Modwright 9100ES

[tkam]

It arrived yesterday, didn't get around to taking any pics till tonight though.

here's some internal shots of the external tube rectified ps:

and a few shots of the 9100es internal and external:

Initial impressions are positive so far, it has absolutely killer bass and I'm pleasantly surprised by it's ability retain a coherent stage regardless of the complexity of the music.

[Dusty Chalk]

Ooooh...ModWright caps...

[Augsburger]

Wow, sweet looking and sweet sounding, very nice. When does it meet the APL?

[postjack]

How are the highs tkam? i'm always terrified when a source is described as having "extended" highs, as the stock 9100ES is.

[Voltron]

I don't know shit about innards, really, but what is up with the piggy-back caps?

[Dusty Chalk]

Probably paralleling to try to attain a certain value, is all.

[Fing]

Luc Besson clearly did.

[tkam]

Probably paralleling to try to attain a certain value, is all.

That would be my assumption as well.

How are the highs tkam? i'm always terrified when a source is described as having "extended" highs, as the stock 9100ES is.

Sounds like your buying into Sony's marketing of SACD's superior frequency response a bit too much .

The modwright does have great extension but it's not aggressive or edgy at all.

[n_maher]

Probably paralleling to try to attain a certain value, is all.

That would make some sense generally but in this case where one of the caps is a .1uF/400V cap it doesn't make any sense to me. The other cap is probably on the order of 10 to 20uF and you can't tell me that whatever it is that they were doing needed exactly 20.1uF instead of 20. It's more likely that they are the output caps and that they simply followed the "convention" of bypassing the larger cap with a smaller cap. Of course usually you do this so that you can use a higher quality small value cap and a cheaper large value but in this instance where both caps are the same fracken thing it's just confusing.

[luvdunhill]

That would make some sense generally but in this case where one of the caps is a .1uF/400V cap it doesn't make any sense to me. The other cap is probably on the order of 10 to 20uF and you can't tell me that whatever it is that they were doing needed exactly 20.1uF instead of 20. It's more likely that they are the output caps and that they simply followed the "convention" of bypassing the larger cap with a smaller cap. Of course usually you do this so that you can use a higher quality small value cap and a cheaper large value but in this instance where both caps are the same fracken thing it's just confusing.

don't forget there are 2 types of ModWright caps, the M and the T. The M Series Capacitors are made with a proprietary oil-impregnated metalized polypropylene dielectric with pure copper tinned leads. The T Series Capacitors are made with

pure Teflon film and copper foil. You don't see the second label, but that's what's going on here. It's more obvious in these pics:

http://www.modwright.com/pdf/ModWrightCaps.pdf

Also, a general link on bypassing that's useful:

http://www.northcreekmusic.com/Bypassing.html

[postjack]

That would be my assumption as well.

Sounds like your buying into Sony's marketing of SACD's superior frequency response a bit too much .

The modwright does have great extension but it's not aggressive or edgy at all.

good to hear, my Modwright 999es was always a tad edgy.

[n_maher]

don't forget there are 2 types of ModWright caps <snip>

That makes much more sense.

[purk]

Todd,

So what do you think of the Modwright 9100ES? Love to hear your impression.

[tkam]

good to hear, my Modwright 999es was always a tad edgy.

Well I do think the external tube rectified ps makes a pretty big difference, was it ever offered with the 999es? Also in stock form the 9100es is a much better machine than the 999es. Dual linear power supplies, seperate clocks for dvd and cd/sacd, etc.

[Augsburger]

Regarding the piggybacking of the caps, I asked Dan Wright what's up and his response is as follows:

"We do use the MWI caps in our mods and the output coupling cap is a 4.7uf-400V value. The purpose of 'piggy-backing' or 'bypassing' the 4.7uf with a smaller .1uf value, is to allow a lower impedance signal path for the highest frequencies. This serves to improve detail and dynamics."

I hope this clarifies things for y'all as I am already over my head.

[Dusty Chalk]

... for the highest frequencies...

You know, I admire the man greatly, but I smell bullshit. It's not like there's a crossover there. Is this the same physics that talks about skin effect in audio frequency electrical transmissions?

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I'd really like to be wrong this time.

[n_maher]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I'd really like to be wrong this time.

I think it's well established that if you have two caps of varying sizes (capacitance wise) that part of the audio signal will go through one and part through the other. The way it's been explained to me is that the larger cap will see the lowest frequency and the smaller the higher. That's a very simplistic explanation but I think there is at least a shred of truth to what he's saying and it's certainly born out by looking at how the size of an output cap can greatly affect the frequency response of a device. I'm sure one of the more technically minded folks around here can give a more in depth explanation.

[Icarium]

Yeah that sounds a little like magic.

[riceboy]

Thanks Todd for the pics and impressions so far. It looks great. Have fun with the new toy

[n_maher]

but well established by who?

It's pretty easily seen in the frequency roll off calculations that you can do on output caps. For example, on the Menace the 200uF output caps roll off low frequencies into Grado headphones. If I use a larger cap in parallel with those caps I can lower the roll off point so it stands to reason that those lower frequencies are going through the larger cap, doesn't it? And this isn't something I'm making up, Pete Millett and I had several conversations about how to configure the output caps for the Menace during construction. Pete's not much for bullshit.

[n_maher]

that answers my question.

In some respects yes, but the more that I thought about it the more it's a bit fuzzier in this case. See the load plays a big role and in this case I have to believe that the load that is seen by those output caps is probably pretty large, as in several thousands ohms or more. If that's the case then most if not all the signal is going through the small cap and the big cap isn't doing much. Maybe there's something I'm missing.

[Pars]

Many people feel that modern caps, particularly film caps, are so good that bypassing is no longer necessary. Bypassing as mentioned is usually done with a cap 1 to 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the initial cap, which is chosen for the coupling frequency requirements.

Some also attribute smearing, etc. to bypassing. Since these I assume are the output coupling caps, I wouldn't think the frequencies to be passed were high enough to worry about (22-30K tops?) and that the 4.7uf cap should pass them just fine. DC coupled would be even better, but I guess not with the tube stage...

[luvdunhill]

Many people feel that modern caps, particularly film caps, are so good that bypassing is no longer necessary. Bypassing as mentioned is usually done with a cap 1 to 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the initial cap, which is chosen for the coupling frequency requirements.

I'd think this (rather new) sentiment is only really held in the electronics side of the house. For speaker crossovers, I don't think anyone would dispute the benefits of bypassing.

[tkam]

I've done quite a bit of listening to the modwright 9100es over the past 3-4 days and I feel that it is truly a high-end source.

It throws a huge soundstage with extremely good channel separation. It presents stage in an articulate manner placing every piece of the music in it's own concise spot in space. I'm looking forward to comparing that aspect in particular against the apl 3910 in the speaker rig.

One of the concerns I had before getting it was speed and pacing, tube outputs (especially poorly designed ones) have a tendency to slow things down just enough to to throw the pacing off a bit. I'm happy to report that is not the case with the modwright 9100es it keeps the O2's speed intact and has spot on pacing.

I do think one of it's biggest strength's is bass reproduction. It might be the bass reproduction I've heard it goes deep and can really slam when needed. But it can also be delicate in the way it lets all the nuances and textures of the bass notes through.

I'm sure the excellent bass ties in with this, but the player also has killer dynamics it transitions between quiet and loud passages perfectly never sounding too soft in the quiet parts or too harsh on loud ones.

That's about all the thoughts I feel like putting down for now, more to come soon.

[kevin gilmore]

Way better build quality than that other mod company. Should last

as long as the player.