The Manley is night and day better than the Jolida
As I stated, by the time the Jolida was upgraded, it was only a few hundred more for the Manley Chinook (not near triple the price). The Jolida JD 9 with upgrade I now lists for $900. It's not exactly cheap. Upgrade prices: (from Jolida)It should be at triple the price, apples to oranges there.
I stated this in his copy/paste at Steve Hoffman's forum in response to addman27 but I live extremely close to a handful of radio towers, no RF issues with the jd9. A much older unit in fact now with lots of DIY tweaks but 0 in the way of added shielding. It's a shame Jolida couldn't help you out!
Turntable setups in particular seem more prone to grounding and RFI issues at the end of the day, those cartridges are like microphones.
I've used my JD9 with my 103R and it sounded quite good. I cant remember the settings I used as it was 2 years ago since the last time I had the 103R on my TT. Half the fun of the JD9 is experimenting with the settings to get the best sound with the least noise.At the moment i have the Technics 310MC connected and it sounds good. But i want to buy a brand new cartridge for my Kenwood KD 990. I want to try an Denon 103R with the Jolida. I know it is a very low output MC also the 310 MC is very low output MC both are around 0.25.
With the 310MC i start to have background noise when i want to raise the gain to a setting comparable with my stream audio sound level. My questions are:
- Is the Jolida JD9 suitable for the Denon 103R?
- How can i raise the gain without adding more background noise? (i use 627 opamps in all slots)
Looking forward to your replies.
At the moment i have the Technics 310MC connected and it sounds good. But i want to buy a brand new cartridge for my Kenwood KD 990. I want to try an Denon 103R with the Jolida. I know it is a very low output MC also the 310 MC is very low output MC both are around 0.25.
With the 310MC i start to have background noise when i want to raise the gain to a setting comparable with my stream audio sound level. My questions are:
- Is the Jolida JD9 suitable for the Denon 103R?
- How can i raise the gain without adding more background noise? (i use 627 opamps in all slots)
Looking forward to your replies.
Interesting scans. I wonder if the stock chips are why so many people complain of hum.The stock chips have a pronounced 60hz hum as well as a lot of higher frequency noise.
That said, the JD9 is not a quiet phono stage at all and the signal and power wiring inside the unit also needs to be separated. In addition, better power supply caps and better diodes will help improve the noise floor immensely.
AZDean,
It's been a long time since I worked on my JD9 but I seem to recall that LT1028 didn't work out in the third and final stage on the solid state board. My recollection is the voltage to the third stage is higher (+/-15vdc) than the voltage to the first two stages (+/-5vdc). I used either OPA627 or OPA637 in the final stage. I can't remember what my complaint was about LT1028 in the third stage, either the sound was distorted and overdriven or OPA627/OPA637 sounded more dynamic. FWIW-OPA626/OPA627 didn't sound as good as LT1028 in the first two stages.
For my system, I think increasing the value of the last 4.7uf caps on the SS board to 5.6uf filled out the sound and "made The Beatles sound like The Beatles again". Increasing the value of the other two sets of interstage 4.7uf caps was a detriment.
The problem I had when I replaced the 4.7uf caps was "real estate", really tricky getting those caps to fit. I think increasing the value of the last interstage coupling caps was "the magic ingredient" I had been seeking for so long. It improved the body of the sound.
Interesting scans. I wonder if the stock chips are why so many people complain of hum.
Interesting scans. I wonder if the stock chips are why so many people complain of hum.
Heyraz, I only used them in the first two stages, even though I had more than enough, I didn't even try them in the 3rd stage because of what I've read, including many of your posts. I have plans to replace those 4.7uf caps, so maybe I'll try changing the value of that last pair too.AZDean,
It's been a long time since I worked on my JD9 but I seem to recall that LT1028 didn't work out in the third and final stage on the solid state board. My recollection is the voltage to the third stage is higher (+/-15vdc) than the voltage to the first two stages (+/-5vdc). I used either OPA627 or OPA637 in the final stage. I can't remember what my complaint was about LT1028 in the third stage, either the sound was distorted and overdriven or OPA627/OPA637 sounded more dynamic. FWIW-OPA626/OPA627 didn't sound as good as LT1028 in the first two stages.
For my system, I think increasing the value of the last 4.7uf caps on the SS board to 5.6uf filled out the sound and "made The Beatles sound like The Beatles again". Increasing the value of the other two sets of interstage 4.7uf caps was a detriment.
The problem I had when I replaced the 4.7uf caps was "real estate", really tricky getting those caps to fit. I think increasing the value of the last interstage coupling caps was "the magic ingredient" I had been seeking for so long. It improved the body of the sound.
Interesting scans. I wonder if the stock chips are why so many people complain of hum.
Yes, the diodes, 4.7uf caps, and maybe even the resistors in the signal path and feedback circuits are on my list, as well as those last two op amps. I've got a parts list together. Did you replace the bridge on the solid state board too? I saw where one person replaced that with a discrete rectifier they built. The tube board on mine has 8 discrete diodes for the power supply so I was looking at fairchild stealth diodes there.Probably and what bobins08 mentioned... The poor stock power supply caps and diodes