products and I have owned a few in the past as you know. I only mentioned Tavish Designs Adagio because you mentioned the Chinook as a competitor and thought a two box tube phono stage would differentiate your product, so I brought up the Adagio as a point of reference since it would also be a competitor for a two box tube phono stage. I have no doubts your product would be a solid performer.

The PH-150 is outside the price point I want to spend, so your phono stage is of interest, especially with trickle down technology. I also like the idea of the two half width cases, because I could put the PSU on a different shelf and have my own MC step up sit next to the phono stage if I want to use the MM input.

Greg

modwright · « **Reply #44 on:** 27 Mar 2018, 03:00 pm »

Thanks and good point in support of the two box approach.

My conflict in this regard before, was simply that if the two boxes are 1/2 width, if placed side by side on the rack/shelf negates the benefit of the power supply being outboard. I appreciate any/all feedback in this regards as this is a key decision in the design process.

I appreciate all of your feedback very much!

Dan

modwright · « **Reply #45 on:** 27 Mar 2018, 10:24 pm »

Well, it is looking better and better!

I just did more tests with both MM (47K load) and MC (200 ohm load) with step-up at 1:10.
MM Gain = 48dB
MC Gain = 68dB

Actually a bit high and will be adjusted down possibly. Unless I do include an infinitely variable attenuator pot. If so, then this may be ideal!

Noise Measurements just completed on the Audio Precision:
MM = -95dB (unweighted)
MC = -77dB (unweighted)

That is pretty darn good for a tube phono stage!

Thanks,

Dan

GregC · « **Reply #46 on:** 29 Mar 2018, 07:08 pm »

Impressive measurements Dan!

Will the phono stage be an inverted design like the SWP-9.0 SE or will it be phase correct?

modwright · « **Reply #47 on:** 29 Mar 2018, 07:23 pm »

It will actually be phase correct.

At this point, I am leaning towards a one box solution, with the looks and styling of the SWL 9.0 Anniversary Edition preamp:

This means internal power supply, MM and MC input, variable on-the-fly loading (6 values) for MC.

Stereo/Mono and Mute.

Possibly a multi-position attenuator selector to choose from max gain to: -3dB, -6dB, -9dB, -12dB, -15dB, -18dB. This would allow the greatest degree of system flexibility based on cartridge and system gain. I may also increase the total MM/MC gain to as much as 50dB/70dB if so.

I know that some people would also like balanced outputs, but that would be a cost add. I am tryin to stay under $3K, but an option with balanced outputs via transformer coupling is possible. It just depends on the level of interest.

The goal is to build a line of '9.0' products, to complement the existing exceptional $2900 SWL 9.0 Anniversary Edition preamp. It is based on our very first preamp, the SWL 9.0SE. The SWP 9.0SE was the matching phono stage and it is still in demand today. The PH 9.0 would be far superior to the original SWP 9.0SE.

Lastly, if it works out, I would like to consider adding to the lineup, a 50W Class A SS amp, to fill out the '9.0' lineup.

Again, all thoughts and input welcome.

Thanks,

Dan

mreeter · « **Reply #48 on:** 1 Apr 2018, 03:19 pm »

The PH 9.0 sounds like a Winner, I for one would like to see a Balanced Output "Option" as I currently have a 5 meter run between my Phono Pre and my LS-100.

And, that the PH 9.0 is offered in Black!

modwright · « **Reply #49 on:** 2 Apr 2018, 04:16 pm »

I am going to look for the most economical way to accomplish this. It will require a pair of output transformers to convert SE to balanced. I will see where I can source the best transformers for this purpose without adding TOO much cost. The chassis will be designed to include a pair of XLR outs. I will likely install them only on the balanced models, and have a cover plate over the XLR outs for those without.

This way, if a customer wants the balanced out option, then they can pay for it. If not, then they don't have to pay extra for an option they won't use.

Thanks,

Dan

bummrush · « **Reply #50 on:** 2 Apr 2018, 04:47 pm »

I had class d yes ago. Harped on lots.
You probably won't agree with is the BASS. I just can't get over it. Yes strong. Yes well defined. But for me ,it was just way way way too much of a good thing. I was never able to get over it. I just don't go for that presentation I guess. Other then that it's hard to explain.

modwright · « **Reply #51 on:** 2 Apr 2018, 05:52 pm »

Thanks for your feedback. I have decided to shelve the Class D hybrid design for now. I will work on a Class A-B or Class A hybrid design instead.

After Axpona will start digging into this. Perhaps by RMAF in the fall, we will have a hybrid integrated (A or A-B).

Thanks,

Dan

Badge · « **Reply #52 on:** 2 Apr 2018, 07:45 pm »

Quote from: modwright on 2 Apr 2018, 04:16 pm

I am going to look for the most economical way to accomplish this. It will require a pair of output transformers to convert SE to balanced. I will see where I can source the best transformers for this purpose without adding TOO much cost. The chassis will be designed to include a pair of XLR outs. I will likely install them only on the balanced models, and have a cover plate over the XLR outs for those without.

This way, if a customer wants the balanced out option, then they can pay for it. If not, then they don't have to pay extra for an option they won't use.

Thanks,

Dan

Dan,

Thats a great idea as I think there are still a lot more people using unbalanced connections on their phono pre and I know that for me, I would like the option of ordering the less expensive RCA only version.

Aaron

modwright · « **Reply #53 on:** 2 Apr 2018, 08:56 pm »

OK, thanks!

Dan

JMosch · « **Reply #54 on:** 3 Apr 2018, 01:39 am »

Not interested in balanced.

modwright · « **Reply #55 on:** 3 Apr 2018, 04:25 pm »

It will be an add cost option.

Dan

Dardemm · « **Reply #56 on:** 4 Apr 2018, 02:17 pm »

Hello Dan,

I'm curious about your work on a new integrated tube amplifier. Are you still working with KT tubes? And are you planning on including either a MM or MC phono-input on the integrated amplifier?

I've owned both an SWL 9.0 and an 36.5, and have heard a few of your amplifiers before as well. Lately I've been very curious to hear your Ambrose A30 amplifiers (I like the sound of EL 34 tubes very much), and have always appreciated your designs. Those mono amps are gorgeous, but I haven't pursued them too aggressively because they are out of my price range. But your comments on a tube integrated amplifier have my intrigued. Please keep the updates coming. Your engagement with customers and listeners is very refreshing.

Good luck at Axpona.

David McCallum

modwright · « **Reply #57 on:** 4 Apr 2018, 04:40 pm »

Hi David, I am still working on the tube integrated and yes, so far the basis of design uses KT150 or KT120. The goal was 30W-40W with a single power tube.

I am waiting on some customer transformers from Electraprint to finalize this.

As for phono stage, that would be ideal. It will depend on noise and if I can pull it off.

Thanks,

Dan

modwright · « **Reply #58 on:** 12 Apr 2018, 12:36 am »

Photo of Proto/Concept PH 9.0 Tube Phono Stage, MM/MC 48dB/68dB. Price TBD (<$3K)

At Axpona, the PH 9.0 can be seen and heard in room 604 with Studio Electric, ModWright and Zu Audio.

This is merely a concept/proto. It was built as a two box design, but I am considering making it a one-box design with aesthetics similar to our SWL 9.0 Anniversary Edition preamp.

Feedback and input about this is certainly welcome.

Thanks,

Dan W.

GregC · « **Reply #59 on:** 12 Apr 2018, 12:47 am »

I absolutely love the styling of the prototype phono stage and find it especially pleasing in black color.