I have not yet heard a Radikal with a Cirkus LP12. I will soon as I just received a Radikal and Urika for a customer LP12 that doesn't have a Keel. Since it also has a different arm (Ekos II) when I listen to it I will also be hearing the difference from the lesser tonearm. But it will be interesting to hear how it sounds.
I look forward to hearing what you find when you put the Keel back in. I do find that a new Radikal PS doesn't boogie as well as one well burned in.
New LP12 upgrades
Moderator: Staff
OK, here's the report on the Radikal on a Cirkus LP12. In a word: excellent.
I just setup an LP12, Cirkus, Ekos II, Akiva, and an original "flimsy base" with a Radikal and Urika. I did this in phases so as to hear just the effect of the Radikal. After the Radikal installation I set up an A/B comparison. The system was a Linto, KK, KCT and a pair of Paradigm Studio 20 v5s (about 3/4ths the price of Majik 109s and a pretty decent speaker). This was fed by the above LP12 and a store demo LP12 with Lingo, Keel, Ekos SE, Trampolin 2 and Akiva.
I did the comparison for a customer and one of the other salespeople and later did it again for the owner. The winner, without question, was the Radikal LP12 without Keel and with the lesser arm and base. When playing one track on the Keel/Ekos SE LP12 the comment was made that the bass sounded messy and hard to follow, the person thought the Studio 20s couldn't handle it. With the Radikal LP12 the bass was well defined, flowed beautifully and showed a lot of nuance in the playing - the limitation obviously wasn't the speakers! Vocals, piano, harmonica were all easier to follow and it was obvious that these were talented musicians. And the cymbals had that quality of realism that several have mentioned with all of the drum set sounding more real and making you want to get up and dance. Going back to the Keel/Ekos SE deck had everything sounding once again more congested and harder to discern the instrumental and vocal lines.
All who listened felt the less expensive deck was unquestionably more musical and enjoyable due to the Radikal. One even said that as far as he is concerned the entry level LP12 now includes a Radikal, Akito II, Adikt and Trampolin 2 as it doesn't make sense to get less once you've heard the Radikal.
After these listening sessions I installed the Urika which I had already prepped so as to make the A/B a bit quicker. After 15 minutes we listened to the LP12 Radikal/Urika, Ekos II and Akiva. The Urika added even more to the sense of realism and made for a quieter background. Everything jelled even more and the result was very enjoyable music. Based on this listening test I feel I would normally still recommend the Keel before the Urika but the $850US savings on the Radikal/Urika combo and the fact the customer already had an Akiva made this a sensible move. And I have to say that the Cirkus certainly wasn't letting things down much - the table as a whole was very musical and a lot of fun.
So no doubt as to where to upgrade an LP12 first and no question that the Radikal works its magic on a Cirkus-equipped LP12. As a final test we went to the owner's newly upgraded Maple LP12 (Radikal, Keel, Ekos SE, Akiva and Urika) and everything was much better again. The music was just stunning. A couple of people commented on how amazing the Paradigm Studio 20s sounded.
The hierarchy strikes again! :)
I just setup an LP12, Cirkus, Ekos II, Akiva, and an original "flimsy base" with a Radikal and Urika. I did this in phases so as to hear just the effect of the Radikal. After the Radikal installation I set up an A/B comparison. The system was a Linto, KK, KCT and a pair of Paradigm Studio 20 v5s (about 3/4ths the price of Majik 109s and a pretty decent speaker). This was fed by the above LP12 and a store demo LP12 with Lingo, Keel, Ekos SE, Trampolin 2 and Akiva.
I did the comparison for a customer and one of the other salespeople and later did it again for the owner. The winner, without question, was the Radikal LP12 without Keel and with the lesser arm and base. When playing one track on the Keel/Ekos SE LP12 the comment was made that the bass sounded messy and hard to follow, the person thought the Studio 20s couldn't handle it. With the Radikal LP12 the bass was well defined, flowed beautifully and showed a lot of nuance in the playing - the limitation obviously wasn't the speakers! Vocals, piano, harmonica were all easier to follow and it was obvious that these were talented musicians. And the cymbals had that quality of realism that several have mentioned with all of the drum set sounding more real and making you want to get up and dance. Going back to the Keel/Ekos SE deck had everything sounding once again more congested and harder to discern the instrumental and vocal lines.
All who listened felt the less expensive deck was unquestionably more musical and enjoyable due to the Radikal. One even said that as far as he is concerned the entry level LP12 now includes a Radikal, Akito II, Adikt and Trampolin 2 as it doesn't make sense to get less once you've heard the Radikal.
After these listening sessions I installed the Urika which I had already prepped so as to make the A/B a bit quicker. After 15 minutes we listened to the LP12 Radikal/Urika, Ekos II and Akiva. The Urika added even more to the sense of realism and made for a quieter background. Everything jelled even more and the result was very enjoyable music. Based on this listening test I feel I would normally still recommend the Keel before the Urika but the $850US savings on the Radikal/Urika combo and the fact the customer already had an Akiva made this a sensible move. And I have to say that the Cirkus certainly wasn't letting things down much - the table as a whole was very musical and a lot of fun.
So no doubt as to where to upgrade an LP12 first and no question that the Radikal works its magic on a Cirkus-equipped LP12. As a final test we went to the owner's newly upgraded Maple LP12 (Radikal, Keel, Ekos SE, Akiva and Urika) and everything was much better again. The music was just stunning. A couple of people commented on how amazing the Paradigm Studio 20s sounded.
The hierarchy strikes again! :)Another little follow on report. When I first received my Radikal and Urika I stated I thought there was a possibility that two power supplies - one for the Radikal and one for the Urika - might be better than one, as had been suggested elsewhere. I came back and amended my post once I learned my Radikal had a defective board which left it unable to properly power the Radikal, Urika and power LED all at the same time - rendering my initial comparison invalid.
I have now had the opportunity to check the idea of two power supplies more thoroughly and I don't feel there is a performance advantage over one. Indeed, based on my listening tests I believe one sounds slightly better than two.
My first attempt at comparison was when the store's owner bought a Radikal and Urika for his LP12. Since it came in just before he left on vacation I was able to use his Radikal PS for some experiments. These comparisons were frustrated by the fact my Radikal PS had been burned in for over a month while Keith's only had a few hours on it. Any possible improvement from two power supplies was completely swamped by how much better things sounded with the burned in PS. Plugging either the motor or the Urika into the new Radikal noticeably worsened the musical performance of the system.
However, a few days later I received another Radikal for a customer so I was able to compare one vs. two Radikal PS units, neither of which were burned in. This comparison was much closer but I still found that one PS was more tuneful than two by a very slight margin. Either way it was quite close but the single PS just held together a little better. I don't know why, possibly Fredrik could hazard a guess, maybe it has something to do with the ground potentials of the different chassis or something like that.
I also found that using two separate power supplies is not as easy as it might seem. When you turn off the motor of your LP12/Radikal it also powers down the Urika part of the power supply. So to use two PS units you have to plug the motor and Urika into one, turn on the motor, then unplug the motor and plug it into the other PS and turn the motor on again. Not too bad if you leave everything powered up all the time but when you unplug things, like when a thunderstorm is rolling through, you have to go through the procedure again. It makes me glad that it is unnecessary, and also that I don't have to even consider the expense of a second power supply.
I have now had the opportunity to check the idea of two power supplies more thoroughly and I don't feel there is a performance advantage over one. Indeed, based on my listening tests I believe one sounds slightly better than two.
My first attempt at comparison was when the store's owner bought a Radikal and Urika for his LP12. Since it came in just before he left on vacation I was able to use his Radikal PS for some experiments. These comparisons were frustrated by the fact my Radikal PS had been burned in for over a month while Keith's only had a few hours on it. Any possible improvement from two power supplies was completely swamped by how much better things sounded with the burned in PS. Plugging either the motor or the Urika into the new Radikal noticeably worsened the musical performance of the system.
However, a few days later I received another Radikal for a customer so I was able to compare one vs. two Radikal PS units, neither of which were burned in. This comparison was much closer but I still found that one PS was more tuneful than two by a very slight margin. Either way it was quite close but the single PS just held together a little better. I don't know why, possibly Fredrik could hazard a guess, maybe it has something to do with the ground potentials of the different chassis or something like that.
I also found that using two separate power supplies is not as easy as it might seem. When you turn off the motor of your LP12/Radikal it also powers down the Urika part of the power supply. So to use two PS units you have to plug the motor and Urika into one, turn on the motor, then unplug the motor and plug it into the other PS and turn the motor on again. Not too bad if you leave everything powered up all the time but when you unplug things, like when a thunderstorm is rolling through, you have to go through the procedure again. It makes me glad that it is unnecessary, and also that I don't have to even consider the expense of a second power supply.
Very interesting, Thomas!
I feel quite relieved by your report. And if I may hazard a guess, I think the Radikal power supply wants to deliver a certain amount of current. If it delivers less, it will sound a tiny bit worse.
Whether this theory is correct AND it depends on an effect on the Radikal motor (and not the Urika) can be determined with an experiment:
Play on an LP12 with Radikal but no Urika (dare I suggest a Slipsik MM phono preamp?). Then connect a Urika to that same Radikal (but the Urika is not connected to your system!) and listen to what happens. Better or worse?
If it sounds better with the Radikal powering the non-connected Urika, then the Radikal prefers driving a little more current than just the motor alone.
For people using just the Radikal, but not Urika (like me), it should then be possible to make a performance-increasing connector that you plug into the Urika connection at the back of your Radikal. Will require some testing to get perfect, but might be better than plugging in a non-connected Urika.
If it doesn't make any difference or sounds worse with the Radikal powering the non-connected Urika, then it could be other way around: A Radikal that powers a Urika (that you listen to) also wants to power a motor to perform optimally.
It could also be due to ground potentials, as Thomas suggested.
Apologies if I confused anyone with the complexity of the above...
I feel quite relieved by your report. And if I may hazard a guess, I think the Radikal power supply wants to deliver a certain amount of current. If it delivers less, it will sound a tiny bit worse.
Whether this theory is correct AND it depends on an effect on the Radikal motor (and not the Urika) can be determined with an experiment:
Play on an LP12 with Radikal but no Urika (dare I suggest a Slipsik MM phono preamp?
). Then connect a Urika to that same Radikal (but the Urika is not connected to your system!) and listen to what happens. Better or worse?If it sounds better with the Radikal powering the non-connected Urika, then the Radikal prefers driving a little more current than just the motor alone.
For people using just the Radikal, but not Urika (like me), it should then be possible to make a performance-increasing connector that you plug into the Urika connection at the back of your Radikal. Will require some testing to get perfect, but might be better than plugging in a non-connected Urika.
If it doesn't make any difference or sounds worse with the Radikal powering the non-connected Urika, then it could be other way around: A Radikal that powers a Urika (that you listen to) also wants to power a motor to perform optimally.
It could also be due to ground potentials, as Thomas suggested.
Apologies if I confused anyone with the complexity of the above...
Just got reminded that I forgot to write a report of my impressions after reinstalling the Keel into my Radikal LP12. To summarise: Keel is great and will stay! :D
After having gone back and forth between Keel and Cirkus twice on the same LP12, I think I've got a fairly good impression of what they both do.
Cirkus sounds a bit muddy and has a bass heavy character that is both impressive and alike-sounding (meaning that records tend to sound more alike due to the Cirkus colouring their sound). But properly installed it presents a very well integrated sound, always musical and enjoyable. It really needs an undamaged armboard with fresh holes, the short armboard screws and the correct torque on all of its fasteners (many of which are overtightened on the LP12's I get in for service). The Cirkus subchassie feels well tuned. Materials are simple, but with every part carefully chosen to work with the others.
Keel is totally different and musically superior. Instead of adding non-informative energy to all records, it brings clarity and detail. Musical interplay is more precisely delivered and easier to follow. At the same time, it has a dynamic reserve that the Cirkus doesn't. There is much less of the "this is just a vinyl record, it's inherently limited"-feeling. A climax is a climax with proper scale and timing.
I mentioned earlier in this thread that I felt the Keel goes a bit too far in the analytical/dry/hard direction. Do I still feel this? Well, I sort of do. In theory, the Keel could perform a little better still, digging out more of the emotion in the recordings. In practice, I have no idea how or if it can be improved. I'd like to point out, however, that it's a big improvement over the Cirkus just like it is.
After having gone back and forth between Keel and Cirkus twice on the same LP12, I think I've got a fairly good impression of what they both do.
Cirkus sounds a bit muddy and has a bass heavy character that is both impressive and alike-sounding (meaning that records tend to sound more alike due to the Cirkus colouring their sound). But properly installed it presents a very well integrated sound, always musical and enjoyable. It really needs an undamaged armboard with fresh holes, the short armboard screws and the correct torque on all of its fasteners (many of which are overtightened on the LP12's I get in for service). The Cirkus subchassie feels well tuned. Materials are simple, but with every part carefully chosen to work with the others.
Keel is totally different and musically superior. Instead of adding non-informative energy to all records, it brings clarity and detail. Musical interplay is more precisely delivered and easier to follow. At the same time, it has a dynamic reserve that the Cirkus doesn't. There is much less of the "this is just a vinyl record, it's inherently limited"-feeling. A climax is a climax with proper scale and timing.
I mentioned earlier in this thread that I felt the Keel goes a bit too far in the analytical/dry/hard direction. Do I still feel this? Well, I sort of do. In theory, the Keel could perform a little better still, digging out more of the emotion in the recordings. In practice, I have no idea how or if it can be improved. I'd like to point out, however, that it's a big improvement over the Cirkus just like it is.
-
Tony Tune-age
- Very active member
- Posts: 1661
- Joined: 2009-12-19 19:07
- Location: United States
Initially the Cirkus upgrade sounded better than the non-Cirkus version, but after it was properly calibrated and torqued, it sounded even better. So at that point, I wondered if the Keel could really improve the sound, and if so, would it would be worth the cost :?: Many of my friends thought the Keel wasn't needed because the Sondek sounded great with the properly calibrated Cirkus. And perhaps it's a matter of what people are happy with in terms of music reproduction versus cost. But after installing the Keel, there was an improvement (although an expensive improvement). The Keel was fundamentally better perfoming than the Cirkus and resulted in more detail, better tone, and of course better "pace, rhythm and timing."lejonklou wrote:But properly installed it presents a very well integrated sound, always musical and enjoyable. It really needs an undamaged armboard with fresh holes, the short armboard screws and the correct torque on all of its fasteners. The Cirkus subchassie feels well tuned. Materials are simple, but with every part carefully chosen to work with the others.
Keel is totally different and musically superior. Instead of adding non-informative energy to all records, it brings clarity and detail. Musical interplay is more precisely delivered and easier to follow. At the same time, it has a dynamic reserve that the Cirkus doesn't.
If funds hadn't been available to purchase the Keel, I would have still enjoyed listening to my Sondek. However, once the Radikal was installed it seemed to expose more of the Keel's virtues. And the two working together was a massive (but costly) sonic improvement. Upgrading the Linn Sondek has been the most logical investment for obtaining better sonic performance. And it has allowed me to better evaluate components downstream, especially in terms of performance versus cost 8) . Although assembling audio systems can be a life long process, there comes a point when the improvement process can certainly slow down :) .
Tony Tune-age
-
Tony Tune-age
- Very active member
- Posts: 1661
- Joined: 2009-12-19 19:07
- Location: United States
I still haven't seen any audio magazine publications from the United States that has conducted an evaluation of the Radikal and Urika. Not sure why nobody has conducted an evaluation, considering the massive improvement to the entire Sondek.
There was an American publication that conducted an evaluation of the Ekos SE, Keel and Trampolin II, shortly after they were made available to the general public.
There was an American publication that conducted an evaluation of the Ekos SE, Keel and Trampolin II, shortly after they were made available to the general public.
Tony Tune-age
Hey Charlie!Charlie1 wrote:Have you played Pretzel Logic yet? Probably not out of your several thousand LPs, but it was always very tuneful to my ears and now it’s just gone to another level. Even the very start of the LP with that strange bobbling sound - it's totally different and interesting to listen to – it’s actually playing a tune and not just some random pattern of noises.
I am listening to Prezel Logic right now and suddenly remembered your comment. I agree with all you said above, everything on the record just makes perfect sense.