Purpose of CF mod on Pre2?

[hawkinsec]

I thought that I'd start a new thread rather than make this a continuation of my thread in the Coffee Bar.
I've had my Pre2, Phono2 and PS2 for just over a week now. I'm quite happy with the performance of the Phono and although I understand that there are improvements which can be made, there is no desperate need to do so. The Pre2 is a different matter as the sound quality took a dive when it was connected up. There is no hum and gain is not a problem, but all detail,bass and treble are absent. I did wonder if it was my imagination or I something, so I gave it a few days, but decided to have a play this morning.As soon as I got up, I connected the phono2 directly to the power amp. Everything sounded fine. Same story when DAC connected. I started to think about modding the Pre as suggest elsewhere , but on re-reading comments on my own post and others, I get the impression that the purpose of the CF mod is to get rid of the transformers and the tendency to hum. Would this be a pointless mod in my case?

[bob orbell]

No, it would restore the sound to very good, the pre II is rubbish, of course, the CF has no gain at all, but what it does have is current gain and for the likes of a White CF this would have a very good PSRR, why dont you also consider the CF that Matthew does, he should sell you just the PCB and components if you ask, another alternative is John Broski's Aikido CF from GLASSWARE, I use one as dose Bikerhifinut, fantastic. what ever route you take, you will also have to mod the PSU, no worries there, we can advise. Bob

[hawkinsec]

Thank you, Bob. I'm sure that mine must be more grim than the norm. I'm even debating whether or not to get my Cambridge Audio A300 out of the loft to serve as a preamp.How would I get in touch with Matthew?

[John Caswell]

Bob wrote,
"the pre II is rubbish" pray explain

John

[hawkinsec]

John. Are the symptoms I describe possibly due to some failure (component or construction) of the preamp? I'm quite willing (and eager) to investigate.

[bob orbell]

Originally Posted by John Caswell

Bob wrote,
"the pre II is rubbish" pray explain

John

John, the very first products I had from WAD were, KAT6550, Phono II, PSU II and Pre II, the KAT was built first , second the Phono and then the PSU , last I built the Pre, previously I was using Musical Fidelity kit on substituting the MF Pre for the Pre II, the sound was thin, bass was very poor and there was hum, I tried different valves, capacitors etc but nothing made this thing sound any good, on returning the MF made everything sound good again, I joined the forum and found N Gibbons thread on conversion to CF, and I am not alone with my thoughts on this piece of junk, I have stayed with CF to the present day. Bob

[bob orbell]

Originally Posted by hawkinsec

Thank you, Bob. I'm sure that mine must be more grim than the norm. I'm even debating whether or not to get my Cambridge Audio A300 out of the loft to serve as a preamp.How would I get in touch with Matthew?

Matthew is the owner of WD and the forum, a very nice chap indeed, go to the bottom of the page on the right and click CONTACT US or visit WORLD-DESIGNS, leave an email or give Matthew a ring, he likes a natter . Bob

[pre65]

Originally Posted by bob orbell

John, the very first products I had from WAD were, KAT6550, Phono II, PSU II and Pre II, the KAT was built first , second the Phono and then the PSU , last I built the Pre, previously I was using Musical Fidelity kit on substituting the MF Pre for the Pre II, the sound was thin, bass was very poor and there was hum, I tried different valves, capacitors etc but nothing made this thing sound any good, on returning the MF made everything sound good again, I joined the forum and found N Gibbons thread on conversion to CF, and I am not alone with my thoughts on this piece of junk, I have stayed with CF to the present day. Bob

Bob, I wish you would stop this fixation on rubbishing things that YOU do not like. An honest opinion is one thing, but there are ways to express things without being (almost) offensive.

You had similar experiences (from memory) with a Garrard 401 some time ago, and we all know what a good bit of kit that can be.

So, it's not wrong to say that you don't like something, but just be careful how you say it.


*

[Greg.]

In my experience, the Pre 2 was a competent performer sounding very similar to the Pre 3. I did not find the sound of Pre 2 thin or bass light. There were just two problems with it. The amount of gain was too much (fixable) for some systems and it was sensitive to placement in close proximity to other components which brought other transformers close resulting in hum. Keep those units, such as the Pre 2 and a power amp away from each other (suggested distance was 1 metre) and it performed very adequately. For many, me included, it was not practical to distance components, so an alternative had to be found. Initially I converted mine to a passive pre (at the time, WAD supplied a passive version) which got rid of both the hum and the gain. It sacrificed the drive and sparkle the Pre 2 had. Converting then to cathode follower Pre 2, brought back the drive and sparkle but without any gain. It was for many, a great solution.

Regarding Eddie’s original post, I suggest there is something amiss with the Pre 2 or how it is integrated with the rest of the system. It shouldn’t sound as Eddie has described. Eddie, please remind us what power amp you are using.

[John Caswell]

Thanks Phil for beating me to the draw.
Lately there seems to be a drift towards slagging stuff off you personally do not like in somewhat rude terms, and the language is becoming ripe to whit Mr Orbells "Oh ****" heading.
If you cannot say things in sensible English don't say it at all.
I do not like censorship per se but if you cannot adhere to common sense and the rules .......
Although people seem to think the moderators are not watching - we are, so be prepared for the consequences.

John