Connoisseur Definitions 3.0 preamplifier - is it still among the best?
- Thread starter Roysen
- Start date
I seem to have stumbled across the most marvellous thread.
Dear Jonathan/Stig,
I would very much like to hear more about your development and the fate of the Lyra Connoiseur 5.0L, both in terms of technology under the hood and as a market product. I thought this was your apex preamplifier but you imply not?
I'm really enjoying your descriptions of your product development; particularly your passionate and uncompromising, but what I would consider 'commercially unviable', working practices. 2 year concept development cycles, product too delicate to deliver by normal distribution networks, transistors machined flat- you would be a Designer from my worst nightmares commercially speaking- tongue in cheek
.
I apologise as I know nothing about the audio industry but it would imply that your and the L-C market niche is more similar to that of a bespoke craftsman or artisan producing very short run/made to order? I must say that I find the sheer quantity of product in the audio marketplace astonishing and can't believe most of this is produced economically or sustains long term businesses. All the more admirable that you and L-C have carved such a reputation in this case. Would it also be rude to ask how sizable a company L-C is? And please don't answer that if the information is in any way commercially sensitive.
In context I'm a production manager by trade (printed publications), but enjoy building my own kit as a small longstanding hobby (amps based on the Naim/RCA circuits), so I'm interested both in the technology but also commercial and production considerations. For example, I have to get up to 300 publications a year out the door so I have to have very strict creative, manufacturing and distribution workflows. I love the odd big budget labour-of-love job that crops up where one can use exotic finishes and manufacturing processes, and really enjoy the creative process. But am still very aware that the team (me included) have to remain disciplined or a project can go into a death spin of self indulgence and blow generous client budgets and schedules.
You seem to have reached a wonderful place of being a successful business yet still able to create the space to really indulge your passion for perfection and desire to experiment and learn? I am envious, if so.
With best regards
Cedric
Dear Jonathan/Stig,
I would very much like to hear more about your development and the fate of the Lyra Connoiseur 5.0L, both in terms of technology under the hood and as a market product. I thought this was your apex preamplifier but you imply not?
I'm really enjoying your descriptions of your product development; particularly your passionate and uncompromising, but what I would consider 'commercially unviable', working practices. 2 year concept development cycles, product too delicate to deliver by normal distribution networks, transistors machined flat- you would be a Designer from my worst nightmares commercially speaking- tongue in cheek
.I apologise as I know nothing about the audio industry but it would imply that your and the L-C market niche is more similar to that of a bespoke craftsman or artisan producing very short run/made to order? I must say that I find the sheer quantity of product in the audio marketplace astonishing and can't believe most of this is produced economically or sustains long term businesses. All the more admirable that you and L-C have carved such a reputation in this case. Would it also be rude to ask how sizable a company L-C is? And please don't answer that if the information is in any way commercially sensitive.
In context I'm a production manager by trade (printed publications), but enjoy building my own kit as a small longstanding hobby (amps based on the Naim/RCA circuits), so I'm interested both in the technology but also commercial and production considerations. For example, I have to get up to 300 publications a year out the door so I have to have very strict creative, manufacturing and distribution workflows. I love the odd big budget labour-of-love job that crops up where one can use exotic finishes and manufacturing processes, and really enjoy the creative process. But am still very aware that the team (me included) have to remain disciplined or a project can go into a death spin of self indulgence and blow generous client budgets and schedules.
You seem to have reached a wonderful place of being a successful business yet still able to create the space to really indulge your passion for perfection and desire to experiment and learn? I am envious, if so.
With best regards
Cedric
Hi Roysen: The gain of the 3.0 line amplifier section is 35dB (56x) times, reduced by the setting of the input attenuator. The maximum output voltage is around 11V rms (+/- 15.5V peak-peak).
I am not used to the "input sensitivity" specification, so the above will need to suffice.
AFAIR, the output impedance of the 3.0 line amplifier section is either 50 ohms or 47 ohms (the possible 3-ohm difference should not affect any audio application that I am aware of).
But it has been a long time since I worked on a 3.0. Should my memory be faulty (smile), you can check for yourself. Open up the main unit (not the power supplies), and you will see four horizontal boards in a row. These are the amplifier boards. The inner two boards are the phono amplifiers, and the outer two boards are the line amplifiers.
The right channel output is located near the right edge of the right line amplifier board, and the left channel output is located near the left edge of the left line amplifier board. You should be able to easily tell where the outputs are, since there is a pair of twisted wires connecting each of these to the corresponding output jacks at the rear panel of the amplifier chassis.
The output nodes are formed by vertical metal pillars mounted into teflon isolators, and each output node is fed by a resistor housed in a metal can (looks like a crystal oscillator). These resistors define the output impedance, and their values are printed on the metal bodies.
hth, jonathan
PS. thank you to Petr for replying to Roysen earlier.
I am not used to the "input sensitivity" specification, so the above will need to suffice.
AFAIR, the output impedance of the 3.0 line amplifier section is either 50 ohms or 47 ohms (the possible 3-ohm difference should not affect any audio application that I am aware of).
But it has been a long time since I worked on a 3.0. Should my memory be faulty (smile), you can check for yourself. Open up the main unit (not the power supplies), and you will see four horizontal boards in a row. These are the amplifier boards. The inner two boards are the phono amplifiers, and the outer two boards are the line amplifiers.
The right channel output is located near the right edge of the right line amplifier board, and the left channel output is located near the left edge of the left line amplifier board. You should be able to easily tell where the outputs are, since there is a pair of twisted wires connecting each of these to the corresponding output jacks at the rear panel of the amplifier chassis.
The output nodes are formed by vertical metal pillars mounted into teflon isolators, and each output node is fed by a resistor housed in a metal can (looks like a crystal oscillator). These resistors define the output impedance, and their values are printed on the metal bodies.
hth, jonathan
PS. thank you to Petr for replying to Roysen earlier.
Hi ced: Thank you for the kind post. Unfortunately I am short on time and energy (presently building some new semi-prototype power supplies for a few Connoisseur 4 customers). Precisely because the topics that you raised are interesting, they deserve a thoughtful, considered reply rather than the terse words that would be the best that I could muster now!
Hopefully I will be able to catch my breath around week-end time.
kind regards, jonathan
Hopefully I will be able to catch my breath around week-end time.
kind regards, jonathan
Hello to everyone. Sorry for not replying to posts - I've simply been swamped with electronics and cartridge work.
A reply to Cedric inquiry about the Connoisseur 5: Similarly to the Connoisseur 4, the 5 series preamps were originally designed as one big star ground. This is true of both the topology, and the physical construction.
The power transformers (one per channel) have completely dual secondaries, each with its own rectification bridge. The raw DC positive and negative supply rails are kept completely separate from each other, and the individual grounds do not combine until they are inside the preamp main unit.
If you look at the bottom of a 4-2 or 4-2SE, you will see a protruding lid in the center of the floorpan. This covers the bespoke grounding board, which combines all of the incoming and outgoing ground links into a single star.
The chassis and mechanical layout design places the star ground so that it is equidistant to every circuit board, and the input selector and attenuators (for the line preamp).
The input selector and attenuators were designed specifically so that everything could be ascloseaspossible to the central ground. This is why the Connoisseur 4 only has a single knob and uses a coaxial rotary switch for both the input selector and the dual attenuators.
If I would have used separate left and right attenuator switches, or one rotory switch for the input selector and one for the attenuators, that would have increased the loop area of the ground network, and would have pushed the amplification boards farther apart, which means longer signal wiring, longer power supply wiring, and of course longer ground wiring. I could have circumvented this by using an "over and under" arrangement for the input selector and the attenuators, so that the attenuator would come on top (for example), the input selector on the bottom, the left amplier module to the left, and the right amplifier module to the right, with the grounding board in the center of everything. But that would have made the grounding arrangement much harder to work on physically, and I would have needed to keep the grounding board super-flat (in reality a variety of components are installed on the grounding board which makes it easonably thick - not just wires).
When I designed the 5, I kept the star ground design philosophy and scaled everything up, so that the 5 continued to sport a single large(r) knob, with all of the key components carefully arranged around the central ground.
However, when the 5 was launched, our Japanese distributor was told by some of his dealers that, since the price was a good deal higher than the 4, they expected the main unit to show more glitz and eye candy. Perhaps because our thenJapanese distributor himself has a love for eye candy, he caved in and completely redesigned the 5 chassis structure into a dual-knob arrangement, which forced everything apart and cause the wiring networks to become much larger and sprawling. There were a handful of single knob 5s built, but he had all of these taken apart and rebuilt the boards into the new two-knob chasses.
I think that one single-knob 5 may still exist, but I am not aware of any other ones.
Essentially, our Japanese distributor broke the original design philosophy of the 5, and certainly he destroyed any interest or desire that I had in taking it further. At the request of one customer, I did work on one dual-knob 5 in an attempt to bring it closer to the 4-2, and the sound definitely improved. However, what I found was that I had to "fight" the mechanical layout and chassis design too much to accomplish what I wanted to - the design philosophies were simply not very compatible.
So the 4 kept on evolving and getting better, while the 5 took a step back in performance due to the shift to a dual knob chassis, and there is were it remained. This is a shame because the 5 was more sophisticated in the areas of circuit topology and board design, but such is life, I suppose.
I hope that this answers any questions about the 5 and what happened to it (including what didn't happen to it).
Well, that should be enough rambling on for today. More at another time, I hope.
BTW, I will be at the Munich High End audio show, at the Fast Audio booth. This will only be for the Lyra cartridges - no product from Connoisseur will be on display. If anyone happens to be in the area around that time (next week), please feel free to drop by and say "hello".
kind regards to all, jonathan
A reply to Cedric inquiry about the Connoisseur 5: Similarly to the Connoisseur 4, the 5 series preamps were originally designed as one big star ground. This is true of both the topology, and the physical construction.
The power transformers (one per channel) have completely dual secondaries, each with its own rectification bridge. The raw DC positive and negative supply rails are kept completely separate from each other, and the individual grounds do not combine until they are inside the preamp main unit.
If you look at the bottom of a 4-2 or 4-2SE, you will see a protruding lid in the center of the floorpan. This covers the bespoke grounding board, which combines all of the incoming and outgoing ground links into a single star.
The chassis and mechanical layout design places the star ground so that it is equidistant to every circuit board, and the input selector and attenuators (for the line preamp).
The input selector and attenuators were designed specifically so that everything could be ascloseaspossible to the central ground. This is why the Connoisseur 4 only has a single knob and uses a coaxial rotary switch for both the input selector and the dual attenuators.
If I would have used separate left and right attenuator switches, or one rotory switch for the input selector and one for the attenuators, that would have increased the loop area of the ground network, and would have pushed the amplification boards farther apart, which means longer signal wiring, longer power supply wiring, and of course longer ground wiring. I could have circumvented this by using an "over and under" arrangement for the input selector and the attenuators, so that the attenuator would come on top (for example), the input selector on the bottom, the left amplier module to the left, and the right amplifier module to the right, with the grounding board in the center of everything. But that would have made the grounding arrangement much harder to work on physically, and I would have needed to keep the grounding board super-flat (in reality a variety of components are installed on the grounding board which makes it easonably thick - not just wires).
When I designed the 5, I kept the star ground design philosophy and scaled everything up, so that the 5 continued to sport a single large(r) knob, with all of the key components carefully arranged around the central ground.
However, when the 5 was launched, our Japanese distributor was told by some of his dealers that, since the price was a good deal higher than the 4, they expected the main unit to show more glitz and eye candy. Perhaps because our thenJapanese distributor himself has a love for eye candy, he caved in and completely redesigned the 5 chassis structure into a dual-knob arrangement, which forced everything apart and cause the wiring networks to become much larger and sprawling. There were a handful of single knob 5s built, but he had all of these taken apart and rebuilt the boards into the new two-knob chasses.
I think that one single-knob 5 may still exist, but I am not aware of any other ones.
Essentially, our Japanese distributor broke the original design philosophy of the 5, and certainly he destroyed any interest or desire that I had in taking it further. At the request of one customer, I did work on one dual-knob 5 in an attempt to bring it closer to the 4-2, and the sound definitely improved. However, what I found was that I had to "fight" the mechanical layout and chassis design too much to accomplish what I wanted to - the design philosophies were simply not very compatible.
So the 4 kept on evolving and getting better, while the 5 took a step back in performance due to the shift to a dual knob chassis, and there is were it remained. This is a shame because the 5 was more sophisticated in the areas of circuit topology and board design, but such is life, I suppose.
I hope that this answers any questions about the 5 and what happened to it (including what didn't happen to it).
Well, that should be enough rambling on for today. More at another time, I hope.
BTW, I will be at the Munich High End audio show, at the Fast Audio booth. This will only be for the Lyra cartridges - no product from Connoisseur will be on display. If anyone happens to be in the area around that time (next week), please feel free to drop by and say "hello".
kind regards to all, jonathan
Last edited:
Separate things. The 4-3 contains general topology improvements to reduce distortion and noise. It is not any single thing, rather, a lot of general details that add up to a noticeable improvement.
BTW, the 4-3 phono stage gets a redesigned, tighter RIAA curve, so it is less euphonic and more accurate (although you should not think that the more accurate RIAA curve makes it sound more analytical or mechanical, because it doesn't).
The overall sonic effect is of bigger dynamic swing, better dynamic differentiation, and less congestion on complex, dissonant-sounding music (which can easily sound ugly).
The 4-3 can be used with the existing power supplies, or it can be used with the upcoming power supply.
I've built (and listened to) a few of the new BB1 power supplies, which were made as conversions from existing 4-series power supplies. However, after doing a few such conversions, I realized that the work was too involved, and due to a lack of physical space inside the existing power supply chassis, I needed to make the new circuit boards too compact for easy building (too many overlapping parts, so the parts need to come together in a fairly strict order, and the protruding lead lengths need to be kept very short so that they don't collide with the components on the other side of the circuit board). I was able to make everything fit, and the final result even looked quite neat and organized, but it was not fun at all, and unjustifiably time-consuming.
Therefore, I am in the process of designing a new power supply chassis that is somewhat larger, and I will design a new version of the BB PS circuits and boards. Although the chassis will grow somewhat in size and weight, I plan to keep it compact enough to fit within the existing shipping boxes - otherwise we will incur unplanned shipping cost increases to the postal service and FedEx.
The few BB1 PS that I built sounded quite nice (bigger and more powerful-sounding, lower noise floor, more natural timbres, better soundstaging and imaging), and worked a treat with the 4-3. However, due to the difficulties in physically building the things, it is back to a blank sheet of paper (ok ok, not quite that bad).
I have already designed the main circuit and done some mechanical layout of the electrical components, board layout, and planned chassis revision, but I need to accurately plot out the surge currents and voltages so that I know exactly how large each component needs to be, and then find out if I have increased the chassis size by enough, or whether I need to give it an additional nudge or two.
kind regards, jonathan
BTW, the 4-3 phono stage gets a redesigned, tighter RIAA curve, so it is less euphonic and more accurate (although you should not think that the more accurate RIAA curve makes it sound more analytical or mechanical, because it doesn't).
The overall sonic effect is of bigger dynamic swing, better dynamic differentiation, and less congestion on complex, dissonant-sounding music (which can easily sound ugly).
The 4-3 can be used with the existing power supplies, or it can be used with the upcoming power supply.
I've built (and listened to) a few of the new BB1 power supplies, which were made as conversions from existing 4-series power supplies. However, after doing a few such conversions, I realized that the work was too involved, and due to a lack of physical space inside the existing power supply chassis, I needed to make the new circuit boards too compact for easy building (too many overlapping parts, so the parts need to come together in a fairly strict order, and the protruding lead lengths need to be kept very short so that they don't collide with the components on the other side of the circuit board). I was able to make everything fit, and the final result even looked quite neat and organized, but it was not fun at all, and unjustifiably time-consuming.
Therefore, I am in the process of designing a new power supply chassis that is somewhat larger, and I will design a new version of the BB PS circuits and boards. Although the chassis will grow somewhat in size and weight, I plan to keep it compact enough to fit within the existing shipping boxes - otherwise we will incur unplanned shipping cost increases to the postal service and FedEx.
The few BB1 PS that I built sounded quite nice (bigger and more powerful-sounding, lower noise floor, more natural timbres, better soundstaging and imaging), and worked a treat with the 4-3. However, due to the difficulties in physically building the things, it is back to a blank sheet of paper (ok ok, not quite that bad).
I have already designed the main circuit and done some mechanical layout of the electrical components, board layout, and planned chassis revision, but I need to accurately plot out the surge currents and voltages so that I know exactly how large each component needs to be, and then find out if I have increased the chassis size by enough, or whether I need to give it an additional nudge or two.
kind regards, jonathan
Hi, Jonathan.
Is there any way to reduce the gain on the 3.0 linestage? I am using it with Dynaudio Arbiter power amplifiers and Magico Q7 speakers.
Warm regards,
Roysen
I listened to Dead Can Dance in Allen Perkins' shop/studio through his Immedia turntable and Audio Physic speaker, using this preamp and a Gamut power amp and it is the most spectacular demo I have ever heard. The Connoisseur is far beyond any phono preamp I have heard before or since. The other components, while very nice, were hardly in the same league as the Connoisseur. I don't recall which model, but this was CA. 2002.
I owned a 4.2L SE for about two years, and it is no doubt a world-class preamp. The overall sound quality and workmanship was top notch. I custom-made a clear acrylic top so I can admire the Shallco switches and the air dielectric circuit boards. On a side note, my company supplies some of the components on the Shallco switches so owning the preamp gave me an even more pride : )
I am not going to waste any space here dissecting its sound, but let me just say that it was (and is) the most “pure” sounding preamp I’ve ever heard. The sound was really clean, smooth, and continuous. My subsequent preamp (a Soulution 721) tops the 4.2L SE in terms of detail retrieval, dynamics, and bass, but I would still say the 4.2L SE is more transparent and cleaner sounding than the Soulution.
I am not going to waste any space here dissecting its sound, but let me just say that it was (and is) the most “pure” sounding preamp I’ve ever heard. The sound was really clean, smooth, and continuous. My subsequent preamp (a Soulution 721) tops the 4.2L SE in terms of detail retrieval, dynamics, and bass, but I would still say the 4.2L SE is more transparent and cleaner sounding than the Soulution.
I am sure you auditioned the Audio Physic Medea speakers which is another gem from the same time period as the Connoisseur.
Hi, my name is Chris Thomas and it has been interesting reading this thread. So much so in fact that I thought I would make this my first post after several months of enjoying the site. I wrote a review for HiFi Plus many moons ago about the Lyra Connoisseur 4-2L and had the good fortune to meet up with both Stig and Jonathan in London for dinner at around that time too. We have stayed in touch. I used that line-stage for many years with quite a few power amplifiers and I only sold it when I moved to the Berning Quadrature Z power amplifiers and later with David's matching Pre One. The whole gain structure of the Bernings never felt quite right with the Lyra to me although, as a line-stage, Jonathan's 4.2 was in a different league. I could go on and on about how good it was and I have to say that, of all the equipment that has passed through my hands over the decades, it is the only piece that I still truly miss. It started off taking my breath away from the first time I plugged it in with a Spectral power amplifier. Yes, I know it was very radical of me, but it made the Spectral line-stage I was using sound artificial and horribly mechanical. I soon had it singing with the Hovland solid-state power amplifier and with subsequent models from other manufacturers (with varying degrees of musical compatibility) as the months went by.
To me it was musically fantastic. The kind of review piece that comes along perhaps a couple of times in a decade and if you like to listen to the 'sound' of instruments and how they are being energised then I have heard nothing better. Some time before I sold it I sent it back to Jonathan after he told me of some upgrades he had implemented at Lyra and asked me if I would like mine to undergo those changes. By this time we had struck up both a friendship and something of a mutual understanding about music, so I readily agreed. What came back was a line-stage that was much changed and to be absolutely frank, if you haven't heard this 'latest' version, then you are missing something exceptional. I should explain that, as far as I am aware, this series of updates is hopefully available to 4 series lines stages as this model is no longer available new.
What Jonathan achieved moved the bar much higher and took the Lyra to another level completely. Yes, you could sit and point to individual aspects of its performance that had been improved but, to me, the differences went much, much deeper than that. There was a lyricism and sense of musical continuation that I have never heard from a system before or since. A kind of flowing glow to the dynamics that felt entirely natural and colourfully 'real'. This had nothing to do with tightness of bass, extension of treble or soundstage, all things that often consume the audiophile. This was purely about beauty. It could also be about the poetry of lyrics or musical phrasing too. In short, that last version that I now regret selling, took me along with it on its musical journey. It was fascinating, organic, intriguing and nourishing, all at the same time. And it had a 'view' of the music that is world's away from the disseminated high resolution thrust that I hear from so much of today's high-end. If you are wondering why, after all this, I sold it, then I assure you that I do too.
To me it was musically fantastic. The kind of review piece that comes along perhaps a couple of times in a decade and if you like to listen to the 'sound' of instruments and how they are being energised then I have heard nothing better. Some time before I sold it I sent it back to Jonathan after he told me of some upgrades he had implemented at Lyra and asked me if I would like mine to undergo those changes. By this time we had struck up both a friendship and something of a mutual understanding about music, so I readily agreed. What came back was a line-stage that was much changed and to be absolutely frank, if you haven't heard this 'latest' version, then you are missing something exceptional. I should explain that, as far as I am aware, this series of updates is hopefully available to 4 series lines stages as this model is no longer available new.
What Jonathan achieved moved the bar much higher and took the Lyra to another level completely. Yes, you could sit and point to individual aspects of its performance that had been improved but, to me, the differences went much, much deeper than that. There was a lyricism and sense of musical continuation that I have never heard from a system before or since. A kind of flowing glow to the dynamics that felt entirely natural and colourfully 'real'. This had nothing to do with tightness of bass, extension of treble or soundstage, all things that often consume the audiophile. This was purely about beauty. It could also be about the poetry of lyrics or musical phrasing too. In short, that last version that I now regret selling, took me along with it on its musical journey. It was fascinating, organic, intriguing and nourishing, all at the same time. And it had a 'view' of the music that is world's away from the disseminated high resolution thrust that I hear from so much of today's high-end. If you are wondering why, after all this, I sold it, then I assure you that I do too.
Hi Jonathan.
I am very happy with my 3.0 and thanks for all your help so far. The 3.0 was made for the Japanese 100V market. I live in Europe and here we are 230V. Because of this I have to use a step down power transformer with my 3.0. I assume the quality of such a transformer is crucial to the performance of the 3.0. I hope you can help me once more by either recomending a specific transformer I should use or specify the characteristics I should pass on to my transformerdesigner Sasa Cokic of Trafomatic Audio to make the transformer to your specifications.
I need to point out that I am not talking about doing any internal work in the 3.0, but that this would be a transformer in an external cabinet or even possibly two cabinets if one transformer for each 3.0 PSU is preferable.
All the best,
Roysen
I am very happy with my 3.0 and thanks for all your help so far. The 3.0 was made for the Japanese 100V market. I live in Europe and here we are 230V. Because of this I have to use a step down power transformer with my 3.0. I assume the quality of such a transformer is crucial to the performance of the 3.0. I hope you can help me once more by either recomending a specific transformer I should use or specify the characteristics I should pass on to my transformerdesigner Sasa Cokic of Trafomatic Audio to make the transformer to your specifications.
I need to point out that I am not talking about doing any internal work in the 3.0, but that this would be a transformer in an external cabinet or even possibly two cabinets if one transformer for each 3.0 PSU is preferable.
All the best,
Roysen
Similar threads
Members online
- J-Wall
- Jimkrell42
- sthekepat
- Macattack
- markramler
- Tuckia
- kostas6a3
- Salectric
- Toymanmark
- turbinetodd
- Ligriv
- Blake
- rob
- RyanTX
- thedudeabides
- jazzdude99
- Bbock
- ecwl
- swatello
- mmannaxx
- LarryK
- Holli82
- MetalGear
- Tlay
- RSB
- Jhellow
- gfroman
- Steveo
- Kingrex
- JimmyJet
- trekpilot
- Tapetech
- 2ndLiner
- MPW
- gestalt
- archer88
- fleetowner123
- Young Skywalker
- RealMcCoy
- kayakerf
- Chauncey79
- Shindohaut
- TKK
- hce4
- Powerman
- RickS
- miniguy
- MylesBAstor
- 04dgmsilv
- shawnf
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |