• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Concept receiver (etc.) - comments from Richard Schram

Marko said:
http://www.rj1.com/cgi-bin/ppcart/ppcart.pl?details&preamplifiers&1101243378&

If the 16.5 had an AUX channel, I might very well be tempted to buy said item listed above, and solve the Phono Stage situation once and for all by working around it.
Marko
Marko, I passed your AUX/phono stage questions onto Richard - here is his reply, ad verbatim:

------
Marko should look at the new Parasound Zphono - it's a ton better than the PPH-100 predecessor. I honestly don't recall how I decided about the no. of aux inputs. It's a good question!

Bst rgds,
Richard

------

BTW, he has promised to answer our long list of questions, too, when he finds time to get to it.

Rgds,
 
Njord Noatun said:
Marko, I passed your AUX/phono stage questions onto Richard - here is his reply, ad verbatim:

------
Marko should look at the new Parasound Zphono - it's a ton better than the PPH-100 predecessor. I honestly don't recall how I decided about the no. of aux inputs. It's a good question!

Bst rgds,
Richard

------

BTW, he has promised to answer our long list of questions, too, when he finds time to get to it.

Rgds,

Thanks for forwarding the questions.... Really :thmbsp:

Like I've said before, the 16.5 only has 2 Tape inputs to mess with, and no AUX. I'm using one Tape input for an excellent AKAI, and the remaining Tape input gets used by the Rotel CD player. Oops, no more room.

I was hoping not to get a retail response to the problem from Mr. Richard. I had hoped he might have asked one of his Techs(he's a busy guy after all) take a glance at the Phono stage/16.5 schematic, and recommend simple values changes that could be done, to allow greater bandwidth to pass......

As y'all know, a "ton better", implies 2000 pounds of Phono stage improvement.
 
Njord Noatun said:
I seem to remember from the Monster Receiver site that you used to have your 16.5 hooked up to a Concept 2QD turntable, VS. What happened - did you end up liking the Sony TT better?

I recently picked up a 2QD with a Shure V15iii cartridge. Although I haven't had the time to hook it up to my 16.5 yet, I am curious as to the whereabouts and your opinions of the 2QD.
Rgds,
PS! I am also considering picking up a pair of Concept CE 2 speakers, I believe essentially an ESS AMT 1.

I use the 2QD, just in a different system......the one next to my computer with a Yammie R-9, some Ohm Walsh 4 speakers and a Denon DCD-1560 CD Player. Together, they produce sound that I am COMPLETELY enthralled by. Obviously, I LOVE my 2QD and listen to it more than any other Turntable. I'm putting the "mileage" on my R-9 and I listen to the 16.5/PS-X75 about once a month.....when I have some SERIOUS listening time. They work very well together because the Sony's BioTracer Tonearm is pretty much immune from the massive amounts of Bass the 16.5 puts out.
 
Marko said:
Thanks for forwarding the questions.... Really :thmbsp:

Like I've said before, the 16.5 only has 2 Tape inputs to mess with, and no AUX. I'm using one Tape input for an excellent AKAI, and the remaining Tape input gets used by the Rotel CD player. Oops, no more room.

I was hoping not to get a retail response to the problem from Mr. Richard. I had hoped he might have asked one of his Techs(he's a busy guy after all) take a glance at the Phono stage/16.5 schematic, and recommend simple values changes that could be done, to allow greater bandwidth to pass......

As y'all know, a "ton better", implies 2000 pounds of Phono stage improvement.

I still don't unerstand what all the fuss is about. I don't hear any problem with the 16.5's phono section. Sounds just AWESOME to me!!! As far as I am concerned, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. :D

I see that the ZPhono runs about $150.00 and I'll certainly keep my $150.00 rather than spend it to solve a problem that I don't hear. I can appreciate why Richard might not want to invest much time in this "issue" either.....it's so highly subjective...why spend valuable time on it?

The 16.5's phono section might not be perfect, but it sure is enjoyable to listen to and that's AOK by me.

-- Chris
 
Marko said:
Like I've said before, the 16.5 only has 2 Tape inputs to mess with, and no AUX. I'm using one Tape input for an excellent AKAI, and the remaining Tape input gets used by the Rotel CD player. Oops, no more room.
I am sure you have considered - and rejected for good reasons - this, but I run a simple RCA switch to separate my sources. Perhaps not elegant, but it works.
Marko said:
I had hoped he might have asked one of his Techs(he's a busy guy after all) take a glance at the Phono stage/16.5 schematic, and recommend simple values changes that could be done, to allow greater bandwidth to pass......
Your question about how to "mod" the 16.5 to improve its phono stage bandwith was one of the many on the "long list" I sent him about three weeks ago, and that he has promised he will get to in due course: It may be that your particular question is too technical, or requiring to much messing around contacting people he no longer works with, etc., or that this is impossible to do, but your question is there for him to consider: I ony passed your Concept/Parasound thread of yesterday as a "one-off" because I thought it might interest him.

Rgds,
 
Njord Noatun said:
I am sure you have considered - and rejected for good reasons - this, but I run a simple RCA switch to separate my sources. Perhaps not elegant, but it works.
Your question about how to "mod" the 16.5 to improve its phono stage bandwith was one of the many on the "long list" I sent him about three weeks ago, and that he has promised he will get to in due course: It may be that your particular question is too technical, or requiring to much messing around contacting people he no longer works with, etc., or that this is impossible to do, but your question is there for him to consider: I ony passed your Concept/Parasound thread of yesterday as a "one-off" because I thought it might interest him.

Rgds,

Thank you for helping, and yes, I am looking at all angles for possible solutions, but waiting to see how Mr. Richard responds in earnest.

thanks again!

be well

Marko
 
Marko said:
Thank you for helping, and yes, I am looking at all angles for possible solutions, but waiting to see how Mr. Richard responds in earnest.

thanks again!

be well

Marko

Marko - I don't understand why Richard should spend any more time on this issue and respond in "earnest". He already responded "in earnest" as far as I'm concerned. If it bothers you that much, get the phono preamp.

That fact that he reponded at all is pretty AMAZING. Why are you taking him to task for not wanting to re-engineer your 30 year old receiver for free just because it's not to your liking (although no one else seems to have a problem with it)? I'm sure he has much better things to do than spend time on this. I just don't get it. :scratch2:

-- Chris
 
Hi Marko, et.al.,

Some issues to consider:
1. Please review carefully what a phono circuit does. Here's a great article I found that discusses the issue in understandable terms.
http://www.graniteaudio.com/phono/page5.html
Note the RIAA curves specified at the bottom of the page - they only go out from 35-15khz because that's what RIAA specified in 1955 and the RIAA test record only checks that.

A phono circuit equalizes the output of a phono cartridge. It has to have a specified curve and great manufacturers provide a frequency range and tolerance for their product. The 16.5 lists a 30-15khz range at +/- 0.20 db!, by comparison, the Parasound unit you referenced was 20-20kz at +/- 0.25db. Now please understand that the circuits are not a brick wall, that they don't stop allowing signal to go through below 30 hz and above 15 khz that's specified. The specification is primarily a function of what was common and normal in the late 70's when this unit was designed and sold and it was common to only specify out from 30-15khz for many pieces. The phono circuit will allow signals beyond that to pass, it's just that it wasn't part of the published specification. Likely, if you could check it, you would see that the signals are passed within some +/- x.xx db specification, but it would be there. My guess is the phono preamp can pass from about 15-25kz from just comparing the circuit in general to typical RIAA feedback circuits.

2. It is much more important to check the accuracy of the RIAA phono system because midband deviations are much, much more audible than the frequency extremes. You could use the MM or MM/MC RIAA test cd here and a good volt meter to check yours easily. see:
http://www.graniteaudio.com/phono/page2.html

This is an interesting test cd - but note: the test tones go from 100 to 15 khz, because that is about the limits of resolution of the RIAA curve. There are other test systems or RIAA reverse circuits that you could feed a constant test level into to check your circuits. However, I don't personally feel it would be worth it - the deviations in the phono preamp circuitry, assuming all is working well, are much smaller than the rest of the reproducing chain.

3. If you are really concerned, have your tech run tests on your phono preamp section to determine if it is in specification from 30-15khz, and then if he has the right test circuit, he can check from 20 to 30 hz, and from 15khz to 20khz or beyond. You might want to be there to see if his speakers or your ears can hear those frequencies.

4. Please read this next section carefully because it is objective and not meant as any criticism at all. No offense is meant or intended.

Please look at the other parts of our/your system and understand the limitations in all the pieces. We all have parts that are similar with restriction.

Grado Gold (Nice cartridge!) - Grado specifies it at 10-60kz but no +/- tolerance and no curve at all. May be somewhere but not on their website. No major problem, I trust their product. However, all phono cartridges are, to some degree, sensitive to their loading, ie the phono capacitance and resistance they see when plugged into a circuit. The phono capacitance is from the combined wire/cable from cartridge pins to the input jack of the preamp and the loading cap inside, if there is one. There can be subtle changes in overall response. Grado specs a 47k input impedence, the 16.5 has a 50k input impedence, well within a 5% spec. The input capacitance is not specified by either Grado or Concept.

Speakers - Yours happen to be the Triangle Celius 202. Look and likely sound to be great speakers. Take a look at the published specs on your speakers. They are Frequency range 45-20 (+3dB Hz-kHz) from here:
http://www.audioconnection.com.au/product.asp?id=327

Does this mean that your speakers can't pass anything below 45hz or above 20khz? No, but it does mean that it likely is outside of the +/- specification. As the system drops lower the output also drops. Likely by 30 hz, your specific system is at least 6-10db down from 45 hz. Also, at 20 hz, its likely to be at least 12 db down if it follows the typical 12 db/octave rolloff most speakers exhibit at their lower frequencies. Thats a subjective reduction of almost 20 times lower.

So even if the phono system were able to pass down to 20 hz, your speakers may not be able to output that signal in any meaningful or audible way. Not a failing at all, it takes some big or huge subwoofers to really get down below 35 hz or so for real.

Also, for phono systems, most LP's, even direct to disk, cannot record much real music below 30 hz because of the interaction of the cutter head, disc material, recording electronics and then the record (warp, surface noise), turntable rumble (noise inherent in the motor, drive system - idler, belt, direct, bearings, tonearm/cartridge reasonance interactions) and tracking forces. All of the above contribute a lot of low frequency junk that most systems would waste a lot of amplifier power trying to reproduce. If you have ever seen how woofers "breathe" while trying to track a record surface warp or arm/cartridge resonance (in the range of 5-15 hz) you can see that it is useless trying to get that passed - it wastes energy for no useful audio output. Thats why many early phono systems had "rumble filters' to filter out that stuff if needed

Cassette: I checked my Audio magazine 1978 directory - the Akai GXC-730D deck was a nice unit that specs at 30-17khz +/- 3db. You can be pretty sure that the +/* 3db points are at 30 and 17kz, a wide variation on a flat curve and way more coarse than the phono circuits of the 16.5. Even the best Nak and Tandberg decks of the time had wider but similar specs.

Last, the ears. All of us have different hearing. Many of us can sense but not exactly hear the frequency extremes. You may have to turn up the system really loudly at low bass and very high frequency to really hear any output there, assuming your speakers (or any speakers) play there.

Therefore, we may be chasing specifications rather than really concentrating on music reproduction which is really a function of the 40-15kz passband for the most part. Although it may not be much comfort, the best sounding systems play that passband extremely well and tend to sound more alive and muscial than those that can reach the extremes but can't do the middle well. I would suggest not worrying so much about the phono system and enjoy what you have without mods. If you must have a phono system separate, I endorse the idea of an external switch to switch out the cassette, just be sure that its a very high quality switch..

My 0.04 cents for today. Again, a general commentary, not attacking you, my system has exactly the same limitations and then some! My 51 year old ears are also not well calibrated anymore either!

Regards,

Bart
 
mech986 said:
Hi Marko, et.al.,

Some issues to consider:
1. Please review carefully what a phono circuit does. Here's a great article I found that discusses the issue in understandable terms.
http://www.graniteaudio.com/phono/page5.html
Note the RIAA curves specified at the bottom of the page - they only go out from 35-15khz because that's what RIAA specified in 1955 and the RIAA test record only checks that.

A phono circuit equalizes the output of a phono cartridge. It has to have a specified curve and great manufacturers provide a frequency range and tolerance for their product. The 16.5 lists a 30-15khz range at +/- 0.20 db!, by comparison, the Parasound unit you referenced was 20-20kz at +/- 0.25db. Now please understand that the circuits are not a brick wall, that they don't stop allowing signal to go through below 30 hz and above 15 khz that's specified. The specification is primarily a function of what was common and normal in the late 70's when this unit was designed and sold and it was common to only specify out from 30-15khz for many pieces. The phono circuit will allow signals beyond that to pass, it's just that it wasn't part of the published specification. Likely, if you could check it, you would see that the signals are passed within some +/- x.xx db specification, but it would be there. My guess is the phono preamp can pass from about 15-25kz from just comparing the circuit in general to typical RIAA feedback circuits.

2. It is much more important to check the accuracy of the RIAA phono system because midband deviations are much, much more audible than the frequency extremes. You could use the MM or MM/MC RIAA test cd here and a good volt meter to check yours easily. see:
http://www.graniteaudio.com/phono/page2.html

This is an interesting test cd - but note: the test tones go from 100 to 15 khz, because that is about the limits of resolution of the RIAA curve. There are other test systems or RIAA reverse circuits that you could feed a constant test level into to check your circuits. However, I don't personally feel it would be worth it - the deviations in the phono preamp circuitry, assuming all is working well, are much smaller than the rest of the reproducing chain.

3. If you are really concerned, have your tech run tests on your phono preamp section to determine if it is in specification from 30-15khz, and then if he has the right test circuit, he can check from 20 to 30 hz, and from 15khz to 20khz or beyond. You might want to be there to see if his speakers or your ears can hear those frequencies.

4. Please read this next section carefully because it is objective and not meant as any criticism at all. No offense is meant or intended.

Please look at the other parts of our/your system and understand the limitations in all the pieces. We all have parts that are similar with restriction.

Grado Gold (Nice cartridge!) - Grado specifies it at 10-60kz but no +/- tolerance and no curve at all. May be somewhere but not on their website. No major problem, I trust their product. However, all phono cartridges are, to some degree, sensitive to their loading, ie the phono capacitance and resistance they see when plugged into a circuit. The phono capacitance is from the combined wire/cable from cartridge pins to the input jack of the preamp and the loading cap inside, if there is one. There can be subtle changes in overall response. Grado specs a 47k input impedence, the 16.5 has a 50k input impedence, well within a 5% spec. The input capacitance is not specified by either Grado or Concept.

Speakers - Yours happen to be the Triangle Celius 202. Look and likely sound to be great speakers. Take a look at the published specs on your speakers. They are Frequency range 45-20 (+3dB Hz-kHz) from here:
http://www.audioconnection.com.au/product.asp?id=327

Does this mean that your speakers can't pass anything below 45hz or above 20khz? No, but it does mean that it likely is outside of the +/- specification. As the system drops lower the output also drops. Likely by 30 hz, your specific system is at least 6-10db down from 45 hz. Also, at 20 hz, its likely to be at least 12 db down if it follows the typical 12 db/octave rolloff most speakers exhibit at their lower frequencies. Thats a subjective reduction of almost 20 times lower.

So even if the phono system were able to pass down to 20 hz, your speakers may not be able to output that signal in any meaningful or audible way. Not a failing at all, it takes some big or huge subwoofers to really get down below 35 hz or so for real.

Also, for phono systems, most LP's, even direct to disk, cannot record much real music below 30 hz because of the interaction of the cutter head, disc material, recording electronics and then the record (warp, surface noise), turntable rumble (noise inherent in the motor, drive system - idler, belt, direct, bearings, tonearm/cartridge reasonance interactions) and tracking forces. All of the above contribute a lot of low frequency junk that most systems would waste a lot of amplifier power trying to reproduce. If you have ever seen how woofers "breathe" while trying to track a record surface warp or arm/cartridge resonance (in the range of 5-15 hz) you can see that it is useless trying to get that passed - it wastes energy for no useful audio output. Thats why many early phono systems had "rumble filters' to filter out that stuff if needed

Cassette: I checked my Audio magazine 1978 directory - the Akai GXC-730D deck was a nice unit that specs at 30-17khz +/- 3db. You can be pretty sure that the +/* 3db points are at 30 and 17kz, a wide variation on a flat curve and way more coarse than the phono circuits of the 16.5. Even the best Nak and Tandberg decks of the time had wider but similar specs.

Last, the ears. All of us have different hearing. Many of us can sense but not exactly hear the frequency extremes. You may have to turn up the system really loudly at low bass and very high frequency to really hear any output there, assuming your speakers (or any speakers) play there.

Therefore, we may be chasing specifications rather than really concentrating on music reproduction which is really a function of the 40-15kz passband for the most part. Although it may not be much comfort, the best sounding systems play that passband extremely well and tend to sound more alive and muscial than those that can reach the extremes but can't do the middle well. I would suggest not worrying so much about the phono system and enjoy what you have without mods. If you must have a phono system separate, I endorse the idea of an external switch to switch out the cassette, just be sure that its a very high quality switch..

My 0.04 cents for today. Again, a general commentary, not attacking you, my system has exactly the same limitations and then some! My 51 year old ears are also not well calibrated anymore either!

Regards,

Bart

Bart - Thanks for vindicating the 16.5 No wonder I don't hear any problem with my 16.5's phono stage.......there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. :D

Great information for those who might not know better.....very gently presented. :thmbsp: Before someone blames the 16.5 for not sounding great they should get their own hearing checked to make sure its not the problem. That's certainly cheaper than a re-engineering job and it just might be the culprit. :D

-- Chris
 
Bartman at al

When I acquired the 16.5, it was carefully gone over, in all regards, to make sure it was functioning to specs.

This 16.5 phono stage exhibited the same characteristics of bandwidth limitations, as compared to the other system stages, when I was using the Energy Audissey APS5+2 speakers. Fwiw, those would go 20-22hkHz.... Same underachieving phono stage with the Triangle Celius now.

I've substituted other preamplifiers in lieu of the CONCEPT 16.5 preamp controls. Most all the preamplifiers everyone sees today usually do the 20-20kHz phono stage thing. The results? Large improvements in the LP presentation, with only slightly different changes in the other 16.5 system stages. Heck, even the Technics SA-5770 does the phono stage better than the 16.5

All I know is that the phono stage of this 16.5 is not of the same performance capabilities, as it's other onboard stages. The problem has been isolated down to the 16.5 phono stage, after much effort to ID where the problem is located, about a half/year of serious scrutinizing.

The switching idea has been considered all along, after I'd pinpointed the area of performance weakness in the stereo system to the phono stage.

Perhaps it is not practical to modify the existing phono stage somewhat/somehow, to improve it as it stands. Perhaps Mr. Richard, being the designer, could offer up something brilliant, or obvious, to do there, hence the question directly to him, as it should be.

Perhaps the Tech who went over this 16.5 doesn't know squat, or is incompetent, or lazy (name it).......however, this is not likely, since he has a reputation that has been well-earned. Perhaps something has changed in the phono stage aliong the way, that drags attention to it's shortfalls when compared to Tape or CD, and even FM broadcast.

Whatever it is, the mojo that the rest of the 16.5 functions have, are not the same with the phono stage............and I do play albums, so it bugs me as it is.

Just calling them as I see them, that's all.

...and btw, NO AMOUNT OF CAPITOL LETTERS can change this, since I'm the one living with it.

I await(along with everyone else) for Mr. Richard's earnest response to the many questions about his designs, history, and efforts, and perspectives...a greatly anticipated event...
 
Marko said:
Bartman at al

When I acquired the 16.5, it was carefully gone over, in all regards, to make sure it was functioning to specs.

This 16.5 phono stage exhibited the same characteristics of bandwidth limitations, as compared to the other system stages, when I was using the Energy Audissey APS5+2 speakers. Fwiw, those would go 20-22hkHz.... Same underachieving phono stage with the Triangle Celius now.

I've substituted other preamplifiers in lieu of the CONCEPT 16.5 preamp controls. Most all the preamplifiers everyone sees today usually do the 20-20kHz phono stage thing. The results? Large improvements in the LP presentation, with only slightly different changes in the other 16.5 system stages. Heck, even the Technics SA-5770 does the phono stage better than the 16.5

All I know is that the phono stage of this 16.5 is not of the same performance capabilities, as it's other onboard stages. The problem has been isolated down to the 16.5 phono stage, after much effort to ID where the problem is located, about a half/year of serious scrutinizing.

The switching idea has been considered all along, after I'd pinpointed the area of performance weakness in the stereo system to the phono stage.

Perhaps it is not practical to modify the existing phono stage somewhat/somehow, to improve it as it stands. Perhaps Mr. Richard, being the designer, could offer up something brilliant, or obvious, to do there, hence the question directly to him, as it should be.

Perhaps the Tech who went over this 16.5 doesn't know squat, or is incompetent, or lazy (name it).......however, this is not likely, since he has a reputation that has been well-earned. Perhaps something has changed in the phono stage aliong the way, that drags attention to it's shortfalls when compared to Tape or CD, and even FM broadcast.

Whatever it is, the mojo that the rest of the 16.5 functions have, are not the same with the phono stage............and I do play albums, so it bugs me as it is.

Just calling them as I see them, that's all.

...and btw, NO AMOUNT OF CAPITOL LETTERS can change this, since I'm the one living with it.

I await(along with everyone else) for Mr. Richard's earnest response to the many questions about his designs, history, and efforts, and perspectives...a greatly anticipated event...

Hi Marko,

Thanks for the reply and your experimental and experiential information. It shows you've been hard on the trail of discovery with your 16.5. I also read through your phono post from August which helped me understand where you were going - I missed your post while I was on vacation.

If you do find the phono section lacking, I suspect it would be a big task to redesign it or sub another circuit since its integrated within the 16.5 chassis. However, it is isolated to one board and might benefit from some tweaking. If you review the schematic here from Njord:

http://sportsbil.com/concept/concept165schem.pdf

You and your tech can trace the phono input to the board and the discrete transistor op--amp phono configuration. I don't know the quality of the parts used but they were likely to be pretty good for the day. However, the parts are almost 30 years old so some parts substitution may be very revealing. One limitation though will be how much room you have to play with (tight boards usually in receivers) and whether radial or axial mount components.

First, be sure all the power supply voltages and system components on the power supply regulator board is working correctly, this provides the baseline power and headroom capability for the circuit.

The loading resistor may be changed to a slightly lower value to get more to the 47K ohm value the Grado specifies. The phono amp is spec'ed at 50K ohm with the current resistor in place. Your tech should caluculate the newer value.

The small value caps (xxxx pf) are likely either polystyrene or mica. New units, selected and matched with a good meter could form the beginning of a mod. The values used in the feedback loop form the RIAA curve so high accuracy and precision here are important. If they are ceramic caps, I would be cautious when substituting - they are sometimes used to shunt off high frequencies so as not to allow the amp stage to oscillate. As for the other parts, same would go for the resistors - some may consider going to new or different types of resistors too - many say they have definite sound characteristics - you'll have to check this out on your own as opinions are many.

The most likely culprits for affect of sound would be the coupling/DC blocking capacitors C301A, C309A and the same in the other channel. These are polar electrolytics and could be subbed with a high quality electrolytic (Black Gates?) or a good mylar/polyproplyene/ or other film cap IF they can fit. A bypass cap on the electrolytic would help too.
The other electrolytics should be replaced with new as they help to stabilize voltages to the transistors. Replacing transistors can be difficult because you want to get the same (available?) and match for gain and low noise.

I'm sure your tech already did so, but go over the phono selector switch and source selector switches with good cleaners to remove any contact issues. Some may also go so far as to retouch all solder joints from input jack to selector switch - cold joints can affect the sound, especially with low level signals. May even consider changing out the wiring too, depends on whether Concept used plugs/sockets or direct wire connections soldered to the next points.

After all the above, then you have to test again for specifcation adherence (that -/+ again) and then see if it sounds different or better. Maybe consider modding one channel first and comparing with a mono recording you know well.

I don't know what this would do to resale value of a modded unit would be but I suspect you will keep the 16.5 for a long time so that may be moot.

Echowars could probably help a lot in this area for advice. I'm not a circuit designer but do understand some. Also, consider doing each mod in stages and then check to see what audible effect it has. Being systematic as you have will be helpful to document what works and what doesn't (but maybe adds new component reliability).

Otherwise, likely get the Parasound phono section and the benefits of newer circuit design and componentry and leave the 16.5 phono section as is. Good Luck!

Regards,

Bart
 
I just don't understand the problem--my 16.5 has a very fine phono section. And I have several preamps with exceptional phono sections to compare against. The 16.5 matches the RIAA curve excellently.
I put it down to the differing effects of 30 years of use or nonuse, and also to the differences in our hearing and I'm 50-something and may have lost a bit of my "edge" (though I think I've got discerning hearing).
 
Thank you, Bart, for your thorough, thoughtful, response. This type of response is more in order of what one would expect from Mr. Richard himself. I still would like to know, from him, if it is possible to tweek(improve) the existing 16.5 phono stage, and if so, what would be his approach.

Resale value is not an issue with me here with Mods/NoMods. If I could get the existing 16.5 Phono stage up to the same perfomance levels as the other inputs, the 16.5, I would be very happy and shut up.

Thanks again for the helping hand.

be well

Marko
 
Njord Noatun said:
I am sure you have considered - and rejected for good reasons - this, but I run a simple RCA switch to separate my sources. Perhaps not elegant, but it works.
Your question about how to "mod" the 16.5 to improve its phono stage bandwith was one of the many on the "long list" I sent him about three weeks ago, and that he has promised he will get to in due course: It may be that your particular question is too technical, or requiring to much messing around contacting people he no longer works with, etc., or that this is impossible to do, but your question is there for him to consider: I ony passed your Concept/Parasound thread of yesterday as a "one-off" because I thought it might interest him.

Rgds,

Perhaps instead of an RCA switch(btw, which do you use?), use 1 of the 2 onboard phono inputs and turn it into another Line Level would be a more elegant solution, especially since there is no AUX channel on the 16.5....

What do ya think?

be well

Marko
 
Marko said:
btw, which do you use?
To me this is a non-issue: I have my CDP connected to TAPE-1 and an RCA switch to TAPE-2, to which I connect whatever other line-level appliances I need (currently iTunes enabled Airport and iPod - would like a Squeezebox, too!). The switch is attached to the front of my rack so that switching it is painless.

BTW, last I spoke to Richard he was intending to get to our questions whenever he could find time for it.
Rgds,
 
Thank you for your efforts, Njörðr Nóatún... :thmbsp:

Perhaps you can forward to Mr. Richard, the alternative idea of converting one of the Phono inputs available into a Line Level onboard the 16.5.....maybe that's an easier thing to do, or the better way to find an AUX ability solution, and then use a seperate Phono Stage, like he mentioned before...

be well

Marko
 
Hmmmm :scratch2: I didn't even notice that the 16.5 doesn't have an Aux. I only use one cassette deck per stereo system. Must have used the second tape for the cdplayer. I guess that is why Y-cables are made. :banana:
 
Concept 7.5D - photos posted.

I came across a Concept 7.5D today, and got some interior pictures of it, for AK record. This 75 wpc receiver features an analog tuner with a digital frequency display. Years of manufacture were 1980-85 with a $600 price tag. Measurements include dimensions of 19” x 5 ½” x 14" and a weight of 35 lbs.

Regards,
 

Attachments

  • 75d1.jpg
    75d1.jpg
    73.1 KB · Views: 94
  • 75d2.jpg
    75d2.jpg
    76.2 KB · Views: 84
  • 75d3.jpg
    75d3.jpg
    74.2 KB · Views: 303
  • 75d5.jpg
    75d5.jpg
    81.6 KB · Views: 59
  • 75d4.jpg
    75d4.jpg
    66 KB · Views: 80
Back
Top Bottom