CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

stefuel · Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 11:56 am Post subject:

cmjohnson · Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 5180 Location: Buried under G90s

I know a new neck card is in the works. I've seen a prototype in Scott's lab. But I have no idea if there's a production version or what it costs.

However...the usable bandwidth of the MRF 548/549 output devices used in Marquee neck cards is MORE than enough. The question is
how to get the REST of the video chain to be stable and have flat response across all that bandwidth!

And that's what they pay Scott the big money for...to solve that question!

Even when an extended video chain is available, I wouldn't expect it to be cheap. Doesn't VDC charge over a thousand bucks each
for neck cards?

CJ

garyfritz · Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 12088 Location: Fort Collins, CO

cmjohnson · Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 5180 Location: Buried under G90s

I'm saying that's how I did it. No need to try to find the mating connector or splice into a used harness, if you're willing to spend a little
extra time soldering wires in.

And also, my preference is to tuck the PC board into the side of the Thomson yoke shell. It's a tight enough fit without that connector in the way! It's definitely easy to tuck the board in with that connector removed.

CJ

garyfritz · Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 12088 Location: Fort Collins, CO

Um, I'm confused. What PC board do you mean? I was talking about removing the molex connector and soldering directly to the mini-board that the connector was on. Which is already tucked in there (it's under the connector in the picture above) so I'm not sure what you're saying.

Looking at tekkentoh's post on the A site it looks simple to remove the connector and just solder into the mini-board that's already there. It looks like "red black yellow orange" (see the first pic in that post, or the pic in post #16) is the right order. I figured I'd just open up the KD shell, flip the coil, remove the connector, solder the wires into the mini-board, and put it all back together.

I finally got a chance to rip open my 8500 and look at the wires & connectors involved. I see I was mistaken -- I thought the Thompson coil had a plug just like the KD does, but the wires all go directly into the coil. So I'll just replace the whole wire set that goes to the focus board. It should be easy to find a 6-pin connector like the one that goes onto the focus board, so I should be able to leave the Thompson coil intact in case I need to go back.

What are the extra wires that go to the Thompson coil, and why doesn't the KD need them? I assume the purple/white/blue/gray lines from the stigmator board are the astig signals, which the KD can't use. But what are the green/purple lines from the focus board?

CJ, Barry says there's no reason to move the coil to the Thompson shell. Did you have a particular reason to use the Thompson shell?

cmjohnson · Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 5180 Location: Buried under G90s

That's what I did FIRST. And with a 2211, for a Mark I FrankenYoke, you DO retain the ability to shift the yoke for centering, just like
with a Thomson yoke, if you transfer it into the Thomson shell. So I maintain that it's a worthwhile transfer if you don't have electronic
astig to play with.

As the Mark II is based on a focus coil that has a much smaller internal diameter, thereby eliminating the possibility of using the Thomson
style yoke centering feature, there's no need to transfer THAT coil into a Thomson shell.

And yes, the PC board I was referring to is the tiny one housed inside the KD2211/KD22-22 series focus yoke assemblies. There is no
other that I am referring to in the context of focus yokes and coils. I remove the white bodied connector from that board and directly
solder the yoke harness wires to the board. That way I don't have to even worry about trying to find those connectors or deal with
crimping those little pins without the right tool on hand.

CJ

Joust · Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject:

so the 2211 bobbin has a larger diameter hole than the 1292 sony # 1-452-811-11 ?
if that is the case then by all means transfer it to the thompson yoke housing to allow you to have some centering ability.

they look to be the same diameter as the sony # 1-452-811-11. what I'd do is use the stock housing and simply shim with small pieces of box board.

garyfritz · Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 12088 Location: Fort Collins, CO

CJ's right, Barry. I just checked the 22-11 bobbin on my 8500's tubes. It's significantly larger. It looks to me like it's the same inside diameter as the Thompson coil. The 22-11 **shell** fits snugly onto the tube neck, but that's because the shell has a sleeve that runs inside the bobbin.

From what tse says, you can center with the 22-11 by rotating it, but I doubt that's as flexible and powerful as the Thompson method. I guess there's no advantage to using the 22-11 shell instead of the Thompson shell? And if you use the Thompson shell you get the full advantage of the centering mechanism.

So I guess I *will* be moving the coils to the Thompson shells. I understand now what you mean about tucking the board into the Thompson shell, CJ. If I ever manage to find a set of 22-22 coils (not bloody likely considering how scarce and popular they are), I'll keep those in their original shells.

Thanks for the pointers, Chris!

antorsae · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 297

garyfritz · Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 12088 Location: Fort Collins, CO

So Andres, if you've experimented with both methods, which shell would you use? Is the Ampro rotation method good enough for these coils or will I be sorry if I don't have the Thompson centering ability? I would kinda prefer to leave the Thompsons intact if there is no need to cannibalize them.

antorsae · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 297

Hi - I have only tried the 22-22 yokes and the G90 in their original shells (they are too big to be transfered into a Thompson shell imho, at least the G90 for sure). If I was in your shoes (22-11 yokes) I'd try them in their original housings and try the rotating method; if that works for you... you are good to go; if not, do the surgery to the Thompson ones).

In my case the rotation method yielded the same result in all three yokes (180 degree turn) which leads me to believe that they are very precise anyway and the 180 deg. turn may be an effect of having reversed the polarity.

garyfritz · Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 12088 Location: Fort Collins, CO

That sounds reasonable. I've never liked dinking with the Thompson shells for centering anyway. It would be easy to move the coils to the Thompson shells if I couldn't center with the KD shells. Tnx Andres!

cmjohnson · Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 5180 Location: Buried under G90s

Just FYI, when moving the 22-11 coil assemblies into Thomson shells, SOME modifications are going to be needed.

The "lid" of the Thomson yoke is two identical pieces glued together. You MAY need to split the pair and dispose of
the inner half, or at least shorten its neck, in order for it to all fit together nicely.

I use hot melt glue to firmly center the 22-11 coil assembly in the Thomson shell. You don't need a LOT, but you do
need to center up the yoke so that it stays in place and have a means of keeping it there. Hot melt glue works well
and is also removable without a great deal of effort.

CJ

mp20748 · Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:50 am Post subject:

I have a set of FrankenYokes that was sent to me to attach the wires to. After connecting the wires it was hard to really tell the level of improvements with only my test 8500 (it's not displaying on a screen).

So being curious, the thought kept jumping in my mind to put them in my lowly 8500... no way, that would take too much time I kept telling myself. But that did not last too long. It was only an hour later that I started removing the coils from the 8500 and putting in the Frankenyokes. I just can't leave well enough alone.. Crying or Very sad

I think I was table to swap the yokes in and do a quick and dirty in about 2 hours.

1920x1080P - 8500 w/Frankenyokes

Tom.W · Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 6635

Very nice Mike !

garyfritz · Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 12088 Location: Fort Collins, CO

Your "lowly" 8500 is the uber-tweaked one that's done such nice 1080p shots before, right? How much difference did you notice?

cmjohnson · Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 5180 Location: Buried under G90s

I'm sure that you'll notice a very impressive improvement in the ability of the set to resist blooming now as you take the contrast up.

THAT is the single greatest improvement that FrankenYokes offer. They may not offer amazing resolution improvements at lower contrast
levels, but they'll allow you to maintain a sharp image at contrast levels you'd never dream of using before.

CJ

garyfritz · Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 12088 Location: Fort Collins, CO

Great, so I'll just fry my tubes quicker. Smile

antorsae · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 297

Mike,

Is your 8500 AC or LC? I think at some point your 8500 is so heavily modded that the limiting factor would be those 8" tubes and lenses. Are you planning on getting a 9500LC anytime? Smile

Best - Andres

Gino · Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:58 am Post subject: