Wave Music Home
ReleasesCommunityYour OrderWave Music
ArtistsEventsDJ MixesShop

Wave Music Home


Home
About Us
Labels
Distributed Labels
Links




Search


Adv. Search



Subscribe


Email






Go Back   Wave Music Community Board > Tech Talk for Gearheads

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-17-2008, 10:59 PM
Reticuli Reticuli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 930
600ohms sounds warmer into my amp than 10k ohms. Why?

Anyone have an idea why that might be happening? One mixer with a low impedance unbalanced out sounds warmer, fuller, and less strident into the receiver at home. Another with a high impedance unbalanced out sounds brighter, thinner, and more agressive when loud. Then I can take the unbalanced 10k ohm from another mixer and compare it to the balanced 600 ohm TRS jack from the same unit, but running only the tip to an RCA and it gives the exact same differences in tone. Why might this be happening? I've heard about impedance mismatching. Is the higher impedance output into the high impedance input (says so in the manual) actually more accurate into the receiver and I just am finding the balance more pleasing with the speakers in their current arrangment with a less accurate low impedance connection?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-18-2008, 12:37 AM
djchris73 djchris73 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Montebello, California
Posts: 211
Send a message via Yahoo to djchris73
Without getting into specifics......

Without sounding like an ass, it's not about 600 ohms sounds warmer than 10 ohms.

It's about connecting Lo Z outputs to Hi Z inputs. You want to always use balanced cables with balanced equipment and unbalanced cables with unbalanced equipment.

If you must connect balanced equipment to unbalanced equipment, for example if you want to connect the unbalanced RCA outputs of your mixer to the balanced TRS connectors of your amp; then use a device that allows you to connect the two together correctly. Like the Rane Balance Buddy. Don't "mickey mouse" stuff by only using "only the tip" or other weird and warrantee voiding practices.

Connecting balanced equipment to unbalanced equipment sounds like shit. Connecting unbalanced equipment to unbalanced equipment with balanced cables sound like shit. You hear 60 Hz hum, ground loops, phase distortion, tinniness, RF interference and a bunch of other problems.

You can't go wrong using the right cables for the job.

Oh yeah, "Z" means impedence.

Last edited by djchris73 : 02-18-2008 at 06:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-18-2008, 01:06 AM
Reticuli Reticuli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 930
O.k. And I was wrong, I have no idea what the impedance is of the unbalanced signals. Not 10 k ohms, though. It could be 100 or 600 ohms or 1k ohms, for all I know. Sorry. And apparently having low impedance outputs and high inpedance inputs is the way it's supposed to be, the bigger the difference the better it works. Otherwise things get shitty, distorted, and equipment starts getting hot. Apparently, impedance mismatch from balanced to unbalanced is the least thing you should be worrying about, though makers of converter boxes like to pretend it's important. All balanced and unbalanced outputs are relatively low "Z" compared to inputs.

Last edited by Reticuli : 02-18-2008 at 01:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-18-2008, 04:24 AM
RETRODISKO's Avatar
RETRODISKO RETRODISKO is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 918
Send a message via MSN to RETRODISKO
Yeah,..

Its the fundamentals
__________________
Yaxkin Retrodisko
http://www.yaxkinretrodisko.com
twitter retrodisko
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-18-2008, 09:37 AM
thermionic thermionic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 637
If interfacing unbalanced with balanced sounds bad, why does one of the world's most respected equipment designers, i.e. George Massenburg, supply his Mic preamp exclusively with an unbalanced output?

He uses an unbalanced output because balanced circuitry involves extra stages in the path, which can introduce colouration (in theory).

I have to write this quickly, but OTOH, these are the ways to balance a signal:

Transformers - unbeatable for CMR; some people accuse them of being coloured (I think these people grew up with old transformers, modern units are nearly as low in distortion as electronic solutions)

Active stages such as dual-op-amps or cross-coupled stages. Cheaper and theoretically more transparent than a passive solution, but never as good for CMR as a transformer.

Due to the greater noise rejection, and depending on the environment you're in (balancing in a club is a good move due to air-con, lighting and similar sources of interference), balancing will give better noise performance - THAT'S ALL

(The only exception is gear that's fully balanced throughout, which also measures lower in distortion as well as noise and hum - this gear is fantastically expensive and very few and far between)

With vintage equipment from the fifties or sixties, you need to match impedance because you're dealing in terms of 'power transfer'. Modern gear deals with 'voltage transfer', and for this purpose, you want a low-impedance source feeding a destination impedance that is at least 5x higher, preferably 10x (this is because impedance changes with frequency).

With all due respect, and not trying to appear a smart-ass, you guys really need to read and understand this link: http://www.rane.com/note124.html

Justin
__________________
Please note that this account is dormant for the time being. I apologise to all that have sent PMs - there are just not enough hours in the day!

Bozak CMA 10-2-DL Full Rebuild

How Mixer Level Controls Work

Important Differences Between Types of Bozak

Last edited by thermionic : 02-18-2008 at 09:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-18-2008, 09:55 AM
thermionic thermionic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by djchris73
It's about connecting Hi Z outputs to Hi Z inputs and Lo Z outputs to Lo Z inputs.

No it isn't.

Taken from http://www.rane.com/note124.html

Quote:
Impedance matching went out with vacuum tubes, Edsels and beehive hairdos. Modern transistor and op-amp stages do not require impedance matching. If done, impedance matching degrades audio performance.
__________________
Please note that this account is dormant for the time being. I apologise to all that have sent PMs - there are just not enough hours in the day!

Bozak CMA 10-2-DL Full Rebuild

How Mixer Level Controls Work

Important Differences Between Types of Bozak
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-18-2008, 06:05 PM
vinyl_junkie vinyl_junkie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: South East Kent, UK
Posts: 1,837
I would love to ask this question, you know on some pieces of gear especially sound cards now days you have multi purpose inputs i.e. those Neutrik dual purpose XLR/Jack thingies that accept either a balanced or unbalanced signal, how does that work and can you really stick both types (bal or un-bal) without any of the consequences.
My soundcard has balanced inputs on one of those multi way XLR/Jack connectors and they also state it can accept unbalanced signals without any re-wire.
__________________
--The future scares me, any chance of a lift back to the past any one?--
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-18-2008, 06:41 PM
djchris73 djchris73 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Montebello, California
Posts: 211
Send a message via Yahoo to djchris73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reticuli
And apparently having low impedance outputs and high inpedance inputs is the way it's supposed to be, the bigger the difference the better it works.
You are absolutely right. I fixed that mistake in my post.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-18-2008, 06:43 PM
djchris73 djchris73 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Montebello, California
Posts: 211
Send a message via Yahoo to djchris73
Quote:
Originally Posted by thermionic
No it isn't.

Taken from http://www.rane.com/note124.html
You're right. I went back and fixed my post. I had read that before on Rane's website. I just remembered it wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-18-2008, 06:59 PM
djchris73 djchris73 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Montebello, California
Posts: 211
Send a message via Yahoo to djchris73
Quote:
Originally Posted by thermionic
With all due respect, and not trying to appear a smart-ass, you guys really need to read and understand this link: http://www.rane.com/note124.htmlJustin
I just printed it out. You are right though, there is a lot of misinformation going around. I know I've been guilty of passing it along in the past, but not on purpose. But I'm right about the cables, though.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-19-2008, 06:55 PM
Reticuli Reticuli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 930
I have also heard audiophile manufacturers diss balanced inputs. They claim it can make things sound polite and smoothed-over compared to just using a short-run of unbalanced. Has something to do with the sound you get from differential opamps. I believe Stereophile did listening comparisons with high res audio and concluded something similarly.

Interconnecting balance to unbalanced makes zero difference, assuming the outputs won't do anything funky. Sometimes you have to connect the - and grounds together on older outputs for it to work that way. You also have to realize you're obviously not getting the noise rejection advantage if you criss-cross like that.

Most pro sound cards have balanced inputs, and switching to "unbalanced" in the control panel for the card will not turn off the differential amps or change the input or output impedance. You can even use your balanced outs from your mixer going to two sets of speakers, with the ring-negative speakers both wired in reverse. In fact, if you're not using a far away amp or it doesn't have balanced inputs anyway, this will give you more accurate phase matching between both sets of speakers (or drivers if biamping) than using two sets of unbalanced outputs from the mixer...has something to do with how the dual opamps are working together in electrical alignment on the balanced outs. But that's just a quick way to get a home bi-amping arrangement, not exactly what you want to use in a pro live environment where you want noise rejection with all the lighting gear or the long runs.

You know, that hand-built Foundation mixer in Chicago for 10k uses differential phono preamps and balanced phono inputs. Kind of interesting. They rig differential opamps as the phono stage itself. Oh how nice it would be if that was already the standard connection used by all turntables.

Last edited by Reticuli : 02-20-2008 at 07:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-19-2008, 10:24 PM
clubman5 clubman5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by djchris73
Without sounding like an ass, it's not about 600 ohms sounds warmer than 10 ohms.

It's about connecting Lo Z outputs to Hi Z inputs. You want to always use balanced cables with balanced equipment and unbalanced cables with unbalanced equipment.

If you must connect balanced equipment to unbalanced equipment, for example if you want to connect the unbalanced RCA outputs of your mixer to the balanced TRS connectors of your amp; then use a device that allows you to connect the two together correctly. Like the Rane Balance Buddy. Don't "mickey mouse" stuff by only using "only the tip" or other weird and warrantee voiding practices.

Connecting balanced equipment to unbalanced equipment sounds like shit. Connecting unbalanced equipment to unbalanced equipment with balanced cables sound like shit. You hear 60 Hz hum, ground loops, phase distortion, tinniness, RF interference and a bunch of other problems.

You can't go wrong using the right cables for the job.

Oh yeah, "Z" means impedence.
I guess its a great thing that Rane mixers, BSS EQ,s and Bryston and SBS 3000,s have unblanced connections! I am Unbalanced, and IT SOUNDS great.

Using balanced connections on most pro gear, is just an IC as a phase splittler. This doesn't sound as nice as single ended IMHO.

True balanced gear, the same amount of components for the - half of signal as + half can sound great, but, PRICEY! Check out McIntosh amps that are fully balanced, and BAT amps. EXXXPPENNSIVVE as F*&K!

However, you guys do what sounds best to you.

__________________
Mr. Scott Fitlin
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-11-2008, 05:03 AM
Reticuli Reticuli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 930
Anyone know what the hell can cause the + and - to be totally different frequency responses on screwed up balanced outs? Causes weird phase alteration & frequency response changes compared to the unbalanced out once you get your difference signal, since they're not the same. All four of the Biamp/Advantage mixers I've used have had this problem. So my two are not just uniquely screwed up. On a positive note, the + component's high frequency roll off does warm up the Biamp sound while keeping its stunning low end...little too much hf roll off, but glass half full, right? Heh heh. Any theories? Did the dude who founded Mackie just not design them correctly?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-11-2008, 07:51 AM
thermionic thermionic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 637
Can you post an FFT plot, showing an example of the anomalies you perceive? I doubt anyone will be able to offer much advice without seeing visual clues.

BTW - Have you tried other mixers, besides the biamp? Do they exhibit the same perceived issues?
__________________
Please note that this account is dormant for the time being. I apologise to all that have sent PMs - there are just not enough hours in the day!

Bozak CMA 10-2-DL Full Rebuild

How Mixer Level Controls Work

Important Differences Between Types of Bozak
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-11-2008, 09:35 AM
djcm djcm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 79
Question? How would can you connect the unbalanced out of a mixer to powered speakers if the powered speakers only have balanced inputs? In this case would you just use a balanced to unbalanced cable?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-11-2008, 09:56 AM
clubman5 clubman5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by djcm
Question? How would can you connect the unbalanced out of a mixer to powered speakers if the powered speakers only have balanced inputs? In this case would you just use a balanced to unbalanced cable?
Read the speakers instruction manual, it probably has information covering how they recommend it be done.
__________________
Mr. Scott Fitlin
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-11-2008, 02:32 PM
yolk151 yolk151 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 118
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by djchris73
Without sounding like an ass, it's not about 600 ohms sounds warmer than 10 ohms.

It's about connecting Lo Z outputs to Hi Z inputs. You want to always use balanced cables with balanced equipment and unbalanced cables with unbalanced equipment.

If you must connect balanced equipment to unbalanced equipment, for example if you want to connect the unbalanced RCA outputs of your mixer to the balanced TRS connectors of your amp; then use a device that allows you to connect the two together correctly. Like the Rane Balance Buddy. Don't "mickey mouse" stuff by only using "only the tip" or other weird and warrantee voiding practices.

Connecting balanced equipment to unbalanced equipment sounds like shit. Connecting unbalanced equipment to unbalanced equipment with balanced cables sound like shit. You hear 60 Hz hum, ground loops, phase distortion, tinniness, RF interference and a bunch of other problems.

You can't go wrong using the right cables for the job.

Oh yeah, "Z" means impedence.

Hey Chris, thanks for posting this. I'm a n00b by the boards standards when discussing these topics. The information you posted above seems implicit and simple. I'm going to have to go home and analyze my setup now. I 'think' as it is, i'm using a balanced cable (on both ends) for my active monitors goining into my A&H mixer.

What constitutes balanced versus unbalanced equipment? With a basic setup such as mine, should I go the unbalanced route? As it is (and again, i'm gonna have to check exactly how I connected my equipment), i'm getting a very low static feedback type sound just by powering on the speakers/ mixer with no music playing back.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-11-2008, 07:25 PM
clubman5 clubman5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolk151
Hey Chris, thanks for posting this. I'm a n00b by the boards standards when discussing these topics. The information you posted above seems implicit and simple. I'm going to have to go home and analyze my setup now. I 'think' as it is, i'm using a balanced cable (on both ends) for my active monitors goining into my A&H mixer.

What constitutes balanced versus unbalanced equipment? With a basic setup such as mine, should I go the unbalanced route? As it is (and again, i'm gonna have to check exactly how I connected my equipment), i'm getting a very low static feedback type sound just by powering on the speakers/ mixer with no music playing back.
Unbalanced is just the + side of the signal and ground.

Balanced is a three pin connection featuring equal but opposite + and - conductors/signal and ground to transfer signal.

Balanced connection has superior common mode noise rejection, as the equal but opposite signal halves cancel out noise, and are better at remaining hum free, especially over long cable runs.

THAT SAID, balanced, and unbalanced definitely sound different from each other, it's not for me to tell you THIS or THAT sounds better. Try both, draw your own conclusions, do what you prefer. When using unbalanced interconnects, it's considered best to keep cable runs to 10ft or less.

Fully balanced operation is hotter than unbal, and balanced is considered standard practice these days.

Try both, see what you like.
__________________
Mr. Scott Fitlin
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-11-2008, 10:47 PM
Reticuli Reticuli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by thermionic
Can you post an FFT plot, showing an example of the anomalies you perceive? I doubt anyone will be able to offer much advice without seeing visual clues.

BTW - Have you tried other mixers, besides the biamp? Do they exhibit the same perceived issues?

Other Numarks, Ranes, two Xone 62's...none of them exhibit this. The Xones have a very slight deviation in the phase alignment of the extreme highs of the + and - components, which probably explains why their balanced outputs always sound polite compared to their unbalanced tape/record outs...assuming you actually use both the + & - through a differential input. You can see it on the sweeps when you zoom way in to the waveform and they seem to have drifted out of inverse sync in the last third. A simple summation to mono will tell what's left over that is in practice being canceled erroneously. But that's pretty typical of many balanced outs, which usually have some slight imperfections. Unbalanced is obviously superior if you can get away with it. I think the best test results I've gotten were on the PPD9000's XLR. It's rather moot on that one, though, because I'd rather just use the SPDIF to an external dac. Ironic.

Like I've said...4 of these mixers. Actually, 3 Biamp scm7600's and 1 Advantage scm7500. All three of the Biamps were from different lots and each has a slightly different arrangement of logos & labels, but all 4 are essentially identical except for a different pre/post on one and an extra phono on another. They all exhibit almost identical balanced + & - component out sweeps and pink noise results. The masters all look one way and the zones all look another, though one of them has a bad zone pre/post button and so has no zone output right now. They obviously should be at or near flat on the sweeps, with roughly similar volume pink noise. On the balanced outs shown, top is plus, bottom is negative. They are wildly different in volume and response, which explains how utterly f---ed up the balanced outs sound when you use them as balanced connectors and don't just drop the minus component.

See the attachment.

On a side note: The Biamps inherently have a linear 1-2dB trend in favor of the treble on the tape & unbalanced control room outs which explains their slight brightness people hear from these connectors, but pretty damn neutral and phase accurate. The otherwise problematic positive component of the master out is still useable if you want a warmer sound. Either way, certainly in the same general high fidelity league as the Xone and PPD, in my opinion...though each are unique. Biamp has the best bass quality (startlingly fast, tight, and tuneful), but a bit bright, analytical, and perhaps exaggerated sense of high resolution. The PPD is the warmest, most liquid, and drop dead transparent in-the-mix of the three...not to mention feature-loaded and endlessly upgradeable with outboard DACs. Otherwise, the mids have some gloss. In contrast, the Xone 62 has the best midrange articulation and is the most uncolored overall, if a bit lacking in the bass articulation & presence of the other two and perhaps high-frequency resolution. Trance on the Biamp. House & breaks on the PPD. And the Xone can even do shoegazer/experimental rock justice, which is a feat.

I don't like the A&H phono preamps, though. Very uninspiring. Interestingly, the Biamps' sound oh so very Biampy. And the PPD9000's sound like its inherent sound squared. The Biamp and PPD seem to have phono stages that sound like the mixer itself, as if you were going about listening to dual opamps for that purpose and were voicing them separate from the mixer and chose the ones that sounded most like the mixer's line ins you were going to be installing them into. It magnifies the mixer's tone. The Xone's just sound cheap and just alright. My externals sound pretty much the same tonally, just much better in every way. Using the Xone's internal phonos is almost a step down from CD. Ouch!
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Biamp Tests 5.JPG
Views:	202
Size:	40.2 KB
ID:	2160  

Last edited by Reticuli : 12-13-2008 at 07:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-13-2008, 08:16 AM
fl0w fl0w is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 29
I remember when I got my Empath, the only cables I could find at home were mono jack to RCA. I plugged the RCA in one of the Empath's outputs and the mono jack to the balanced input of my amplified monitor. The sound was so COLD!

Minutes later, I was back from the shop with a pair of XLR cables, and now my Empath sounds perfect
________
Lamborghini Concept S

Last edited by fl0w : 03-11-2011 at 04:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-13-2008, 07:44 PM
Reticuli Reticuli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 930
In my case, fl0w, the results are exactly the opposite.

Anyone had a look yet at the sweeps and pink noise jpeg?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-14-2008, 09:53 PM
pmdubs pmdubs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 109
I looked around for a decent link online that discusses the different types of balanced connections, one thats detailed enough to be informative but not too long. This one seems pretty good:

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampin...balanced.htm#6

Check out the various topologies discussed, and if possible determine which one(s) are used on the gear your measuring. (including the input to the console and or ADC your are using to measure with..) Might speed up your search.

Erik
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-17-2008, 03:33 AM
Reticuli Reticuli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 930
Ok. I'll check that out. I'm not sure what the ADC would matter. When I use the Xone or Numarks, it's pretty much flat on both the + and - components of the split signals. My guess is that Mackie dude just misdesigned the balanced outs on all the Biamps.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-20-2008, 07:12 PM
Reticuli Reticuli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 930
From that link, all I can figure is that Formula Sound uses quasi floating and A&H use true electrically balanced. Aside from possibly shorting the - opamp, I think the problem on the Biamps is likely bad resistors between the two + and - outputs. Seems to affect the entire SCM line.

Just noticed that A&H use 330pF phonos. I've been saying all this time the only cart that sounded hi-fi on the Xones' own phono was the 680EL. Well, that sure explains it. Still sounds too warm, but at least all the dynamics are there. My ears were right, that gives me a warm feeling...and not me pissing myself, heh heh.

Stanton 500, ATP, Whitelabels, and the Ortofons all have much better electrical characteristics for the Biamps, Ranes, Crests, Numarks, and Formula Sounds, not to mention most external phonos. The Grado's electrical characteristics are very odd, by the way. So out of the four easy electrical characteristic carts, only the ATPs have very low frequency intermodulation distortion. At 2.25 grams, it's both a good electrical match, low distortion, and has barely sufficient tracking for live DJing.

I still think the Whitelabels have killer midrange, though, and clearly track almost like scratch carts. Just did a series of spectrum analysis on them into one of the PCs, and its distortion actually doesn't clear up enough until 3.25 grams...exact same spot as the NCE. Not 3g like I'd determined by ear. I also wish those 500AL's had more low end and lower distortion. Such a phenomenally wide stereo image, tight transients, and neutrality they exhibit.

Anyway, on the two digital PPDs, I'm now torn between the ATP & Whitelabel. They're both good for different reasons, with internal phonos or external. Other than the 680EL into the Xone's internal phonos, I'm really not digging vinyl through it even with external phonos fed into the lines. Not sure why. CD sounds great, but there's like a compression to the midrange that makes most vinyl sound odd to me.

I would seriously rather listen to the ATP+TCC preamp combo into the old Bluedog 1 rather than the Xone. WTF? There's over a hundred fold price difference? Maybe the A&H is just too accurate? Maybe the PPD9000 and Bluedog 1's gloss benefits vinyl? Or perhaps the midrange compression and slight grit to the highs is all the Xone's fault? Anyway, you send CD into the PPD9000 digitally and it's at least as good as the Xone in that department.

Last edited by Reticuli : 12-20-2008 at 07:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-20-2008, 07:17 PM
vinyl_junkie vinyl_junkie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: South East Kent, UK
Posts: 1,837
Have you thought trying these tips on the 500 body?
The specs state a better top end responce

http://www.pickeringuk.com/v15dj.html
__________________
--The future scares me, any chance of a lift back to the past any one?--
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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

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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.0.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2006 Wave Music


© Wave Entertainment Group, Inc.