Linn K5 & K9 confusion

The bass won't have been altered, only your perception of how much bass is present in comparison to where the reduced treble emphasis is now.

There may also exist a bit of a dip starting in the midrange/presence region that might aggravate things here. This is why I suggested trying adding another 100pF to what is in place now. I have a feeling that a capacitor value that is half way between where you are now and where things were before might help.

If you have a couple more 100pF polys why not try clipping them across +ve and -ve round back of each phono input socket like I described above. Might prove to be a cure for what ails your system at present, without risking damage to the phono cards from too much desoldering/soldering for the sake of experimentation.

 

Hi Craig, ok understand the highlighted bit, yes this is what I was thinking most likely. The cap addition is a good one, kinda like FatMarley suggested on my speaker terminals, attenuating the HF there too coincidentally.

I'd go & do if I had a couple spare, alas not/ post will be ages if I bought some now. Will see if I have anything here.

One thing you see springs to mind, & this is going back a BIG step: whether I could do the reverse idea of -upping- the 470pf cap, using my Shelter. I do see on fancy phono boxes, the pf highest selector mostly being 500pf though. So I wonder if there's a limit as it were, which of course would scupper my idea. Could for eg 680pf be tried? Might this open up the 201 treble a wee bit more?

I'm still struggling a bit with this particular ML you see, to be honest. It's definitely broken in now, but the boomy boxy bass sits there like a fug, & occasionally the HF is quite sharp & hard too. Kinda miss the 201, even though there's a heap more detail with the ML, it's just easier on the ear & you never wait for any nasties round the corner.

I do think though, that a 201 Shibata is a tempting proposition after this experiment! I do have a feeling the boomy bass is the poor quality body on this particular ML. The Shelter body seems better quality.

Over xmas when my dear oldies have fallen asleep after the 19-bird roast I just cooked up.. I'm going through all your replies again on here. It'll be more work than Uni was, but I must crack this subject. You've been a fantastic teacher I have to say! I feel very lucky with your input again my gratitude- any prior teaching background? Wren........ ostrich.

Capt.

 

Hi Captain,

Something that occurs to me here is that it seems as though you might be trying very hard to overcome a problem with your loudspeaker placement in your room by attempting to tweak the HF response of your record replay. The clues here being that neither the Shelter at circa 595pF total, nor the A-T at circa 225pF total, seem to have enough HF output to counter what you have described as a somewhat woolly sounding excessive bass response from the speakers. Certainly, if the Shelter with the 470pF caps in was more to your liking overall than I'd agree that this may be the way to go for now, perhaps simply treating this cartridge to a new standard Shelter replacement stylus when the time comes. Just be aware that it is the record deck and tonearm that determine bass quality more-so than a phono cartridge does. Phono cartridge loading simply tilts the upper mids through highs up down relative to what comes out at the bottom. All else being equal, one could say that the turntable determines the bass, the tonearm the mids, and the cartridge the highs (not just in relative levels but in quality). This is a very simplistic way of looking at things, and there is certainly overlap between what does what, but playing about with phono cartridge choice and loading options isn't going to solve a bass quality problem. Certainly, your LP12 won't be at fault here, nor your tonearm, but having a rear ported ES14 in a corner, bung or no bung, can't be a good thing, nor anything that a particular phono cartridge choice will solve.

Regardless, I am here to help not criticize, so I do hope that you take this as being constructive.

On a related note, have you another source with which to compare? Not so much to compare with your record deck, but a CD player and a few decent CDs that you know well will certainly let you know what is what with respect to overall system balance in your room. In the meantime, I'll seek out your speaker related conversations with FatMarley/others and have a catch up.

BTW, yes, I've spent decades in education as a contractor, primarily instructing engineers how to more efficiently suck eggs, as well as how to report such egg sucking progress to management in a timely fashion. One simply must have the patience of Job for this sort of thing.

 

@Craig B all good points there & the TT breakdown is useful especially for an idiot like me.

No I'd actually ruled out the room & speakers: well, what I mean is I'd achieved a great balance with one spkr bunged/ the other not, with my Shelter & my cdp. Bass yes a bit fuller with the cdp, but so is everything it does a wee bit: but no boomy boxiness.. which only happened with the ML cart. It is a tricky room, the bunged speaker in a corner, stone thick walls, & both back against the wall (5" gap max).. but, they do work remarkably well like so (& room constraints mean they just have to go here, medium size cottage). The bass goes really deep, full, & is 'tuned' pretty well. Mostly by fluke tbh.

What I've done now, is just revert back to the Shelter for a try, the arm removal means its far easier than you think, but of course I have the ML's 100pf cap in. So as expected the bass is a bit flabby/ treble a bit flat. I've got 510pf/250v polys on their way (470pf the original naim value, & I thought 680pf was going a bit far).

Do you know if this cap affects tone? I mean I get that it effectively (& very useful it is to know) attenuates the treble, but is the cap quality/ make important? Or just a generic axial polystyrene = fine.

Thanks, Capt

 

The signal quality isn't affected by the input loading cap quality here, as, technically, these aren't part of the signal path that provides amplification and equalization of the signal (i.e. they are connected in parallel across +ve and -ve, rather than in series with +ve only).

Just to be clear, for a given cartridge, 'attenuate the treble' (ie. reduce) is what reduced load capacitance effectively ends up facilitating. Increasing capacitance effectively brings the treble up (i.e. the opposite of attenuate, as in, 'appreciate' or 'enhance'). Your Shelter needs far more loading capacitance than an A-T MM does in order to 'enhance' its treble. Effectively, this model, and all of the OEM equivalents going back to well before the A&R Cambridge 77 Series, and Rega's R100, sound very smooth with the usual 100 to 200pF input capacitance of the average MM input. Some might say too smooth. It is only when one reads the manual that one sees that the purveyors of these models used to suggest 400pF total (Arcam) and 300 -350pF (at phono input stage - Rega). All Shelter has to say on the subject is "Unlike many MM cartridges, there is no “peak” so it is a pleasing and robust performer". Unfortunately this isn't very helpful to those wishing for a bit more sparkle. It likely does help sell a Shelter MC upgrade or two, though, just like Naim's 'N' cards did for those using Linn's own branded AT93 MM freebie, as both Linn and Naim got subsequent sales here, Linn with Asak DC2100K, etc., and Naim with their 'K' etc. cards.

I doubt that you'll find all that much difference between going back to 470pF polys and your 510pF with the Shelter. Either will be fine, if not pretty much at the outer limits of fine when you factor in your tonearm cable's contribution. By this I mean, not much difference between where you were before with the Shelter into Naim's default.

 

@Craig B yes I worded attenuate to mean 'alter', when it might only mean 'reduce'..but my point I think was clear enough that I understood upping the value ups the treble (& therefore downing the value lowers it). That's what I thought attenuation, of the treble, was. An altering of it up or down.

Ok glad this cap shouldn't affect the sound -quality- then. Yes I realise 510 won't be any different (well only a bat might be able to tell) but a cheap ebay find, 10 for £3 you see, nearest to 470 as I could find. Anyone wanting a few.. you're welcome.

So I would've gone full circle by this stage! Apologies if you think this is ridiculous, but I'm back at where I was either looking for another new 201 eliptical, or, trying another path. SH seems out of the question (certainly a Jico 201 is @£300!), I wonder if I could build a pair of MC naim boards.. but seems like alot of work; these 323's used to be £35 for an old set used, now they're £100! Nuts. Build a small MC phono stage? Hmm. More likely I stumble on a used MM cart on here with an elliptical stylus I'd have thought.

I'm about to form a new thread "Technical TT stuff" or so.. just to warn you. I need to bend others' ears now, not solely yours. You've done enough for me & need a break. It does seem you might he the most knowledgeable mind you.

Thanks so much, Capt

 

You are welcome, @The Captain,

It is too bad that the 95ML didn't work out better for you. I doubt that you'll have much trouble selling this on here, should you wish to recoup the funds.

All the best,

Craig