Owen Y Posted December 6, 2017 Posted December 6, 2017 (edited) On 05/12/2017 at 8:33 PM, weavzy said: Hard to answer, as the term 'musicality ' is wide open for interpretation. It certainly fits in to what i perceive as musical. The two words i use to describe it are Lush and Warm. I know a lot of audiophiles prefer analytical, but i do not. I even use tone controls (gasp!!). I wanna swim in the music. Feel it. Its big on bass. And i love bass. I can honstly say its been the best upgrade ive made as far as impact goes. Ive heard a lot of audiophiles use the term "discotech sound" as a derogatory term for hifi products that dont fit the analytical sound narative they subscribe to. Well, i love bass, warmth and tone controls. If you do to, then the lounge is for you. A minor digression..... As you may know, LCR phono uses inductors instead of caps for bass-lift part of the RIAA phono EQ, a approach chosen by only a few phono designers (Allnic, Zanden, Ypsilon, Silbatone, Thomas Mayer, Intact Audio...) - all costly ultra hi-end products. So, LF performance should be good & IME inductors do allow the music to 'breathe' & convey a natural sense of 'power' related to the bott end. Yes, it may be system dependent, as most phono stages do not sound this way. However, the Lounge LCR is inexpensive, so one can't expect it overall to match the best - my MkII model does not out-do my all-out tube phonostage, but it has elements of performance that make it sound unusual, natural & desirable (to me). Robert at Lounge Audio says that the MkIII is significantly improved, so I will look forward to auditioning after I send mine for updating at some stage. Cheers, Owen http://darklanternforowen.wordpress.com/ Edited December 6, 2017 by Owen Y 4
Owen Y Posted December 6, 2017 Posted December 6, 2017 (edited) [Sorry duplicate post.] Edited December 6, 2017 by Owen Y
catman Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 G'day all, I'm actually on my second MK 3 and I am advised that there have been a couple of subtle changes to the design (and the specs) compared to the original version. I compared mine to my Schiit Mani last night and the bass from the Lounge Mk 3 is stronger and more 'realistic'. It may come down to personal preferences, as is often the case! Regards, Felix.
Tasebass Posted December 8, 2017 Posted December 8, 2017 Man...that Guys eyebrows........my Daughter would have a field day... Tase
mjs Posted December 12, 2017 Posted December 12, 2017 New DVxx2 cartridge (in Ittok LVII), replacing an AT33 PTG Mk1. Have had a brief listen so far. Detail is very impressive, delineation of instruments etc. The noise floor has dropped way down, pretty happy so far. More later 8
dwbasement Posted December 30, 2017 Posted December 30, 2017 Took me a while to get it right, and now singing well. 7
scuzzii Posted December 30, 2017 Posted December 30, 2017 Took me a while to get it right, and now singing well. What are your first impressions Dennis? I imagine it will open up throughout your listening session.Very good cart.
dwbasement Posted December 30, 2017 Posted December 30, 2017 What are your first impressions Dennis? I imagine it will open up throughout your listening session.Very good cart.Hi John,First impression at@hensa place was wow I am happy with that with the money. Second impression at my place oh no.... cus my full range and horns hybrid don't seem to like it...Third impression after remount, change the tracking force a bit higher and swap the higher gain tubes back in my phono (long story short, Duc's SUT was for the MC30 Super II so I changed to a lower gain tubes in the leben so it is not too loud but turn out it is a bad move)... now is singing well, vocal is amazing, tge stage is a bit better than tge MC30 and excellent tracking.On going impression....as you suggested it started open up more and more so I expect the sound will improve again in the next few days.Will also need to get Duc to modify the SUT to match the Hana then it will be prefect.CheersDennis 2
andyr Posted December 30, 2017 Posted December 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, dwbasement said: Will also need to get Duc to modify the SUT to match the Hana then it will be prefect. Cheers Dennis As I mentioned, Dennis, you will need to get Duc to reduce the gain of your SUT to 1:10, to get above the minimum recommended 400 ohms load for the Hana. Andy Edited December 30, 2017 by andyr
lovetube Posted December 30, 2017 Posted December 30, 2017 34 minutes ago, andyr said: As I mentioned, Dennis, you will need to get Duc to reduce the gain of your SUT to 1:10, to get above the minimum recommended 400 ohms load for the Hana. Andy Hi Andy. do you know the Hana cartridge specs of loading is resitive loading or for SUT loading ? i think most likely it specs for pre-preamp loading instead of SUT Duc
andyr Posted December 30, 2017 Posted December 30, 2017 (edited) 37 minutes ago, lovetube said: Hi Andy. do you know the Hana cartridge specs of loading is resitive loading or for SUT loading ? i think most likely it specs for pre-preamp loading instead of SUT Duc You may well be correct, Duc. All the Hana specs say is " Suggested Load: 400 Omms" (they can't even spell 'Ohms' right! ). AIUI, the cart sees the same loading from a SUT as it does from a head amp or MC phono stage - the only difference is if an MM phono stage (with a 47K load) gets a SUT in front of it ... then 47K ohms is decreased by the square of the SUT's gain ratio. (Hence 47,000 ohms "looks like" 470 ohms for a 1:10 SUT.) IOW - there's nothing 'magic' about SUT loading ... it's simple maths. Andy Edited December 30, 2017 by andyr
lovetube Posted December 30, 2017 Posted December 30, 2017 1 hour ago, andyr said: You may well be correct, Duc. All the Hana specs say is " Suggested Load: 400 Omms" (they can't even spell 'Ohms' right! ). AIUI, the cart sees the same loading from a SUT as it does from a head amp or MC phono stage - the only difference is if an MM phono stage (with a 47K load) gets a SUT in front of it ... then 47K ohms is decreased by the square of the SUT's gain ratio. (Hence 47,000 ohms "looks like" 470 ohms for a 1:10 SUT.) IOW - there's nothing 'magic' about SUT loading ... it's simple maths. Andy Hi Andy. i think SUT loading and resitive loading of the pre-preamp is two different animal . Duc
dwbasement Posted December 30, 2017 Posted December 30, 2017 As I mentioned, Dennis, you will need to get Duc to reduce the gain of your SUT to 1:10, to get above the minimum recommended 400 ohms load for the Hana. Andy Andy,This is all too complicated for me haha [emoji23]I have given Duc the Hana spec hence he asked the question, the SUT is going to be 1:16 and will only 183ohm... Would that be ok for the Hana you think?Dennis
andyr Posted December 30, 2017 Posted December 30, 2017 26 minutes ago, dwbasement said: Andy, This is all too complicated for me haha I have given Duc the Hana spec hence he asked the question, the SUT is going to be 1:16 and will only 183ohm... Would that be ok for the Hana you think? Dennis Don't ask me Dennis - ask the mfr! (Their spec says 400 ohms ... which I take to be the minimum. For instance, the specs for my Benz LP say "500 - 47K" ... it sounds OK at 500 ohms ... I ran it at 3K3 ... and Albert Lucaschek's phono stage only offers 47K - coz he thinks that's the best!) Andy
dwbasement Posted December 30, 2017 Posted December 30, 2017 Don't ask me Dennis - ask the mfr! [emoji38] (Their spec says 400 ohms ... which I take to be the minimum. For instance, the specs for my Benz LP say "500 - 47K" ... it sounds OK at 500 ohms ... I ran it at 3K3 ... and Albert Lucaschek's phono stage only offers 47K - coz he thinks that's the best!) Andy That's great advice Andy [emoji38]I think we have an answer.
metal beat Posted December 30, 2017 Author Posted December 30, 2017 35 minutes ago, andyr said: Don't ask me Dennis - ask the mfr! (Their spec says 400 ohms ... which I take to be the minimum. For instance, the specs for my Benz LP say "500 - 47K" ... it sounds OK at 500 ohms ... I ran it at 3K3 ... and Albert Lucaschek's phono stage only offers 47K - coz he thinks that's the best!) Andy funny. Lyra used to be very specific with loading based on the capacitance of your tonearm cable - now they say "determine by listening " 2
andyr Posted December 30, 2017 Posted December 30, 2017 (edited) 35 minutes ago, dwbasement said: That's great advice Andy I think we have an answer. But the maths says ... 183 ohms is not the optimal loading??? Andy Edited December 30, 2017 by andyr
dwbasement Posted December 30, 2017 Posted December 30, 2017 But the maths says ... 183 ohms is not the optimal loading??? Andy It says suggested loading 300 ohms but doesn’t mean it is the optimal? I just read a review on the Hana SL and he settled at 175ohm at the end.Given the lower gain on Leben, 1:10 will not work at all I believe.I have also tried the Hana on my GCPH, I can’t hear the difference between 100 and 500ohms...I am getting old...
lovetube Posted December 30, 2017 Posted December 30, 2017 10 minutes ago, dwbasement said: It says suggested loading 300 ohms but doesn’t mean it is the optimal? I just read a review on the Hana SL and he settled at 175ohm at the end. Given the lower gain on Leben, 1:10 will not work at all I believe. I have also tried the Hana on my GCPH, I can’t hear the difference between 100 and 500ohms...I am getting old... if you have time and want to understand a bit more about this subject then read this : http://www.rothwellaudioproducts.co.uk/html/mc_step-up_transformers_explai.html he explain in very details . 1
dwbasement Posted December 30, 2017 Posted December 30, 2017 if you have time and want to understand a bit more about this subject then read this :http://www.rothwellaudioproducts.co.uk/html/mc_step-up_transformers_explai.html he explain in very details . Thanks Duc. Thats what I read doing my research except I skipped the boring cal bits haha.Cheers 1
andyr Posted December 30, 2017 Posted December 30, 2017 11 hours ago, lovetube said: if you have time and want to understand a bit more about this subject then read this : http://www.rothwellaudioproducts.co.uk/html/mc_step-up_transformers_explai.html he explain in very details . Great article, Duc (though there seem to be a few arithmetical errors - which don't affect the general thrust of his argument). But while he does push the concept that a SUT can have less distortion than a headamp ... nowhere could I find an explicit statement that the optimal load for a cart when it has a SUT is different to its optimal load when it has a headamp?? Andy
lovetube Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 38 minutes ago, andyr said: Great article, Duc (though there seem to be a few arithmetical errors - which don't affect the general thrust of his argument). But while he does push the concept that a SUT can have less distortion than a headamp ... nowhere could I find an explicit statement that the optimal load for a cart when it has a SUT is different to its optimal load when it has a headamp?? Andy Hi Andy. this is not an Argument , this is a fact . you can find many other article , just google it the subject . i know you like headamp and often mention it in every threats that invole in SUT . so we might just have to leave this as is Happy new year every one. Duc 2
Tasebass Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 14 hours ago, metal beat said: "determine by listening " ...which goes for EVERYTHING ....IMO.. Happy New Year to all.. Tase 3
dwbasement Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 Happy new year everyone, and keep tge table turning! 1
Highwaystar Posted January 4, 2018 Posted January 4, 2018 (edited) On 30/12/2017 at 7:41 PM, dwbasement said: Andy, This is all too complicated for me haha I have given Duc the Hana spec hence he asked the question, the SUT is going to be 1:16 and will only 183ohm... Would that be ok for the Hana you think? Dennis Hi, After being confused about this too, I wrote to my SUT designer (Tim de Paravicini from EAR Yoshino) and he confirmed that the 40 ohms input (IE 1:10) is the best option for the Hana SL. PS, fantastic cartridge, listening to it now. Edited January 4, 2018 by Highwaystar
.thumb.jpeg.a4b7d7f34dec3344afad6af9c8fd6c9d.jpeg)
Recommended Posts