Bgw amp plus eq for free!

[RMC]

The Allen & Heath Z-14 mixer was chosen. Simply because of its better quality construction than similar ones and that size fits my requirements. Only a little more expensive than a somewhat comparable Soundcraft EPM 12 for example. I went for manufacturing quality first instead of ideal functions. I also considered the purchase of the larger Z-18 but its simply more of the exact same thing, no real need for this, plus I still have Mackie to use as sub-mixer if need be. If the Z-18 had different useful or better features I would have purchased it. The Soundcraft MPMi 12-2 is a serious contender, thought I had found one but the retailer's Web page was not truthful, the mixer was discontinued, while retailer said it could be ordered...

With regards to on-board effects, no real need for that at this time, since I still have a fine working Alesis reverb/delay/etc. unit, and I like the fact it has the settings written right on the front panel with the knobs : easy access, simple and fast to make any modification. 256 programs sound more than enough for me now.

Newer effects devices often require to enter and navigate menus, scroll down, select a setting, and exit, etc. which I tend to see as a hassle, taking more time when trying different settings on the go or even to make a small change to the sound. For these same reasons I stayed away from digital mixers, more so when they're usually much more expensive (e.g. QSC Touchmix-8, 8 channels, about double what I paid for Z-14).

Analog mixers are getting more out of fashion with the Pros, as I was told by a quite surprised Senior audio sales/integration rep seeing me requesting an analog one. Well, I'm not in the fashion business, and don't choose audio equipment on the basis of it being a hit with the crowd, it has to meet my own criteria. If others prefer the more trendy digital units, great I respect their choice. Mine is analog for the time being even if they take more space than comparable digital ones, probably caused by repeated hardware for every channel and more vs virtual stuff on screen. For me, everything is right where I need/like it: at my finger tip, no menus navigation, scroll, etc. Btw another fellow working there, younger guy, surprisingly agreed with me! So, that makes us at least two from different generations...

The Z-14 mixer has genuine Neutrik connectors and 100 mm Alps faders instead of cheap imitations, individual circuit board on each channel like more expensive units have, easier to pull-out and service than one large circuit board in case of problem, nicer potentiometer knobs and the pots are nutted to the top panel for sturdiness. Nice fader and pot feel too.

On the other hand, that mixer remains a compromise on some features. Not as flexible mixing board as I would have liked. e.g. No dedicated 1/4" connectors for stereo aux return(s), one must use the stereo channel(s) for this purpose, like too many other mixers these days... It does have four aux sends on 1/4" outputs, but only a single stereo return input on RCAs!! That logic is beyond me on Pro gear. Alt Out (alternate output) is also on RCA connectors!, another one where they dropped the ball. So two pairs of RCA that should have been 1/4" connectors for flexibility... Like good old Greg Mackie taught us. If one requires more RCAs then the adapter RCA to 1/4" is so simple, low cost and more robust than the other way around...

As for Record Out and Two-Track return on RCA connectors its pretty standard in this mixer category and does make sense for project studios. The mixer's USB features can also be useful to record music to a hard disk.

With regards to the latter two RCA out/in, I still have in the rack a relatively expensive cassette deck with 3-head, Dolby S noise reduction (S/N ratio 84 db), HX Pro, extended response, tape calibration, etc. that could use these connectors (or as a CD player input). Better yet, I also have two MD digital recorders (Sony's Mini Disk format), one in the rack, the other a pricey portable unit Made in Japan!

Richard

[RMC]

I opened some of my new gear boxes to get actual serial numbers for online warranty registrations. On the other hand, I'm still far from installing all the new gear, more so when waiting for a new rack ordered.

Though some have a serial number sticker on the outside of the box, the DBX EQ box contains a clear mention, at the beginning of the manual, to verify the serial number on box sticker VS the actual such number on the unit for discrepancies. I guess that type of problem occured in the past and would mean hassles to get warranty service if you registered # 12345 (box sticker) instead of # 54321 (on the unit) for e.g.

At the same time, I looked at box content (six out of ten done), two amps, mixer and CD player to follow. While being there I took some pictures to be posted, plus have seen a few interesting things. I haven't removed all packaging material yet, these units still being stored temporarily. Box protection is best.

In the Ashly crossover box there's a little surprise: two brand new AC power cord models, one for Canada (like the US) and another one which may be for Europe. First time I get two different ones in the same audio gear box. Manual says unit is good for 100-240V, 50-60hz, this explains why they put two cords in the box??

However, manufacturers usually throw in the box the AC cord type for the country where it is shipped, saving the cost of giving a useless second one. The connector on the left of the picture with two round pins seems familiar (for Europe), but it also has a small metal plate with a hole in the middle of it, never seen that aspect before, for some ground pin? Could be newer European connector type not familiar with?

If anyone knows please confirm that it is for these countries or not. The connector on the right side of picture I keep to power the device. If the one on the left is in fact a newer European type of plug as I suspect, I will probably never use that, therefore it may be available for free, let me know If interested, otherwise recycling? Seems like nice quality, equipment side connector rated 250V/10 amps and AC side connector rated 250V/16 amps. No indication of an AWG wire size (looks 16-18 gauge outside), but I do see on the cable 1.0 mm^2 which may be the European equivalent of AWG... BTW the manual doesn't talk about two AC cord options.

More will follow soon with the gear pics mentioned above. Regards,

Richard

P.S. RE shipping: If, for example, a cable like this costs 10 Euros in Europe but it costs only the equivalent of 5 Euros to ship it there, then its a good deal.

The Euro is worth about 50% more than the Canadian dollar. Today my bank purchases Euros at 1.46 CAD, but sells them at 1.57 CAD, high margin! Local currency exchange office may do better. This would mean in practice close to 50% discount on shipping cost to Europe, which should be low since its a small and light package (my packaging is free).

[RMC]

(Pic numbers for me only to match text with pictures as I write these notes in Wordpad then transfert them to LH and selected pic numbers are not in order). As mentioned earlier I didn't unpack everything yet since the gear is still stored for now.

First, a quick mention about the Rolls Sonic Exciter XLR/RCA (picture posted previously). When noting the unit's serial number I took a minute to try its silicone damped potentiometers. Nice rubberish feel from the knobs and the silicone damping of the pots does offer some constant resistance to turning either way. Since the effect sought from such a device would logically be increased or decreased a little at the time, listening, then adjusting in small increment(s) further as required, the amount of resistance from damping seems to make sense to me. Haven't plugged it in yet in the hi-fi setup.

Pics # 270, 294

Ashly crossover, 24 db/oct., has almost everything one can wish for (except delay, I have it on the Ranes AC 22), but includes a Variable Filter Response Control (3rd knob from left: "Response") which varies the filters' response shape at the crossover point (high and low pass). One can choose from different types, like Butterworth, Linkwitz-Riley or notch filter at the crossover frequency. Should be interesting to compare.

Richard

[RMC]

Pic # 274

DBX EQ, in a way I went for "Only the best components were utilized, ..." , in addition to its specs/features. I tend to prefer quality made things that will last a long time. The genuine Neutrik XLR connectors, some with locks, on the back panel look like a good start. The switchable 40 hz/18 db/oct. Bessel high-pass filter is different than many set at 20 hz (e.g. Ashly X-over), but this one can be of some help for certain applications, like smaller box and woofer in approximate B6 alignment, though Bessel filter has more droop in the passband than Butterworth, therefore would require a little more EQ work. The steeper 18 db low-cut vs usual 12 db used for B6 alignments, may be a bonus in the use of a smaller woofer protecting further from overexcursion.

The price reduction on-going in the US for a while on this unit (DBX site) doesn't apply to Canada though... Owner Manual pretty skinny on info given vs some older EQs, plus no data on filter Q and on center frequency tolerance. I see the latter as an indirect way to assess equalizer quality. Standard Pro EQs are often at 5% or so tolerance, better made ones at 3%. My older EQs: Rane GE 14 is at 3% max., Audio Logic SC215i (i or series II) is at 2%! Haven't seen one yet matching this 2% or closer tolerance. The AL has nice quality build with good features, such as variable 20-200 hz, 12 db/oct., Bessel high-pass filter, also variable 12 db/oct. Bessel low-pass filter 3.5k-22 khz. Gives more flexibility, something I like in audio equipment. Hope it lasts forever.

Richard

[RMC]

Pics # 279, 288, 282, 283

The AT 2035 studio mic response curve was not really visible in the group mic picture for comparison so I shot that specs page curve alone.

I was looking for a reasonably good but affordable larger diaphragm studio mic with acceptably flat response, since I already have a few vocal mics with tailored response curves for such use.

The best seller lower cost AT 2020, didn't have as flat LF response as sought plus is just a bit short on top end. So I went with the next step up AT 2035. Reasonably flat except for the small rise around 14 khz which can be corrected with EQ if need be, received good comments about this unit.

Others I looked at. The AT 2050 multi-pattern mic may have been interesting, but it didn't appear to shine in any of the three patterns: more like a jack of all trade master of none type of mic. Also considered AKG's P series mics. They seemed well made but a few things bugged and the comments I got on two models were more average than nice. RE the Rode NT1A kit, initially I thought it was an NT1 mic (nice) with the "A" identifying the kit with cable and pop screen, since both mics look pretty much the same. No real need for the cable but the screen would be ok. Upon looking more closely I realized its an NT1A mic in the kit, not NT1. The NT1A didn't have as nice response, and the NT1 is more expensive... Rode NT1A kit and CAD GXL 2200SP kit are about the same price.

The large diaphragm CAD GXL 2200 also has acceptably flat response (VLF not as good as the AT) but it has a higher response peak around 12 khz which may probably require some EQ downwards... That mic kit btw was sort of a bonus kicked in last, since I had some budget left considering the prices I got on the rest.

The smaller CAD GXL 1200 makes good impression in this short comparison, it didn't really surprise me since I purchased 2 years ago two of the exact same mic, and I didn't mind at all getting a third one in this CAD kit. This instrument mic has a pretty flat response, save extreme highs and lows, and represents good value (performance/price ratio). All the above subject to hearing the sound of the two larger studio ones later.

That GXL 1200 in the studio mic kit didn't come with a windscreen in the box, as my two others did, but no big deal as I have similar windscreens from other comparable mics.

Richard

[RMC]

Pic # 286

The Pop Filters for the larger studio mics. The left one came in the CAD mic kit and has the usual nylon screen whereas the right one, purchased separately, has a metal screen. My initial choice was a nylon model however the one I was looking for was sold out, they offered me instead the little more expensive metal one for the same price. I can't really say at this point if its as effective (maybe better?), but if not then an easy fix will be to add a piece of nylon from a stocking over the metal screen. Another thing to do, pop tests of nylon vs metal...

Richard

P.S. More later about the remaining gear (amps, mixer, CD player)

[RMC]

The latest equipment news.

I picked up two days ago from repair my overheating, even at idle, QSC 1100 amp after a month at the shop due to X-Mas holidays and part ordered. While discussing some other things I plugged and turned on the amp for a half-hour at the shop, nothing connected to it, and now no more hot heat sinks. Good start! Five parts replaced: capacitors and driver transistors, four they had on-hand the fifth one ordered. Cost ($198.+ tx) is a little less than the estimate I approved, so another good news. Haven't tested it yet in the sound system setup.

The tech who did the work isn't the one I initially talked to since busy fixing something else, but the guys I know told me its even better this way, if someone is to find the problem its that meticulous other fellow, because he's the fully committed type that won't stop until its right, which I tend to like, more so below budget, considering he wants to succeed, period. That dedication is great, and he'll likely see me again.

At the same time I picked up the new small rack I had ordered a month ago to complement my taller one: Lowell, LDTR-718, 7 RU desktop rack. Its BIG for a seven rack spaces and weighs a lot too. Even the cardboard box gives a hint of the rack's own dimensions: 23" W X 18.2" D X 17" H. Built like a tank in good ole usa, with side vents (e.g. good for amps), and no cheap particle board construction just thick steel to last forever. As mentioned previously, I need to make a base under that rack to lift it so that with the new Allen & Heath Z-14 mixer on top of rack, things end up at about waist height. More work, plus another (larger) box in the wife's way for which I'll certainly get some heat sooner than later...

Richard

P.S. A post should follow shortly here regarding some news about the replacement of my almost new AT LP120 turntable with a tonearm precision issue mentioned in a recent thread, as well as concerning the Rolls RA 200 Mosfet amp...

[RMC]

I raised recently in another thread an issue I have with the AT LP120 turntable. The tonearm's precision when being balanced isn't that good in my view, more specifically for low tracking force cartridges. I know this is more a DJ type turntable than a High-Fi one, but still for the money requested here I think one could have expected a better performing tonearm than what it is in reality. My older Technics SLQ2 was clearly better in this regard.

The tonearm appears to have more friction than it should, I assume cheap gimbals or bearings were used on this one. Though not stated, it could be more appropriate for heavier tracking force cartridges in the 3-5 gr. or so range, however it came with the AT95E cartridge rated at 1.5-2.5 gr. ( 2.0 gr. recommended) which seems optimistic in view of tonearm. A heavier tracking DJ type would seem more appropriate to me.

With lighter tracking cartridges such as AT 408EP, Shure M95ED and V15 type IV I have, among others, working in the 1.00-1.50 gr. the tonearm's insufficient precision just doesn't cut it. So, not really a general purpose turntable that would do fine for both DJ and quality Hi-Fi listening. More geared towards DJ, though Audio-Technica tries with the supplied cartridge to make it look like a good all around turntable...

So I decided to replace this turnable purchased about a year ago and seldom used with another one that has a better tonearm while still being a Direct Drive. The wife will get the AT LP120 to put in the Video/Audio system cabinet in the living room upstairs, replacing a pretty old Technics (still going), this way the AT remains in the house in case I ever need to use a more DJ type turntable/cartridge.

Two wrenches in the wheel though at this time: first the LP 120 may not fit in the cabinet's audio section with shelves and glass door, its too tight by one or two millimeter(s) based on width measurements taken, second getting a 3 gr. or so tracking cartridge from AT, would be safer since upstairs its all older hardwood floors where the stylus may skip at light tracking forces of 1.00-1.50 gr. with living room "traffic". I don't intend to provide nor lend my AT ATP-3 or Shure SC35C DJ cartridges, the former is impossible to replace/even find stylus for, the latter is getting harder to replace or find original stylus for since Shure stopped making cart./stylus summer 2018 and folks have since stormed the stores, a few left though...

I have a few ideas good or bad to get the TT in the cabinet like: loosen the cabinet's screws a bit, if any, to get it in, but I don't really know as it was delivered all assembled many years ago, weighs a TON being large (MDF with wood imitation cover, pretty rigid) and I don't see screws; "grind" or sand a little the turntable's base sides (doing that inside the cabinet she'll shoot me!); use some lubricant on TT base sides to push it in with just a tiny bit of force. BTW putting the TT on top of the cabinet or replacing the latter isn't an option (i already asked!), that would have been too easy... Any other ideas welcomed!

The best replacement turntable compromise I have yet found is the AT LP5. It has Direct Drive, a better tonearm and no frills. The reviews seen on it were positive. The drive system specs are the same as those of the LP 120 (Torque, Wow and Flutter, S/N ratio) which makes me feel it may have the same high torque drive system as the LP 120. But LP5 has different platter, nice rubber mat, etc. I also liked the Denon DP-400 however its belt drive is a deal breaker for me.

The LP5 comes with a "cartridge alignment and overhang adjustment template", which isn't supplied with the LP120, that looks like a little red flag against the latter's tonearm. Also, the AT 95EX cartridge, which looks like an improved AT95E, is designed for and supplied with the LP5. The LP 120 and the LP5 both come from the consumer division of AT Canada (surprisingly for LP 120), and only their premium DJ LP 1240 belongs to the Pro division. With the recent price decrease here of the latter it now retails for the same money as the LP5. Even so I'm less interested in that mammoth turntable (LP 1240).

Pitch control, strobe and target light (LP 120) are nice to have, more so for mixing, but probably not must have in my case, therefore I could live with an LP5. Consequently, if DJ features and higher tracking forces are more important for ones use then the LP 120 would make sense. If on the other hand precision and higher fidelity aspects are more important in view of the usage, as in my case, then the LP5 is a better option.

Finally, with regards to the Rolls RA 200 MOSFET amp, considering the latest price given to me this week for that unit I think I'd probably hate myself for a long time if I didn't go for it at this point in time. I'll chew on the above a little more and make a decision shortly...

Richard

[RMC]

"Thinking out of the box"I got another idea for the AT LP120 turntable location/installation, if it won't get in the audio cabinet properly: put it exactly out of the box! There's an empty corner of 18"+ wide next to the right side of that cabinet. I could put it there on a table or base I can make and fit the thing there, also away from risks of "accidents", it would sit right next to the audio section of the cabinet.

Maybe I don't have to extend the TT's RCA/ground wires, but if need be I've done that in the past for a small length addition and had no hum/noise problems, but I stay away from AC and speaker wiring...

That location is a little less practical since the cabinet's door opens towards the right, where the corner is, but it may well work as a second best or last resort type of option...

BTW If interested and want to know more info on the AT LP5 turntable (e.g. tonearm data) have a look at the following:

- The attached Australian Hi-Fi Magazine test of the AT LP5 turntable and cartridge (no copyright mention seen on this document). Contrary to doc title below its a test of the TT AND cartridge.

- Google the European version of the product brochure called "AT LP5 Brochure Eng Eu A4" which gives lot more info, but its copyrighted, so not attached here.

- Google the AT LP5 Owner Manual, also copyrighted. P. 7 shows specs, though in the tonearm specs there seems to be a typo about stylus pressure adjustment range given as 0 to 2.5 gr. This is contradicted by the European brochure (0-5 gr.) and by close pictures of the tonearm on US and Canada sites showing the range on the counterweight goes ABOVE 3.5 gr...

- Google "How To Align Your Turntable Cartridge" its on AT's Australia web site but when you get at the right page it will show NZ in top right corner for New Zealand (same site for both I guess). It shows a little more info for the LP5, but also in the text the cartridge overhang numbers for AT LP 120 and LP 1240.

Why this relevant info is so far from the main market, being the USA? That's beyond me. However, I assume European and Australia/NZ documents provide more info than US or Canada possibly because they have better product information disclosure legislation.

Richard


AT LP 5_phono_cartridge_review_test[1].pdf

[nofun]

I raised recently in another thread an issue I have with the AT LP120 turntable. The tonearm's precision when being balanced isn't that good in my view, more specifically for low tracking force cartridges. I know this is more a DJ type turntable than a High-Fi one, but still for the money requested here I think one could have expected a better performing tonearm than what it is in reality. My older Technics SLQ2 was clearly better in this regard.

The tonearm appears to have more friction than it should, I assume cheap gimbals or bearings were used on this one. Though not stated, it could be more appropriate for heavier tracking force cartridges in the 3-5 gr. or so range, however it came with the AT95E cartridge rated at 1.5-2.5 gr. ( 2.0 gr. recommended) which seems optimistic in view of tonearm. A heavier tracking DJ type would seem more appropriate to me.

With lighter tracking cartridges such as AT 408EP, Shure M95ED and V15 type IV I have, among others, working in the 1.00-1.50 gr. the tonearm's insufficient precision just doesn't cut it. So, not really a general purpose turntable that would do fine for both DJ and quality Hi-Fi listening. More geared towards DJ, though Audio-Technica tries with the supplied cartridge to make it look like a good all around turntable...

So I decided to replace this turnable purchased about a year ago and seldom used with another one that has a better tonearm while still being a Direct Drive. The wife will get the AT LP120 to put in the Video/Audio system cabinet in the living room upstairs, replacing a pretty old Technics (still going), this way the AT remains in the house in case I ever need to use a more DJ type turntable/cartridge.

Two wrenches in the wheel though at this time: first the LP 120 may not fit in the cabinet's audio section with shelves and glass door, its too tight by one or two millimeter(s) based on width measurements taken, second getting a 3 gr. or so tracking cartridge from AT, would be safer since upstairs its all older hardwood floors where the stylus may skip at light tracking forces of 1.00-1.50 gr. with living room "traffic". I don't intend to provide nor lend my AT ATP-3 or Shure SC35C DJ cartridges, the former is impossible to replace/even find stylus for, the latter is getting harder to replace or find original stylus for since Shure stopped making cart./stylus summer 2018 and folks have since stormed the stores, a few left though...

I have a few ideas good or bad to get the TT in the cabinet like: loosen the cabinet's screws a bit, if any, to get it in, but I don't really know as it was delivered all assembled many years ago, weighs a TON being large (MDF with wood imitation cover, pretty rigid) and I don't see screws; "grind" or sand a little the turntable's base sides (doing that inside the cabinet she'll shoot me!); use some lubricant on TT base sides to push it in with just a tiny bit of force. BTW putting the TT on top of the cabinet or replacing the latter isn't an option (i already asked!), that would have been too easy... Any other ideas welcomed!

The best replacement turntable compromise I have yet found is the AT LP5. It has Direct Drive, a better tonearm and no frills. The reviews seen on it were positive. The drive system specs are the same as those of the LP 120 (Torque, Wow and Flutter, S/N ratio) which makes me feel it may have the same high torque drive system as the LP 120. But LP5 has different platter, nice rubber mat, etc. I also liked the Denon DP-400 however its belt drive is a deal breaker for me.

The LP5 comes with a "cartridge alignment and overhang adjustment template", which isn't supplied with the LP120, that looks like a little red flag against the latter's tonearm. Also, the AT 95EX cartridge, which looks like an improved AT95E, is designed for and supplied with the LP5. The LP 120 and the LP5 both come from the consumer division of AT Canada (surprisingly for LP 120), and only their premium DJ LP 1240 belongs to the Pro division. With the recent price decrease here of the latter it now retails for the same money as the LP5. Even so I'm less interested in that mammoth turntable (LP 1240).

Pitch control, strobe and target light (LP 120) are nice to have, more so for mixing, but probably not must have in my case, therefore I could live with an LP5. Consequently, if DJ features and higher tracking forces are more important for ones use then the LP 120 would make sense. If on the other hand precision and higher fidelity aspects are more important in view of the usage, as in my case, then the LP5 is a better option.

Finally, with regards to the Rolls RA 200 MOSFET amp, considering the latest price given to me this week for that unit I think I'd probably hate myself for a long time if I didn't go for it at this point in time. I'll chew on the above a little more and make a decision shortly...

Richard

Sorry, I would like to ask if you have the original layout. Looks sharp and clean.

[RMC]

Hi nofun,

No need to be sorry.

However, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "original layout". Which layout are you refferring to? Please be more specific. More so in view of " Looks sharp and clean"? Thanks. Regards,

Richard

[RMC]

Following a question about standard factory adjustment of tonearm/cartridge (overhang).

The AT LP 120 is a popular model among people for its many DJ features but comes with a more standard AT 95E cartridge.

If you look at the "AT LP 120 usb at95e Owner Manual" on AT's Web site, P. 10 Specs, you will note there is no tonearm tech data provided, nor on Web spec sheet, same silence in the paper manual that came with my LP 120. Doesn't seem important for that model? Though overhang does matter to minimize distortion.

Its quite possible the TT and supplied cartridge were properly adjusted (or not) at the factory. However, when replacing the cartridge and/or headshell (P. 8 manual) a short note reminds to reset tonearm balance, stylus force and anti-skate. Its very likely in my view, with LP 120, that someone would change the cartridge/headshell for DJ type use. However, no word about resetting overhang adjustment nor about overhang number in manual, contrary to AT LP 1240 and LP5 manuals. For the latter two TT in same order, tonearm specs-overhang/headshell specs-overhang adjustment: 15 mm/+ or - 4mm; 17 mm/+ or - 5 mm.

The lack of info for LP 120 is why I referred to the "How To Align Your Turntable Cartridge" on AT's AU/NZ Web site in the previous post because its one of only two places I've seen (the other being an official AT Blog) that mentions the overhang number for the LP 120 (16 mm), headshell overhang adjustment amount not given. LP 120 effective tonearm length is 230.5 mm, useful to know when using, as many do, a different adjustment protractor, i.e. other than AT's 2016 protractor available free on the Web for LP 120 and LP 1240.

I didn't have much success lately with Audio-Technica. The 3 gr. or so cartridge sought, for my LP 120 going upstairs in the living room, is discontinued and replaced by another, the latter btw, is now also discontinued according to local distributor... Both still on AT Canada/US Web site with current models. Search continues, maybe an AT XP5.

One reason why I like AT cartridges, other than price/performance ratio, is the load capacitance of 100-200 pf they often require VS Shure's often 400-500 pf (V15 type IV 200-300 pf) for flat frequency response. My NAD integrated amplifier's phono section has 100 pf, add some for TT wiring and it should be close. Too low effective capacitance on a cartridge that requires more (e.g. Shure) leads to a high-frequency response bump (more frequent), too much capacitance on a cartridge requiring less leads to a high-end response dip (less frequent).

I use to have a Spectro Acoustics preamp where one could vary the amount of phono capacitance which was a nice feature. My NAD doesn't have this, but has other assets like nice Preamp and Amp sections, both completely separable with jumpers on the back. It can be an amp or preamp alone or both together(integrated) in seconds. Since I still have many records, I appreciate the phono section it has, as well as the flexibility the unit gives me.

I asked last week my audio dealer to verify availability and pricing on six Audio-Technica items, plus one from Rolls (one more verification on the amp), with the Canadian distributor. The AT LP5 turntable being one of the six AT items. The dealer passed along to me the distributor's e-mail for five AT items, I guess he felt really bad about telling me himself...

For the five, all on AT's Canada and US Web site, the reply from distributor is: First item HS 10 BK headshell (for LP5), back order for the time being (no date); Second item ATP-N2 stylus for ATP-2 cartridge which would fit on my ATP-3 but little less desirable, is discontinued and "I have none left in stock"; Third item is the cartridge mentioned above (original discontinued and replacement also discontinued); Fourth item AT 6180A, stroboscope and overhang adjustment tool, "we'll seek information, no info yet"; Fifth item AT 6006R, Tonearm safety raiser "we will also seek information on this one, no info yet" "To be followed". No news up to now, as if the last two items came from planet Mars, come on guys.

A year or so ago I inquired with AT US about finding and purchasing a genuine stylus for my ATP-3 cartridge. Their reply was they didn't know this model, and seemed to doubt it ever existed. Well, I still have the ATP series (DJ) Spec Sheet that came with my ATP-3, there were three ATP cartridges # 1, 2, 3 at the time (later I think I saw ATP-4 and 5 on a Japanese Web site) and the longest survivor in the catalog was ATP-2. However, the more expensive ATP-3 was the group's best performing one. I check periodically my last original ATP-3 stylus (and others) with a small pen shape Audiotex "microscope" knowing one day it will be over, unless I decide to get an ATP-N2 on Amazon. Some pictures will follow shortly.

I don't see anything being rocket science in my AT requests, all listed stuff, all on the Web sites. It seems the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing and don't communicate. Quite disappointing.

On a more positive note I ordered Jan. 14 the AT LP5 turntable (Dealer: looks ok) with an extra headshell (HS 10BK backorder), as well as the Rolls RA 200 MOSFET amp I just couldn't resist trying. I was told if there are delays (AT?) I'll be informed. I don't mind weeks delay as I said, but months delay could be another story.

Most of the audio gear purchased comes from the same distributor: Allen & Heath, Ashly, AT, CAD, Lowell, Rolls, Tascam, etc. No choice, they handle so many brands here in their numerous divisions (Pro, Audio, Consumer, Commercial, Musical instruments, etc.).

Richard

[RMC]

These are the pictures I referred to in post # 42. Sorry for the delay. In the first pic, top right paragraph, I underlined the difference between ATP-2 and ATP-3 cartridges. In second pic left column the response graph shows the typical effect on a high capacitance cartridge when loaded with low capacitance, leading to a high frequency peak in response (I suspect they used a Shure cartridge for comparison to ATP). Third pic is the small "microscope" I use to assess stylus wear and the last two pics are my ATP-3 cartridge.

Richard

[RMC]

I almost forgot my previous commitment to post pictures of (and comment on) the remaining audio gear I picked up on Dec. 4: Tascam CD-200 player, A & H ZED-14 mixer and the Ashly SRA-2150 power amps. The latter two Ashlys being identical the pics are valid for both units.

TASCAM CD-200 (pic # 322):

This is the unbalanced version I have. The XLR balanced outputs version, also with more gadgets I don't need (CD-200SB), is listed $180. more and has limited availability according to the local distributor's list.

So I have analog RCA outputs, good for the RCA inputs on the mixer, as well as digital outputs (coaxial and optical), the latter good for my digital MD recorder(s). The player has headphone output with volume control, a variable pitch control, and comes with a remote.

In addition to music CDs, it also plays WAV and MP3 format files, I do use the WAV format possibly more often than MP3, even if it takes a lot more space on a CD, since I'm not a strong believer of MP3 compression being Hi-Fi, though very practical.

So that Tascam player basically has what I need and want, and comes with an owner manual worthy of that name (compared to the DBX 1215 EQ purchased).

Richard

[RMC]

ALLEN & HEATH ZED-14 (pic # 325) In Windows Picture Viewer that photo looked much better (clearer) as shot horizontally than vertically oriented (squeezed), so I'm the one to blame here for that horizontal pic.

I've already commented in a previous post (Choosing the mixer, # 31) on the questionable use of RCA connectors for some in/out. That first RCA pair (stereo return) can be seen next to the XLR mic input # 6 and the last one or fourth pair below (Alt Out). The two pairs in the middle making sense for project studio work (2 Trak return and Record out).

The mixer is sometimes referred to as a 1402, for the non-initiated meaning 14 input channels ( 6 mono, 4 stereo here), zero sub-groups (which I would have like to have) and two main outputs (L, R). I'd trade those L, R mains for a single one L+ R to get a sub-group instead. The mixer is relatively heavy for its size, compared to some others seen with more plastic, a good sign in my view about the construction.

The potentiometers have a really nice feel, and seem quite sturdy with them being nutted to the top panel. Though the space between the pots is small for larger fingers, I assume this is caused by the long travel of the faders (100 mm) which reduces space available on the rest of the board for the numerous pots. With regards to the faders, I would have liked just a bit more resistance for moving them (they do have a little).

The mixer's Mid frequency EQ is sweepable, a nice feature, going from 120 hz to 4 khz. A & H says that range is to cover boomy frequencies 120-250 hz, however the mixer has a switchable high-pass filter @ 100 hz on mic channels, and the LF EQ (80 hz) starts affecting progressively frequencies from about 600 hz downwards. I don't consider 120 hz as part of mid, more like low frequency in my book. Something around 250-500 hz in the low part up to 6 khz or so in the high part would seem a little more useful Mid EQ wise.

Regarding the use of Alt Out as sort of a sub-group output (like Mackie) I need to look into the A & H manual further to see how feasible it can be, since I only had a quick look at it.

The mixer comes with an acceptable owner manual, but certainly not as well made as those for older Mackie mixers regarding options, hints, suggestions and workarounds. A & H is more descriptive of what's there than mentioning or explaining the numerous possibilities that one can try/work with. It falls short on that, therefore my good old mackie manuals will be handy for additional ideas: Like driving a separate sound system from the mixer's headphones ouput (Mackies had enough juice to do that), it remains to be seen on the A & H.

Globally, a quality feeling from the mixer this size and price point, but a few flexibility issues to deal with.

Richard