World-Designs-Forum  

Go Back   World-Designs-Forum > World Designs > WD Amplifiers
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Gallery Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

WD Amplifiers For discusson of World Designs Amplifiers

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 24th April 2013, 11:38 AM
david david is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 360
Default Pre 3 compared to Pre 2

Hi All,
I have my old Pre 2 with cathode follower mod back for a comparison with my Pre 3. In comparison to the Pre 2 my Pre 3 sounds a little bit light in the bass. I don't have the circuit to hand, and so can't quite see what might be causing any lightness in the bass.

Both have shunt pot mods, and the valves and all other parts in the Pre 3 are all in good order.

Any suggestions anyone? Of course, it could simply be that the Pre 2 is a little bass heavy but I have to say I prefer a bit more bass weight rather than less....
David
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 24th April 2013, 04:41 PM
bob orbell bob orbell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: kettering northants.
Posts: 2,731
Default Re: Pre 3 compared to Pre 2

Hi David, I still use a CF pre, (in a pre III case) because I found the pre III a tad bright, base light it was not, it was the pre II that was very base light, I would go as far as to say the pre II was thin. Did you build it yourself ? is your power supply correct ? is the connecting cord correct ? you may have something wrong there. I know JC is going to chew my ear again for saying this, but the HT may be the wrong way round, unbilical cord connection reversed, I have seen this, and it did not pop the capacitor. BOB
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 24th April 2013, 04:56 PM
david david is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 360
Default Re: Pre 3 compared to Pre 2

Firstly, Pre 2. Mine was thin until I fitted a wonderful Mullard valve which gave a rich and thunderous sound.

My Pre 3 has Black Gate N series cathode bypass caps, Mundorf silver /gold couplers, and Shinkoh resistors. It all measured to spec on construction.
David
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 25th April 2013, 05:47 PM
david david is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 360
Default Re: Pre 3 compared to Pre 2

I think it's sorted. Seemed to be a partial short on one of the output txs. I guess it pulled down the HT on both channels, because the bass is stronger now-and the equal of the Pre 2 with Mullard. Incidentally, I would never describe my Pre 3 as bright: it is pretty neutral over the spectrum, apart from this lightness I noticed (mainly in comparing it to the Pre 2)
David
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 25th April 2013, 07:31 PM
John Caswell John Caswell is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wokingham, Berkshire
Posts: 1,780
Default Re: Pre 3 compared to Pre 2

Hi David,
One thing Pre 2 suffered from was electromagnetic hum pickup from adjacent transformers so you will need to keep it well away from those sources. "Banding" the coils in copper foil helped but did not eliminate it. Pre 3 was much much better in this and other respects.

John
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 26th April 2013, 12:27 AM
Greg.'s Avatar
Greg. Greg. is offline
WD Archivist
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 3,582
Default Re: Pre 3 compared to Pre 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Caswell View Post
Hi David,
One thing Pre 2 suffered from was electromagnetic hum pickup from adjacent transformers so you will need to keep it well away from those sources. "Banding" the coils in copper foil helped but did not eliminate it. Pre 3 was much much better in this and other respects.

John
John, David has already said his Pre II was converted to cathode follower, just like mine. Your comment therefore is invalid.

I have no doubt Pre 3 is a great Pre amp. I suspect it is not the best option for David's WAD 300B PP Clone and his Pre 2 cathode follower conversion is the very best option for him. It certainly is the best for me in similar circumstances.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 26th April 2013, 09:06 AM
John Caswell John Caswell is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wokingham, Berkshire
Posts: 1,780
Default Re: Pre 3 compared to Pre 2

Greg wrote
"John, David has already said his Pre II was converted to cathode follower, just like mine. Your comment therefore is invalid."
Errrrrrrr no, my comments were made about the Pre2, as David's has been converted to a cathode follower (ie like a KLP1) it doesn't really apply, but is certainly not invalid.
And if you want to be really pedantic the cathode follower is certainly not an amplifier, it is a loss making circuit and all pretty well all the passive volume control/transformer boxes don't amplify, so therefore should not be called pre-amplifiers, although I admit that some of the passive devices have step up type outputs so could be called amplifiers in the loosest sense.

John
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 26th April 2013, 12:34 PM
pre65's Avatar
pre65 pre65 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ashen- Essex/Suffolk bord
Posts: 4,538
Default Re: Pre 3 compared to Pre 2

As I understand things a pre2 cathode follower is more a buffer for impedance matching.
__________________
Philip.

Everything in this post is my honest opinion based on what i thought I knew at that very moment in time.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 26th April 2013, 01:10 PM
david david is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 360
Default Re: Pre 3 compared to Pre 2

Hi All, my Pre 2 is converted to cathode follower so hum free and yes cathode followers are essentially buffers for impedance matching. It's another topic but the Pre 3 re-design simply underlines the flawed nature of the original hum-loving Pre 2 design. Yes you could of course site the Pre 2 a long way from anything else but that type of solution helps relegate our hobby to a shed or hobby room status rather than creating a decent system for the lounge, which is why many opted for the cathode follower mod.

I'm still perplexed by the apparent better performance of the Pre 2 cathode follower compared to the Pre 3.

Lines of investigation to follow are:

1. Is there some other small fault with my Pre 3 that is reducing richness/bass response?

2. Does the Pre 2 cathode follower have a frequency response uplift in the lower registers?

3. Could the resistor /pot combo have such an effect on frequency response? I am currently using Shinkoh /Alps Blue?

Any views anyone?

Last edited by david; 26th April 2013 at 01:48 PM. Reason: add info
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright World Designs