First impressions:
Very (overly) energetic. Really head nodding, but too insistent with rhythm, not much feeling of ebb and flow, just forward forward forward (I'm referring to my impression of beats, not to tonal balance).

Detail definitely increased, as did bass depth, but it is very dry and somewhat harsh and hard. Timbre is not a strong suit. But the dry/harsh quality is most troublesome--snares now are all transient with no body (as if they were remixed without any of the reverb I know was added). The upper treble is smooth, but the presence range is harsh. Acoustic stuff (i.e. jazz) has done much better in this regard than rock. I have to say also that I've found my system very Jeckyll and Hyde recently with regard to harshness in the presence range and dryness in the bass. Where once, and at times recently, the bass has had that meaty, messy, groovy 32-5 quality, but more often has been bass shy and dry. Maybe mains, but not consistent really as to time of day.

I definitely need to play with placement, and obviously it will change as it warms up. I just don't know whether to expect a total turnaround, or just a good sized improvement, as it warms up.

The placement issue is as follows--I have a four-shelf rack with tt on the top, then 32-5, then CD3, then Hicap, with the 140 off to the side. That puts the Hicap with 6 or 7 inches from it's top to the bottom of the CD3. I moved it off the rack, to the floor (on a rug) next to the rack, to achieve better separation, but it didn't make a noticeable difference (I'll know more after I listen like this a few days and then go back). How much of an issue is space between the CD3 and hicap?

--Eric

a)it rained, which usually means better sound
b)it's warming up
c)the preamp is warming back up after going off for a few moments as I tried to adjust the fuse (when I got it in the right direction, I lost the connection and thus power).

It's much better, but I still want more.

--Eric

quote:

---

It's much better, but I still want more.

---

Eric.

Take the Hicap off the pre-amp and put it on the CD player. [sorry, I thought for a second you were talking about the CD3.5]*

Vuk.

*edited

[This message was edited by Vuk Vuksanovic on FRIDAY 10 November 2000 at 17:04.]

Andrew

Andrew Randle
2B || !2B;
4 ^ = ?;

[This message was edited by Andrew Randle on SATURDAY 11 November 2000 at 00:30.]

Good idea putting the Hicap on the player--however, the CD3 cannot take any outside supply, only the 3.5. Unless I missed something Eric has a CD3.

Cheers,

Bob

Vuk.

Send me a CD3.5 and I'll send you my CD3.

I'm willing to try the hicap on my (would-be) 3.5, but since my primary source is phono, the hicap does more good on the 32-5. Unfortunately, I already sold my Snaps2, which could power a CD3.5 or CD5. But if I need one, I can probably find a Snaps on the cheap again. As it was, it was $830 for the CD3 (inc. shipping), and $350 income from the Snaps2, vs. $1100+ for the 3.5, plus not selling the Snaps2 (=$1450+), or $1700 (plus shipping) for a CD2. I took the option which required the least outlay.

As to Mana, it's damned expensive in the US. Since I only have space for one hi-fi rack, we're talking a reference table with supports for tt, pre, hicap, cd, and amp. For less money I could upgrade the CD3 to a CD2, which stands to depreciate less than the Mana.

I'm likely to buy a new amp and cartridge, and possibly preamp and cd player, before I would spend that much on a stand. That is unless and until I hear a convincing demo. I'll let you know if I come to London.

--Eric

Why do you think I bought the Sony?

I would carefully evaluate a listen with everything in a Mana rack and the improvement vs the improvement upgrading.Its for you to decide.If you did get hold of a rack expect no depreciation as they are rare secondhand.They are made here and you can hardly find any at all.

CD3 was the last black box upgrade in my system as the CDS was very rare finding secondhand.I rate the CD3 and given time I think you will come to appreciate just how good it still is.

Cheers hooch