Quad 34 MM load

[chartz]

Hi Jez.
I’ll do it this weekend. Cheers.

 

[Arkless Electronics]

Hi Jez.
I’ll do it this weekend. Cheers.

Thanks. I obviously don't have a 34 here and all the changes I worked out are in simulation so kinda curious as to your subjective impressions.

 

[linnfomaniac83]

For me the rumble filter, or lack thereof, fixed a deadness to the sound. It just sounded a lot more dynamic and powerful.

Interesting, I’ve had a couple of 34s here and basically wrote them off as total snooze fests, “a deadness to the sound” kind of sums up what I’ve heard.

 

[chartz]

Final mods done.
I don’t like the result: upper bass too prominent. It's a subjective thing. Better lower notes, perhaps, on organ music.
I see the dust protection mylars flap quite a lot!
Remember I only use ESL57s, nothing else.

The old 33 remains much better on phono.

The 34 sounds good but I have the feeling it could still fare better on phono. And please don’t get me started on op-amps lacking involvement, etc. Just not true!

I use Dreams a lot for testing and with the 34 I almost can’t hear the vibraphone which is so present and crystal-clear with the 33.

Once again I don’t get why all those Internet people say things like electronics have moved on, the 33 casts a veil on music, etc. Utter BS.

Dictators know the power of reading, don’t they. But I digress!

 

[Arkless Electronics]

Final mods done.
I don’t like the result: upper bass too prominent. It's a subjective thing. Better lower notes, perhaps, on organ music.
I see the dust protection mylars flap quite a lot!
Remember I only use ESL57s, nothing else.

The old 33 remains much better on phono.

The 34 sounds good but I have the feeling it could still fare better on phono. And please don’t get me started on op-amps lacking involvement, etc. Just not true!

I use Dreams a lot for testing and with the 34 I almost can’t hear the vibraphone which is so present and crystal-clear with the 33.

Once again I don’t get why all those Internet people say things like electronics have moved on, the 33 casts a veil on music, etc. Utter BS.

Dictators know the power of reading, don’t they. But I digress!

Ah well... you can't please all the people all the time! I'm sure it will be a vast improvement so It's there as a service I offer now anyway.
Not everyone likes the same things and in this case you really rate the 33, a pre I consider so bad as to be unusable for anything but a retro system where sound quality is not the primary concern!

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Final mods done.
I don’t like the result: upper bass too prominent. It's a subjective thing. Better lower notes, perhaps, on organ music.
I see the dust protection mylars flap quite a lot!
Remember I only use ESL57s, nothing else.

Once again I don’t get why all those Internet people say things like electronics have moved on, the 33 casts a veil on music, etc. Utter BS.

What difference do you hear when you use the 405 versus 303? The output of the 303 should be distinctly different to the 405 at LF into the ESL57.

BTW Your "Once again..." statement conflates two things. The 33 may suit well in a system/taste, but that doesn't mean electronics more generally hasn't improved when used by other people in other circumstances. i.e. *not* just comparing 33 with 34.

Bear in mind that PJW designed the 33/303/ESL57 as a *system*.

 

[chartz]

Oh yes but I do have other systems you know! I just thought the 34/405/ESL pair would be better than the 33/303/ESL.

But that's fine really! Thanks for your comments.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Oh yes but I do have other systems you know! I just thought the 34/405/ESL pair would be better than the 33/303/ESL.

But that's fine really! Thanks for your comments.

Erm... I was actually asking you a specific question. The answer to which might have helped illuminate why you hear the things you reported.

 

[chartz]

Right. Sorry about that.

I find the 303 a tad brighter perhaps but inferior in the bass dpt. The 405 can do - sort of - bass with the ESL57s. There is actually little to it. The so-called warmth of the 303 is a myth. It can be fierce on the right speakers!
And yes I also tried the 34 with the 303, but then again, I prefer the old 33.

I've also compared it to my - genuine, not a copy - Hiraga valve preamp (think of it as a super Croft), and to my absolute reference Technics SU-A4. To tell the truth, the 34 is alright in this tough context.

Surprisingly, no preamp at all with CD doesn't improve anything.

But then again, as a system, with LP, the 33/405 has my preference over 33/303 or 34/405.

There.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

The reason I asked is explained here

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/57and303/interact.html

The output capacitor of the 303 interacts with the ESL57 to give a changed reponse as shown on the webpage. This will be absent using a 405. However the 33 was designed to work with the 303, not the 405. And the change in bass response isn't simple in form.

 

[Tony L]

However the 33 was designed to work with the 303, not the 405.

...though the 405 was designed to work with the 33, it wasn’t until years later that the 44 and finally 34 appeared.

 

[chartz]

The reason I asked is explained here

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/57and303/interact.html

The output capacitor of the 303 interacts with the ESL57 to give a changed reponse as shown on the webpage. This will be absent using a 405. However the 33 was designed to work with the 303, not the 405. And the change in bass response isn't simple in form.

I knew this page.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

...though the 405 was designed to work with the 33, it wasn’t until years later that the 44 and finally 34 appeared.

Agreed. That's a different thing to what I said. But the difference between 303 and 405 when driving the ESL57 is the complication I was pointing out.

 

[Tony L]

But the difference between 303 and 405 when driving the ESL57 is the complication I was pointing out.

Agreed, and given the choice I’d drive ESL 57s with a 303 (or Quad IIs, Leak Stereo 20 etc) over a 405. The 57s are very much a ‘valve-era’ speaker and like so many sound best when not partnered with a dry highly-damped modern amp. Hence OTA making their ‘widget’ thing which I suspect attempts to emulate a bit of output transformer/coupling-caps impedance. No idea how successful they are, my choice would just be for a more period-appropriate amp rather than attempting to nobble modern technology to fit.

 

[chartz]

I sometimes drive them with my 60's Loyez amp (EL34 PP), possibly unknown your side of the Channel. That's the circuit Jadis copied in the 80's.

Some nice sounds here, but honestly there isn't a world to it. And I believe Albinson and PJW designed the 405 at the time they had no other speaker to test it on.

I rather like what it does.

I had a discussion with Steve Williams about his widgets and it is not designed for QUAD amps. That said, I tried the ESLs with various amps and I never fried any. I like the old Arcam Delta integrated with ESLs, an underestimated gem.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

That said, I tried the ESLs with various amps and I never fried any.

Ah, well, that's where we differ. I can confirm that (for a short time!) Led Zep at high powers sounds much the same though an ESL57 with or without a flame emerging from the center of the ESL57. 8-]

When PJW phoned me to ask just what the X$Z I'd been doing to it, I explained I'd been looking too closely at the *amp* I was testing to make sure the speaker didn't cause *it* to fry.

I was at the time worried by the way the transformers in the ESLs saturated and acted as a low impedance with a tendency to go on dragging current when the volatage dropped again. So using it as an 'awkward' test load. Admittedly at signal levels way above what a 303 would deliver. When someone else called out "I can see smoke" and then "I can see flames" I assumed they meant from the amp, and kept looking at it until I turned around to ask "where?"... and saw a column of fire emerging from the ESL57.

 

[chartz]

Oh dear. Did you take any pictures ?

 

[chartz]

Hi.
Almost a year later, and a second 34 (a later one with RCA sockets that came with a 306) I haven’t found a way to restore the lost treble completely.

My second 34 sounds acceptable – just – with a DL103/1k load, but the first one still eats treble detail with MM cartridges.

I tried a known bright phono stage and that sounds fine.
The 34 with a fatiguing amp tames it a lot. I don’t recognize its sound signature actually.

I spoke to my ENT doctor about it and my hearing seems fine.
And anyway, my wife playing drums tells me it is: I can hear the sheer treble energy from the hi-hat and two cymbals just fine!

Through the 34 everything sounds sort of boring and flat.

 

[Pete.b]

Oh OK then...
For MM (all part numbers refer to schematic in post 25):

C12,13 = 100uF (on MM input board) Observe polarity.

R34 = 82K

C27 = 10uF

If you want to bring the slight treble boost down to something more correct make C21 150pF

It's a pretty weird design overall...

For MC:

C12,13 = 2200uF (on MC input board) Observe polarity.

R34 = 82K

C27 = 10uF

C18 = 220uF

Some of these values may seem counter intuitive in some ways.. or at least odd, but they are correct in sim and I have very little doubt that they will work in practice.

Do all or non of the above mods! There are some strange interactions, which I've taken care of.... I hope

I have a 34 and am considering your suggested mods but would like to question the change of c12 and c13 from 1.5uf to 2200uf is this correct as this seems to be an enormous change in value?

 

[Arkless Electronics]

I have a 34 and am considering your suggested mods but would like to question the change of c12 and c13 from 1.5uf to 2200uf is this correct as this seems to be an enormous change in value?

Yes it's correct.