guiller
Toscaninichus Australis
Yes, that is a small price to pay when going up in the ladder for gear: the better it gets, the more you start realizing the shortcomings of the recordings themselves!
Clearaudio Nano has landed in Australia!
- Thread starter davidro
- Start date
Yes, that is a small price to pay when going up in the ladder for gear: the better it gets, the more you start realizing the shortcomings of the recordings themselves!
davidro
Lunatic Member
What a pair of interconnects can achieve
When it comes to cables and interconnects, I'm a skeptic. Perhaps almost a non-believer. But that doesn't mean I'm closed to experiments. As you can see in the below photo, a pair of generic, thin and plain RCA interconnects were plugged into the output of the Nano:
If I didn't have a pair of QED Performance Audio, perhaps I'd have stopped here. But, heck, there was a pair connecting my Marantz CD5003 to its brother Marantz PM5003.
Since I kept it with no particular reasons other than its sexier look, I thought I might try it with the Nano. I can't tell too much difference between a decent CD player such as my Marantz CD5003 and a Toshiba DVD player that I keep with my main rig. But when it comes to vinyl things I'm all ears - weird.
So I thought some improvement can perhaps be made, even on a psychological level.
Whoa, I feel as if I'm finally treating the Nano with some respect! The sound is just better in every aspect. Wider stage (the first thing that comes to my mind), more subtle details, tighter bass, more definition to the high and more air to the mid. What I considered to be a worn out DG record (Tchaikovsky Symphony No 6 - Mravinsky whipping Leningrad Phil. Orch) is given about 20% more life. Another DG record (Mahler Symphony No. 5 - Kubelik conducting Symphonie-Orchester Des Bayerischen Rundfunks) is now endowed a bit of live concert hall acoustic treatment!
I almost feel as if Clearaudio wasn't being a tight-ass when they didn't throw a pair of generic interconnects in the Nano package after all. It's like presenting a decent turntable without a cartridge in recognition of its importance. It's really worthwhile to invest a little in the interconnects if you're about to buy a Nano!
When it comes to cables and interconnects, I'm a skeptic. Perhaps almost a non-believer. But that doesn't mean I'm closed to experiments. As you can see in the below photo, a pair of generic, thin and plain RCA interconnects were plugged into the output of the Nano:
If I didn't have a pair of QED Performance Audio, perhaps I'd have stopped here. But, heck, there was a pair connecting my Marantz CD5003 to its brother Marantz PM5003.
Since I kept it with no particular reasons other than its sexier look, I thought I might try it with the Nano. I can't tell too much difference between a decent CD player such as my Marantz CD5003 and a Toshiba DVD player that I keep with my main rig. But when it comes to vinyl things I'm all ears - weird.
So I thought some improvement can perhaps be made, even on a psychological level.
Whoa, I feel as if I'm finally treating the Nano with some respect! The sound is just better in every aspect. Wider stage (the first thing that comes to my mind), more subtle details, tighter bass, more definition to the high and more air to the mid. What I considered to be a worn out DG record (Tchaikovsky Symphony No 6 - Mravinsky whipping Leningrad Phil. Orch) is given about 20% more life. Another DG record (Mahler Symphony No. 5 - Kubelik conducting Symphonie-Orchester Des Bayerischen Rundfunks) is now endowed a bit of live concert hall acoustic treatment!
I almost feel as if Clearaudio wasn't being a tight-ass when they didn't throw a pair of generic interconnects in the Nano package after all. It's like presenting a decent turntable without a cartridge in recognition of its importance. It's really worthwhile to invest a little in the interconnects if you're about to buy a Nano!
Last edited:
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
Hmm, is that aimed at me?
I for one appreciate that you're doing this. I know it takes a lot of time and effort, but it's fun, and we like to see and hear this sort of stuff, obviously.Man, is that ever true.
OK, I want to comment on this. I'm what I guess you'd call a cable "believer," based on experience. Had I noticed that you were using generic spaghetti cables from turntable to Nano I would have strongly advised you to correct that issue ASAP. Skeptic or not, non-believer or not, I don't think anyone will deny that the link from cartridge to phono preamp is a critical one given the size and "delicacy" of the signal at that point. Your interconnects here really need to be shielded, and they should be of the highest quality you're willing to buy, seriously. Now you know, of course, this was an important lesson. Don't skimp on cables in a turntable setup!!!
Those actually look pretty nice, but FYI other AKer's seem to be fond of the Petra cables, which I think are actually intended for video, and are therefore heavily shielded, as well as fairly inexpensive. Not sure if the shipping costs would be worth it to you. As I said in my thread, I've compared everything from $40/meter cables to ones that retail at over $800/meter (!!!), and the very best were Grover Huffman's phono SC cable, which uses silver and copper ribbons, and a bunch of other stuff I don't entirely understand. At around $200 per meter I don't at all expect you to be willing to buy them, but I wanted you to know in case you ever change your mind, or have a friend with such a budget looking for perfection. Yes I know, that's a crazy amount of money to spend on cables for most people, but to me it's worth it.
Last edited:
Good evening all (yes it's been another busy and tiring day here), the 'interconnect' issue is interesting from a technical viewpoint.
Assuming both sets of interconnects had clean plugs and no 'contact' issues (an underestimated possibility imho), the only other likely real issue of importance is capactive loading on the output of the 'nano'.
I presume that the cables were connected on the output side of the phono stage, and cheaper interconnects are notorious for high levels of inherent cable capacitance, based on measurements I've done myself.
Once again, the issue of capacitance loading on op amp outputs can be a problem unless proper 'isolation' methods are used (resistors etc). If the improvement is that great with these assumed lower capacitance interconnects, it really makes me wonder about the possibility of capacitance loading issues.
David do you have any technical information on the design details of that phono stage? Interesting all the same. It's a very nice phono stage by all accounts and the reviews I've read. Regards, Felix aka catman.
Assuming both sets of interconnects had clean plugs and no 'contact' issues (an underestimated possibility imho), the only other likely real issue of importance is capactive loading on the output of the 'nano'.
I presume that the cables were connected on the output side of the phono stage, and cheaper interconnects are notorious for high levels of inherent cable capacitance, based on measurements I've done myself.
Once again, the issue of capacitance loading on op amp outputs can be a problem unless proper 'isolation' methods are used (resistors etc). If the improvement is that great with these assumed lower capacitance interconnects, it really makes me wonder about the possibility of capacitance loading issues.
David do you have any technical information on the design details of that phono stage? Interesting all the same. It's a very nice phono stage by all accounts and the reviews I've read. Regards, Felix aka catman.
Last edited:
guiller
Toscaninichus Australis
I agree, I put the best interconnects I could afford (Van den Hul) on mine and the combined gear sounds great!
davidro
Lunatic Member
Hmm, is that aimed at me?
Lol, I think I'm pretty unusual in doing this. It takes time and effort but it's good fun. Part of this hobby, in my case.
Whilst I said as if using this pair of interconnects was something of impromptu idea, I've intentionally used the generic one in the initial stage for comparative studies. And I suspected the cable would probably matter with this setup as I agree that the signal of an LOMC setup is delicate and requires all sorts of cares.
I'm not however unclear whether it really is scientifically true that the signal really is all that delicate, especially the output signal from the amp. I was kinda skeptical in this respect however using a better pair of interconnects did make difference to my rather unbelieving ears.
I'm aware AKers like that Petra cable. At this stage I'm content with the QED. If I ever upgrade to a more expensive phono preamp I might consider another pair of interconnects!
I wholeheartedly agree with you Felix. I have so far found no meaningful difference between different cables especially in digital or MM cartridge setups.
I'm not clear about scientific evidence, however, with LOMC setups my impression has been that the signal is very delicate and susceptible to external frequencies/signals. With this Nano adventure I've become further convinced of my impression. But I'm not entirely dismissive of the possibility that it could be a placebo effect.
FYI, I always make sure that I clean the contacts with what I understand to be your recent favourite chemical, Caig DeOxit, be it generic interconnects or otherwise. So you can rule out the contact issue. BTW, I agree that issue is greatly underestimated.
It's interesting that your study revealed that the generic cables were 'notorious for high levels of inherent cable capacitance'. Perhaps that might have something to do with the improvement. But I feel that the improvement wasn't caused solely by impedance variances. The difference was somewhat greater than what is achieved by switching the impedance loading from 47k to 51.
Now that's an excellent pair of phono cables to use! When I ever upgrade to a more expensive phono preamp I'll certainly consider getting what you're using myself :thmbsp:
davidro
Lunatic Member
I suspect nobody really downloads the sample music files here. I've also posted them elsewhere and the result is, surprisingly, that the Nad is the most favoured of them by 2 votes (out of 2) so far.
Whilst it does disappoint me a little I am also glad in a way that this Nad 3120 really is a little star performer. I'd have thought its MC phono stage can't be all that good considering its age and humble origin. But it wasn't just the MM phono stage that this amp's phono fame was limited to! I really must not sell it off!
Just as with my previous blind test with Nad and Marantz, it may be that the Nad is more music to ear as the Nano is more precise, neutral & unobtrusive.
Anyway, here's the music sample for the 'aged' Nano on 402 ohms coupled with a pair of QED interconnects rather than the generic one (download).
And the matching graph:
Whilst it does disappoint me a little I am also glad in a way that this Nad 3120 really is a little star performer. I'd have thought its MC phono stage can't be all that good considering its age and humble origin. But it wasn't just the MM phono stage that this amp's phono fame was limited to! I really must not sell it off!
Just as with my previous blind test with Nad and Marantz, it may be that the Nad is more music to ear as the Nano is more precise, neutral & unobtrusive.
Anyway, here's the music sample for the 'aged' Nano on 402 ohms coupled with a pair of QED interconnects rather than the generic one (download).
And the matching graph:
davidro; Could you explain what those graphs mean to a guy like me who has no idea what they mean? Reason I ask is because I'll be picking up a nano in the not to distant future and I'm very interested in learning what these graphs are showing.
guiller
Toscaninichus Australis
If I am not mistaken, this graphs are similar to those of Audacity: they display, for both channels (L and R are red and green or just the reverse), the intensity of the sound signal (i.e., "volume" or "loudness") on the vertical axis versus time on the horizontal axis. David, please correct me if I am mistaken!
davidro
Lunatic Member
As far as I understand guller is correct. Actually when I did my little blind test involving phono stages of my Nad and Marantz an AK member compared the respective waveforms and observed as follows:
According to him, where the waveforms are 'flatter' these very granular and tiny waves are 'smoothed over' entirely. He interpreted as follows:
Therefore, the output of the Marantz in my test was 'providing a more complete recreation of the source material. This may not be "warm" and "natural" but it's closer to reality'.
The graphs shown in the present thread may be a little too small for a more detailed examination. However it's interesting they do look quite different from each other. This perhaps indicates there is certainly some difference between different amps and impedance settings.
With my graphs, my rough reading is that the Nad graph again shows flatter slopes, meaning its output may be what is often descried as 'warm, valve-like' sound that may be more pleasing whilst the Nano outputs are more precise and closer to 'natural sound'.
So far 2 people, who are musically trained however not into audio stuff, have responded they preferred the Nad sound (good on you little performer!) which may confirm that the Nad sound can be more pleasing to most ears for reasons stated above. I know the response number is extremely limited as to justify any conclusion but heck I've tried to obtain more responses
Of course, waveform graphs do not represent every aspect of sound and this shouldn't be the sole determining factor in deciding what is the better sound. However it's better than nothing. If not better than nothing, it's at least interesting!
I might be on a completely wrong track myself. I am not educated/trained in this field. And that's precisely why I posted these graphs in the hope of obtaining some wisdom from other AK members. Come on guys please edify us!
chris8519
Golden Ears; Tin Budget.
David:
I too found the Nano to be more 'analytical' and detailed. This is the sound I prefer, and believe the Nano to have a little bit more 'bite' in the timbre of the strings.
The Nad is warm, but I thoroughly dislike the 'warm' sound; I consider it 'blurry'.
I would say you made a wise purchased, if only for the better accuracy and low-level retrieval of detail. This makes all the difference.
And what cart/TT are you using? They sound absolutely WONDERFUL! The accuracy/ SNR is astounding. And here I was, thinking a 1200 and AT440 was about as good as is needed!
I too found the Nano to be more 'analytical' and detailed. This is the sound I prefer, and believe the Nano to have a little bit more 'bite' in the timbre of the strings.
The Nad is warm, but I thoroughly dislike the 'warm' sound; I consider it 'blurry'.
I would say you made a wise purchased, if only for the better accuracy and low-level retrieval of detail. This makes all the difference.
And what cart/TT are you using? They sound absolutely WONDERFUL! The accuracy/ SNR is astounding. And here I was, thinking a 1200 and AT440 was about as good as is needed!
davidro
Lunatic Member
Thank you for your kind words Chris. I am liking the Nano more and more really. I am using Ortofon Supreme MC-10 clipped to Yamaha GT-750. You'll find the details in my initial post on this thread.
I've only recently obtained these gears and the Nano completes my vinyl playback improvement project this year. And what a way to complete it! I'm currently listening to the same music (the first 3 mins of the 4th movement) right from the first movement again. It's been an amazing improvement from my former analogue rig.
Thanks for your explanation davidro.
I'm really hoping that the nano is a noticable upgrade over my Echowars rebuilt Marantz 3600 preamp. The 3600 has a very nice sounding phono section and I don't think it's going to be an easy feat for the nano to best it. I do have my hopes up though for the nano in being a great match with my ca cart and tt.
I'm really hoping that the nano is a noticable upgrade over my Echowars rebuilt Marantz 3600 preamp. The 3600 has a very nice sounding phono section and I don't think it's going to be an easy feat for the nano to best it. I do have my hopes up though for the nano in being a great match with my ca cart and tt.
davidro
Lunatic Member
That Marantz sounds like a great performer already. But since you have a CA cart + tt anyway, may I venture to say you're obliged to get a Nano at least?
And do show us pics of your analogue rig, if possible. I'd love to see a CA cart clipped to a CA tt!
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
That Marantz sounds like a great performer already. But since you have a CA cart + tt anyway, may I venture to say you're obliged to get a Nano at least?
And do show us pics of your analogue rig, if possible. I'd love to see a CA cart clipped to a CA tt!
Did you happen to look at the next level up in their phono preamp lineup? Comes with a power supply in a separate chassis, beautiful finish (like the Nano but bigger), and quite expensive.
IMO the phono preamp you use is second in importance only to the cartridge in an analog setup. So, you've done well in your project.
davidro
Lunatic Member
No I didn't. I didn't have the heart to steal a look and drool like a teenage monkey. A separate PSU is always a bonus. But I guess the price tag goes accordingly. Nano's been a big bill for me already.
That Marantz sounds like a great performer already. But since you have a CA cart + tt anyway, may I venture to say you're obliged to get a Nano at least?
And do show us pics of your analogue rig, if possible. I'd love to see a CA cart clipped to a CA tt!
Yes I think the Marantz has a very nice sounding phono section. It did easily best a Rotel bx870 outboard. I hadn't really thought much of going outboard till this nano became available. Like you said I almost felt obliged to pick up the nano to make it a complete CA analog rig.
I'll make sure and post pics of my all CA vinyl rig once the nano gets here.
davidro
Lunatic Member
You can justifiably expect a lot. What might worry me is that you might perhaps have a weak spot for the 'vintage/warmish sound' and I think the Nano's just not that.
By the way, I don't think being 'vintage' necessarily equals to warmish/imprecise sound when it comes to turntables though. My vintage Yamaha GT-750 definitely is not (perhaps more precise than most modern decks if you consider the specs).
I've got a Chandos label record (string serenades) spinning right now and this is pretty amazing. I assumed this recording was of course a digital recording as it sounded digital-precise this evening (most of my Chandos vinyl are digital recordings), except for the Ortofon's luscious 'vinyl' voice. Now that I've just approached to check it out, it was actually a good old analogue recording!
My nano came in today. WOW what a difference! The nano was definately the missing link in my vinyl set up. The marantz I thought had a very nice sounding phono section but the nano is better in every single way. I used to use the tone controls on the preamp and a litte help also from a dynamic expander. I have no need for these tweaks now and I've had to turn back the bass just a bit on my sub. I've only played a couple of albums and still have a little tweaking to do. It does seem to be more precise but I still have the vintage warmth of the marantz. Win win situation for sure.
guiller
Toscaninichus Australis
:tresbon: I´m happy for you, since I´ve felt in a similar way I bought mine.