MC phono stage without transformer?
Is it any surprise that Atmasphere dislikes MC phono step-up TRANSFORMERS!!!! But the problems which plague power output transformers hardly exist for tiny signal transformers. Purists will dislike having an extra device in the signal path, but an extra gain stage is the same thing. We can recite all the theoretical deficiencies of step-up transformers, but the darned things evidently aren't paying attention, and work very well. |
Dear Eldartford: +++++ " But the problems which plague power output transformers hardly exist for tiny signal transformers. " +++++ How is that? could you explain about?, maybe I'm missing something and I want to tell you that I not only owned several ones but I was a SUT's fanatic/devotee till I " learn ". There are two areas ( frequency extremes range ) where the SUT degradation are totally audible ( very special on bass. ) against a well active device design and I'm talking here of that " tiny signal ", at least that is my experiences about. Regards and enjoy the music. Raul. |
Dear Raul, "There are two areas ( frequency extremes range ) where the SUT degradation are totally audible ( very special on bass. )" I experienced this also in comparison with my Gryphon Phonostage which had a deeper bass than some transformers via the build in phono stage in my preamp. But for instance with the highly linear and extented Jensen JT-346 (also used in the Jeff Rowland Cadence SS phono stage) this was not noticeable. What I noticed and this is also my personal taste, that the bass via SS phono stage (Gryphon, ASR or others) never had the "quality" and integrity of the tube/transformer combination. Which can also be said of the bass from my Gryphon SS power am section in general, compared to my VAC tube amp which replaced it. But I'm using french Cabasse speakers. The "legend" says that they are sound best with tubes. From my experience I have to agree. |
Dear Ron: I made some research about your audio system items to " figure " ( in some way. ) what are you hearing and why you prefer a SUT. There are not too much info on your amp but other model where I read that its output impedance is around 4 Ohms, the reviewer write: +++++ " In any event, these values will have a significant audible effect on the amplifier's performance " ++++++ Certainly had an audible effect with almost any speaker and yours has a 4 Ohms nominal impedance that could mean ( I hope I have the real Iroise electrical impedance curve. ) that maybe goes lower than that. Those facts ( amplifier impedance output and electrical speaker impedance ) tell me with out any doubt that the reproduced sound can/could be heavy " colored " ( for say the least ) due to that impedance mistmatch and in some way to intermodulation speaker distortions due that its crossover ( woofer ) is on the high ( very ) 1200hz range. It is probably too that the real inverse RIAA eq. deviation on your Preamp ( that makes a paramount difference in the quality performance. ) is bigger than 0.5 db ( maybe around 1 db. ), this can/could tell me that here the reproduced sound is/comes highly full of colorations and we have to remember too that the signal pass through a SUT where exist additional signal degradation. Now, I understand that those colorations ( any audio system have in high/low manner. ) are the best for you ( nothing wrong with that ) but that could does not means is " correct " against what is on the recording or to a live event. I prefer like you that an audio system be " emotional " ( just like music is. )but I like at the same time that have at least to other " vitues " : neutrality ( not analytical ) and " credible " whole tonal balance from top to bottom. Regards and enjoy the music. Raul. |
Eldartford, of course no-one should be surprised that I don't like transformers :) I did, however, outline some of the difficulties that one faces, bandwidth, ringing (distortion) and hysteresis losses (yet another kind of distortion). You can dance through the parameters, trying to dodge the silver bullet and some good compromise is available. For example, by sacrificing a little LF bandwidth, you can reduce hysteresis losses, but they will still be there. Ultimately you are still dealing with a compromise. This is not to say that a phono section with enough gain to start with does not represent some sort of compromise. For example, I prefer the sound of tubes, and tubes have a reputation of making more noise. What I found is that you have to treat the tubes the same way you treat transistors: fully-differential, with proper constant current sources, in order to make them be quiet. I found that making the proper constant current source was a huge part of that recipe. So- we can get them to be quiet enough with the lowest output cartridges and at the same time the phono section is easily transparent enough to easily hear the insertion of the best SUTs we can lay our hands on. Now we all know that at the phono input, connections are very critical so for our evaluations we had to solder everything in. What seems to be coming out of this is that the more complexity, the less bandwidth and the less transparency. So we endeavored to build a simple phono section. It has only two stages of gain and employs differential passive EQ. I don't know how much simpler it can get, in fact I've seen a lot of MM stages that have more complexity. I guess the point is that my dislike of transformers is not **just** because I'm an OTL manufacturer, it really stems out of having worked with audio transformers a lot (and while they have always had some nice advantages, such as ground isolation): they always have an audible artifact. I really wish they did not, but there appears to be nothing that can be done to change that. You just have to avoid them if you can, that's all. |
Rauliruegas...The Signet transformer I once used was spec'd (to the best of my memory) flat from 5Hz to 100,000 Hz. I always wondered how they did this, but I certainly heard no bandwidth limitation. Because the signal is so tiny saturation is not an issue. I don't know for sure, but I think that these transformers have no magnetic core. Hysterisis and nonlinearity would not occur with an air core. I used several MC preamps without a transformer, but I never heard any sonic improvement. A disappointment. |
I used several MC preamps without a transformer, but I never heard any sonic improvement. A disappointment. Surely you aren't saying "heard some so heard them all"? ( And I didn't call you shirley! ;-) ) I've heard/owned a few with xformer and tube MC stages. None approach my current active (JFET) MC stage Alaap. Not even close! |
Dear Eldartford: I owned Audio technica AT 1000T ( similar to the Signet. ) that had that spec but ( like the Signet ) with out any reference about deviation from flat, that btw it is almost imposible to been flat. +++++ " I used several MC preamps without a transformer, but I never heard any sonic improvement. " +++++ There are some things why you or any one can't hear differences or improvements and even bad experiences about: one is that the own system colorations preclude to hear it, other could be that what you heard was not a good MC phonolinepreamp design, other could be a non-synergy system audio items, bad set-up, etc, etc. I hope that in a near future you can have the opportunity to experience the right active high gain Phonolinepreamp, in the mid time you and me will enjoy what we have. Regards and enjoy the music. Raul. |
Rauliruegas...My experience suggests that, at an "affordable" price point a step-up transformer makes sense. It permitted me to try out a MC cartridge without the expense of a new preamp, and the MC cartridge did make a significant sonic improvement to my system at the time. I accept your view that a cost-no-object MC preamp is the best. But not for me, or for most other audiophiles. |
Dear Raul, "I prefer like you that an audio system be " emotional " ( just like music is. )but I like at the same time that have at least to other " vitues " : neutrality ( not analytical ) and " credible " whole tonal balance from top to bottom." Talking too much about the emotional side of music reproduction might suggest that I like a highly colored soft "tube" sound. But thats not the case. When I changed from the high bandwith Gryphon SS gear to tube gear there was no decrease in "neutrality" (which I dont like as a notion) it was just more open, breathing and natural which surprised me as a then tube newbie as well. I think its the most common preconception on tube gear is always "warm" "colored" or whatever. That might be the case with some proportion of the tube units but it can't be said in common as well as it can't be said that a SS amp always has to sound bleached and thin. Sure due to the specific technology tube gear should be partnered with appropriate surroundings. "Those facts ( amplifier impedance output and electrical speaker impedance ) tell me with out any doubt that the reproduced sound can/could be heavy " colored " ( for say the least ) due to that impedance mistmatch and in some way to intermodulation speaker distortions due that its crossover ( woofer ) is on the high ( very ) 1200hz range." In general to tell from the specs on the sound is imho highly speculative. But I think you speak of the output impedance of the VAC 80/80 but this is a completely different design than the PA60...Anyway I had the Gryphon SS gear (which can control almost every speaker) and tube gear here in parallel switching back and forth any combination to convince myself since I never was a "tube guy". There was no trace of mismatch lesser control, or "unnatural" coloration. The VAC has also has a 2 Ohm tap but I prefer the 4 Ohm tap. "Now, I understand that those colorations ( any audio system have in high/low manner. ) are the best for you ( nothing wrong with that ) but that could does not means is " correct " against what is on the recording or to a live event." I'm a musician myself and I think I would not like a too sweet or unnatural sound in the long run. But speaking of "correct" and "neutral" I have to say that I have been in a lot of regular studios(not the ultra expensive ones). From these experiences the terms "correct" and "neutral" lost a bit of significance for me in the last years. If I see how a lot or maybe the majority of music is record today, it makes me wondering how the high-end community is fixed so much on the terms of neutrality and correctnes when the software itself is not neutral or correct to the original sound. In the end for me personally it is more important that the music through a given system appears to our senses as natural and believable than a single specification sheet. In the best case both music making capabilities and specification are top. But I've heard a lot of stuff that was sure technologically superior but it made "sound" instead of music. Best regards Ron |
I would like to bring up a couple of related side issues for comment . . . First, I think that a division must be made between the use of external vs. internal transformers. Obviously, the proper loading of the transformer secondary is extremely critical, and if it is an external unit . . . than I can't see how the real-world loading can be anything but indeterminate. It also seems that external units pretty much all have very high ratios . . . for i.e. 30dB gain. This makes for an inherently compromised transformer design, and additionally puts the entire chain in a sub-optimum gain structure. An interesting comparason would be to an active MC head amp . . . an arrangement that I have found quite unsatisfactory with the few that I've used and measured. Second, a transformer simply cannot offer anywhere near the level of flexibility in cartridge loading that an active design can . . . there are certainly a great many cartridges (including all MM types of course) for which a transformer is simply unsuitable. I must say that I am greatly impressed with the thoroughness that Raul has approached this subject, and we are quite fortunate that he freely shares it on this forum. I'm currently in the evaluation stage of a new phono preamp design, and the main topological choice was between a direct bipolar input with four MPS-A18s in parallel, and using a low-ratio Jensen JT-346 with a 990 opamp. I chose to use the transformer/990 because it was about 5dB quieter (5 ohm source), had somewhat greater headroom, and inherently blocks the input bias current - in addition to the usual transformer strengths of ground loop isolation and RFI rejection. That's not to say that the direct bipolar approach didn't have its strengths . . . bandwidth and LF linearity were of course among them. And I did have to make a decision to make the unit incompatible with many cartridges in order to use the transformer topology. In the end, there are pitfalls with both approaches, and I'm confident that my success or failure with this will be overwhelmingly dependent on my ability to carefully optimize all the circuit and construction parameters . . . and very little to do with my "reactive component dogma". |
I would posit that the Atma-sphere MP1, Raul's preamp, the Vacuum State RTP3D, and the Dolshi are all relative bargains in this era of $15,000 linestages. Don't know about the Dolshi, but the first 3 offer balanced, dual-differential circuitry (which when properly implemented inherently reduces noise) and plenty of phono gain, plus a state of the art linestage, for around $10,000. I know that's a prohibitive cost for some, but in the overall scheme of things, it's very fair. I am crazy for my MP1, but I'd love to hear the other contenders too. |
Dear Ron: As I posted I made a little of research on your audio items just to " imagine " what are you hearing but for what you told here your music/sound reproduction is far from what I can " imagine ", good. +++++ " If I see how a lot or maybe the majority of music is record today, it makes me wondering how the high-end community is fixed so much on the terms of neutrality and correctnes when the software itself is not neutral or correct to the original sound. " +++++ This is absolutely right and that's one of the reason that we have to be on the neutral/natural side of the music/sound reproduction trying to lower at minimum the colorations/distortions/noises on our systems. +++++ " But I've heard a lot of stuff that was sure technologically superior but it made "sound" instead of music. " +++++ I agree with you here too, but what if you develop/create an audio system that not only measure good ( accurate not analitycal. ) but that give you the feeling/emotion of the music? would you be happy?, well this is one of my quest in my audio system music/sound reproduction targets. Ron, I'm sure that you are enjoying your system's performance and maybe what I posted could help you to think and try to improve it. Regards and enjoy the music. Raul. |
Hi, I think this MC phono uses just tubes for gain. "Die Voll- Röhre stellt völlig rausch- und bummfreie 62dB Verstärkung zur Verfügung und das realisiert mit nur drei Röhren!" TW-Acustic Raven Phono I spoke with Mr TW and he has high hopes for this stage. I haven't heard yet - has anyone else? |
Ron, I'm sure that you are enjoying your system's performance and maybe what I posted could help you to think and try to improve it.No doubt Raul genuinely cares for everyone here to enjoy the music but such a comment implies that his way is ultimately the only way to improve the system. I have read many A'gon threads where a few regular members have politely bashed SUT's with the claims of distortions, clipped dynamics, marginal capability to correctly load a cartridge, etc., etc. Having little experience with SUTs, I put this in the back of my mind until I would get the opportunity to hear an SUT. Actually, the BAT VK-P10 that I owned a few years ago had an internal SUT and it did indeed clip the dynamics a little bit but otherwise it sounded mighty good. I did not need the extra gain so I kept this switched out. Recently I took delivery of the Aria WV preamp. This is designed by Michael Elliot the designer of the famed Counterpoint SA-9 and SA-11. In the SA-9, he used JFET's on the MC input and then drove this into a tube stage. Later on he provided SUTs, first Jensen and more recently Sowter 8055's to replace the JFET input. Gain here was 20db. Michael Elliot has written that he will not go back to a JFET input as they have their own set of problems. And in his opinion, tubes are just not appropriate for the MC input stage due to the noise issue. Like all the designers discussed here, he has taken his own road here and has clearly achieved much success. The WV uses the Sowter 8055. This was chosen after comparing several others in a blind shootout. He discusses this here. This is an internal implementation with some optimizations in the WV for this device. One advantage too is the elimination of an IC which I have found to be very significant and an often overlooked link in the chain. Any claims that one can not optimize cartridge loading are dismissed here as the WV provides a pair of RCA jacks for cartridge loading to any desired value. No internal toggle switches or jumpers or soldering is required. I have been listening with the WV for 3 months now. As a preliminary report here, I have concluded that the negative generalizations about SUTs by many people do not apply with the WV's implementation. Compared to an Aesthetix Io Signature, the WV with the Sowters does not constrain dynamics at all. In fact the WV exceeds the Io in this regard. But this is not an Io strength anyway. If I use a highly modified ARC MCP-33 (a top-performer in the dynamic contrast scene) into the WV's MM input, the WV's SUT MC input easily holds its own against the ARC in dynamics. As well received as the ARC was 20 years ago, it had a captive power cord, was used with an interconnect that nobody would tolerate today, and had a circuit board of mediocre passive parts. With much of this updated, this MCP-33 is in a whole new world. And still, the WV with its lowly SUT is mighty impressive with the dynamics. As for distortions, low-level resolution and noise level, the performance here is at a level the MCP-33 does not come close to achieving. And yet there is an appeal to the MCP-33's sound in how it portrays harmonic textures, particularly piano. A return to the WV's SUT input and there is a loss of some of this "bloom" and yet the significant level of clarity and openness with the WV makes one quickly forget about it. To go throw my stash of 6DJ8/6922/7308 tubes and find the lowest noise tubes, I can get the ARC's noise level quite low. And with a hand-picked quad of 12ax7's for the Io's input stage, I got this mighty quiet too. But the noise level with the WV's SUT's is a whole new world as well. There are clearly compromises in any of these options. Once I get the Counterpoint SA-2 updated with the same parts as used in the WV, I will have another data point on how a tubed MC compares with the WV's SUT MC input. The WV's experience has educated me that much of the generalizations that I have read here about SUTs is just not true. I kept the Io and the rebuilt ARC and the older SA-2 just in case. But in the final analysis, the internal SUT option at $200 might end up being the greatest value, other than the $25 pair of Amperex 7062 pinched waist tubes for the WV, that I have found in a long time. It's been a long time that I have heard a solid-state based phono stage. All that I heard, Spectral, Klyne, Threshold and Krell years ago were simply too sterile and dimensionally flat. No doubt this is not universally true for many solid-state phono stages of today, so I'll try to keep an open mind here. But for now, I'm very impressed with the implementation of the Sowters in the WV. John |
Dear John: +++++ " No doubt Raul genuinely cares for everyone here to enjoy the music but such a comment implies that his way is ultimately the only way to improve the system. " +++++ Certainly not, there are many " roads " to arrive Rome ( this is what the people here in Mexico say: something like a " slogan " I don't know the right word. ). As you can read in this thread an else where different people have different aproach for the very same target ( who achieve in a better way? that's up to you after hearing those different " approaches ". ). I read ( in deep ) everything about Elliot's WV designs ( I owned the SA-2 and heard many times even in my home the 9/11 designs. I respect M. Elliot for its contribution over the years to the audio high end industry, no doubt about. ) where I can't find nothing that can/could tell me that the SUT solution is the right way to go, what I read is that he chooses that " road " that he must to believe on it against other " roads " ( something curious: in the website we can read everything including almost all design specifications but the must critical: RIAA eq. deviation, that is IMHO of paramount importance and one of the reasons why the Phono stages exist. ). Btw, one thing that will be important on that website is to tell us with which audio system ( better yet: on which different audio systems. ) he made the SUTs voicing. Any " road " you choose has trade-offs ( till today nothing is perfect ), many times not because inherent design but for limitation performance on some parts ( either SS or tube devices ), the better you choose those trade-offs the better quality performance you can achieve. M. Elliot speaks about the problems ( trade-offs ) to design with Jfets/tube ( input ) devices ( that's why he goes for SUTs. ) but other people ( like Ralph ) find out and fix those troubles ( from his point of view ) in its whole balanced/differential approach very different from Elliot's one. I ( we ) decided that the best " road " to make justice to an MC low output cartridge ( and inverse RIAA eq ) is SS way and not only that but the best amplifier devices ( here ) are bi-polar transistors ( not Jfet/ Mosfet. ), we take a very " hard " road ( and the people with the in deep electronic design know-how could understand what I mean about. ) to do it: bipolar are a " pain in the ass " surrounded with a lot of operation issues ( that's why almost no one choose them on this particular item designs. ) but if you fix those " issues " IMHO is truly very good road for a whole Phonolinepreamp design. I respect any single design out there and the fact that I don't agree with their designs whole approach does not means are not totally valid for other people. There are many " miles " to go on in the Phonolinepreamp whole future designs, the good news is that there are some people/designers who cares about quality performance on music reproduction and this could means that we have to wait for real improvements about. Regards and enjoy the music. Raul. |
I, for one, did not read Raul's comment as implying that his way was the only way. I believe, as he states above, that he was simply hoping that something in what he said would lend some perspective that might render some future improvement. Obviously, there are innumerable ways to approach a high gain phono stage, all of which present significant challenges and trade offs. IMHO, rather than concluding a king of the hill design approach, the value of this wonderful thread is in shedding light on the many roads to Rome. |
Dear Eldartford: +++++ " My experience suggests that, at an "affordable" price point a step-up transformer makes sense. " +++++ IMHO more than " make sense " : " you have no choice ". I'm always against " mediocrity " and very special on music reproduction at any link/level on the audio chain. You know, José, Guillermo and I choose to design a Phonolinepreamp/tonearm not just for fun but because we think and our experiences tell us that the most critical links ( all links are important, no doubt about ) in the analog rig are the Phonolinepream and the tonearm ( other than the cartridge it self ) and what is out there don't fullfill my music reproduction targets/priorities in the best way. I already posted that I would like that everyone could have the opportunity to buy the best Phonolinepreamp ( no SUTs ) ( SS tube or what ever ) at an affordable way but how all of us could " dream " with that when the message to the audio industry is that SUTs are ok. Here I want to say that it is fully regrettable that many " professional " reviwers support that wrong SUT approach ( at least for me ). I can understand that many of us are in favor of the SUTs but people like AD or MF or many other is out of question, these " proffesionals " are loosing respect ( like reviewers ) from many of us that with buying those magazines mantain it. Today many of them ( IMHO )make more harm that good to the whole high end development audio industry and we all will be " paying " for it sooner or latter. Many of us are only spectators where we can/could be protagonist in many ways other that buy audio items. +++++ " but what is the reason that you put such great importance in exact RIAA equalization. There are no loudspeakers which have the kind of frequency response which you claim is essential ... " +++++ well, if I take that approach that " why bother for the RIAA deviation ( or other link accuracy ) when through the whole audio chain are greater ones " then my and your system were full of " colorations/distortions " that put us not closer to what is on the recording but far away. I try to put at minimum the distortions/colorations/noises in every single link in the audio chain and I think you do it the same or at least you try it to do it like everyone that cares about music reproduction in an imperfect audio systems environment and analog reproduction medium. IMHO we have to take care that the cartridge signal " suffer " the less degradation ( looses that you can ever recover. ) at any single link on the audio chain and at the same time that has the less " additions " , we have to try to preserve the signal integrity in the best way we can in our own system environment. I can tell you that those all efforts about are well worth for say the least. Other that some designers almost no one take care about RIAA deviation eq. where accuracy is a must to have by any quality performance audio standards reproduction. Things are that that inverse RIAA eq. accuracy is maybe the great and more challenge in a Phono stage design/execution and very hard to achieve it and that's why almost no one " speaks " about. Regards and enjoy the music. Raul. |
Dear Raul, "Dear Ron: As I posted I made a little of research on your audio items just to " imagine " what are you hearing but for what you told here your music/sound reproduction is far from what I can " imagine ", good." To this posting I can only say, that I which to have your imaginary abilities. It would save me a lot of gas money while going for audio exhibitions or friends, since I could imagine the sound from my listening chair by getting the specs via email...;) sorry for my not so serious comment... "Ron, I'm sure that you are enjoying your system's performance and maybe what I posted could help you to think and try to improve it." Thanks for your advice ;) " My experience suggests that, at an "affordable" price point a step-up transformer makes sense. " +++++ IMHO more than " make sense " : " you have no choice ". I would rather say the opposit is the case...if you have to meet a affordable price region you have to go for a SS or even integrated circuit desing instead of a good step up...but thats my personal opinion. Some people even say that step up transformers came out of fashion when transistors could have been used with much reduced costs... |
Re: RIAA accuracy, although it is true that between room interactions and speaker inaccuracies most systems exhibit gross deviations from flat, the mastering process, not to mention tracking and mixing, typically involves tweeking the EQ as little as .2dB. The fact that most systems editorialize the engineer's work doesn't, and shouldn't, stop us (engineers) from working our art at whatever resolution we are inspired to. |
Dear Piedpiper: That's right. Anyway we can't do nothing about because we don't have any " control " on the recording process we can do things where we have some " control " on it and that is from the very first moment that we take a LP to play with it not before. IMHO everything the same the more accurate system have a better quality performance. I make " focus " on the RIAA accuracy and in the amplifier output impedance that IMHO has to be lower than 0.1 Ohms.: this " figure " give us confidence that almost any speaker electrical impedance curve can be handle with out any trouble on frequency inaccuracies ( mistmatch between speaker an amplifier. ), this means synergy and synergy in the right sense of the word not the " synergy " that many " professional " reviewers speak about like: " to use this amplifier you need a " warm " speaker ..., or " you need a soft high frequency amplifier for this speaker ", these kind of examples speak nothing about real synergy but trying to hide a " trouble/distortions " with another kind of " distortions/colorations ": incredible but this is the way those reviewers give us advise about synergy with out to find where are/is the main trouble for that system behaivor!!! I don't like to accumulate distortions/colorations over distortions/colorations and the like. Regards and enjoy the music. Raul. |
Here we go. Raul, I disagree with you on amplifier output impedance, because an output Z of 0.1 ohm is usually achieved by using gobs of negative feedback, which introduces distortions across the entire musical spectrum that are far more objectionable than the imagined result of speaker frequency response anomalies due to higher output Z. Moreover, the goal you set eliminates most tube amplifiers. I think the amplifier/speaker interface is VERY crucial to accurate audio reproduction, but I don't think one should approach the problem by setting any arbitrary "rules" regarding impedance. If I could do it, my "rule" would be that all speakers must have a flat impedance curve at about 16 ohms across the audio spectrum, but it ain't gonna happen. In summary, your rule for amplifier output impedance raises a bunch of additional questions for debate. |
"...I don't think one should approach the problem by setting any arbitrary "rules" regarding..." This is what this whole thread has become about. In this relative world we live in there are simply no absolutes. At the risk of this becoming an absolute, having first accepted this, we can have inteligent discourse about the effective relationships involved. I think that Lewm's impedance "rule" is a perfect example. Many of the norms in speaker design that have become acceptable are at least as compromised as deeming transformer use in phono stages acceptable. Having said that I think that Raul's point re: the implied messages to the industry we endorse is an excellent one. |
Raul is incontrovertibly correct about RIAA EQ. **Anyone** who says otherwise is not only wrong, but likely trying to sell you something :) If you want to hear the recording engineer/musician's intention, your RIAA EQ should be correct. Incremental differences of a fraction of a db are readily audible, as the EQ covers a spectrum rather than a single frequency. Again, just as in the case of detail, the better your system the more profoundly you will experience this. BTW I do not equate the cost of a system with how good it is! |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " is usually achieved by using gobs of negative feedback " +++++ IMHO is up to the designer know-how and I don't want to open a new " door " on this thread about, suffice is to say that you can do it not necessary with " gobs of negative feedback ". Now there is nothing wrong with feedback, in many circuit stages, if you know how to use, how to apply, where to apply and in which quantity. I don't think about " rules ", what I'm trying to say is that a low output impedance in any amplifier is a desired one for a miimum speaker/amplifier mistmatch and for a better quality performance but like anything we always have to deal with trade-offs. +++++ " If I could do it, my "rule" would be that all speakers must have a flat impedance " +++++ I could agree with this part of your " rule " ( only this part that it is not what you are saying. ), this characteristic can help to a better sound reproduction quality performance. Regrds and enjoy the music. Raul. |
This thread seems to be veering down another path. I think it would be good for interested readers to go back and read this thread. Lots of good stuff! What Makes a Good RIAA or Line Stage? |
I had a recent demo and comparison of three SOTA phono stages,with one of them having the ability to apply the correct RIAA curve for "specific" LP's on hand. The first two non RIAA selectable Phono stages(Vac,and VTL)sounded fabulous,and I would have been totaly satisfied with the performance,had we left it at that.... Then the change to the Zanden phono stage was made,and a comparison between the correct RIAA curve,and standard curve was demonstrated,by the flip of a switch.... The particular LP's being used were superb original pressing Decca recordings(I have a "load" of these).... UNBELIEVABLE!!!....There was a vast improvement in depth,and distance between instruments.This was the most apparent difference I heard!....However when we read about instrumentalists moving in position while playing,it was "really" apparent to me now! I left the demo thinking that SO many of the subtle changes and subjects we all have our "pet peeves" about(as SO important) are insignificant,as compared to having the ability to "fotz around" with the RIAA curves shown in this magnifico phono stage. Guaranteed to deliver a totally fun few afternoons of listening pleasure,and experimentation, for the lucky owner!! From what I understand the Zanden has the ability to switch curves for Decca,EMI,and Colimbia Lp's (I "think" DGG too)...on the fly!! I have a vast collection of these labels,along with the Deccas.Unfortunately I cannot afford the Zanden,but those having the opportunity to compare the before and after effects of such a feature will be very impressed! Sorry Dan,I had to get that in,and realize your "proper" direction to another thread. Best. |
Sirspeedy, Once the stereo LP was introduced, everybody began using the same EQ curve, which was defined by the RIAA. That curve was nearly the standard in the mono LP era with very little exception. It was during the 78 period that every label had their own EQ curve. Older tube preamps like the HK Citation 1, Marantz model 1 and the like had EQ switches for these curves. There were a number of manufacturers of stereo LP matering electronics, for example we have the Westerx 3D cutting system outfitted on a Skully lathe. The limiter module allows you to create high frequency reduction through a series of switches. These are often reserved for master tapes wherein the mastering engineer is allowed to exercise some judgment. In addition, every LP mastering system has a 'signature' sound relating to the mastering head and the sonic character of the electronics. But they all are based on the same EQ. Changing the EQ to taste or the like has some advantage with LPs that are poorly recorded (in this case the majority of DG classical would be a great example). For me this is very much like the CD problem: if I want the music, and its only on CD, I deal with the CD colorations because I want the music. Dealing with poorly mastered LPs is the same thing. In a nutshell, IOW, a properly mastered LP, regardless of country of origin or label will sound its best with the standard RIAA curve. If not, there is a problem in the recording process. Establishing a proper reference in this area is a hefty problem; one that we had to face down before we were able to make any significant progress, one that every high end audio manufacturer faces whether they know it or not, and one that every record label faces whether they know it or not (and a lot of them don't!). One thing that I can tell you about that process is that to get to a real reference, you **have** to remove any sources of coloration that will obscure the recording. To us that meant transformers, interconnect cables, and other compromises in the signal path, like Class A vs Class B. Having gotten to a point where these sources of coloration are minimized it becomes very easy to hear what something like even a decent SUT does to the sound. That puts us back on-topic right? :) |
Yeah. Equalization should ideally be within 0.1db for RIAA, but also for "Columbia", for "LP", and for all the other equalization curves used by different companies at different times in history. That's the problem. I've got British EMI pressings of Ella and Louis that sound weird with RIAA equalization but are probably great when correctly equalized. Only a few VERY expensive products offer alternative equalization curves. |
Ralph, what's your opinion on Roy Gregory's writings / reviews on "alternative" LP equalizations and the supposed criticality of adjusting this EQ to fit the label? He might be on to something, but I wonder if this compensates for EQ differences or just "bad" mastering? Can all DGs be that poorly mastered? |
Another long discussion on the viability of step up transformers and what is the conclusion? Spend big bucks on a transformer less design if you want the best sound. What a surprise! Any transformerless carrots for people who don't want to spend $3K-$10K on a phonostage and would rather spend that sort of money on records (ie 90% of audiophiles and 100% of music lovers)? |
Dear Plinko, Build it yourself, if you feel that strongly about expensive SUT-less phono stages. It can be done for far far less than $3K. There are schematics galore on-line. For example, check out the Vacuum State website. AW shows the schematics of many of his best designs there. But meantime, it's a bit unfair and very inaccurate to infer that those of us who use expensive phono stages cannot also be "music lovers". |
There is so much more to it than just assembling the parts. I'm sure that Nick Doshi, Ralph, Jim Hagermann, Jose, etc., all started off as DIY'ers. So what are you really paying for (exclude any marketing for the sake of discussion) when you buy equipment from these folks? The answer is their invaluable experiences. I do agree that you can get very good results with DIY projects and kits. And, you can get very good results using quality SUTs. Maybe it won't be world class performance, but as long as the music it recreates sounds good to you what else matters? Before we analogers get too busy wringing our hands over the cost of performance, take some time and read the digital forums about what is happening to CD transports. If you don't spend thousands all you get is a cheap, PC-style transport in a pretty box that may not be supported a few years after you buy it. I think that in comparison the future is very bright for vinyl. |
I attended one of Roy Gregory's demos of (among other things) equalization issues and their remedy with the Zanden. The differences are not well explain IMHO by merely the vagaries of mastering. I also researched a bit the RIAA standard and when it was adopted, and though 1954-55 is the date the pre-emphasis curve was 'adopted', there are comments that it was not universally used by all until years later, perhaps in some cases more than a decade later. It is also not implausible that some existing mastering suites were slow to use the RIAA curve, for reasons of cost and convenience. I'm speculating here, but given how well the alternate playback curves worked in improving timbre at the demo, I think these LPs were mastered with the older curves they were used to using. This contention is bolstered a bit by the observation that this isn't found on just a few LPs of the label, but seems pervasive with a label, e.g. DGG recordings of the late 50s and early 60s often seem 'muffled', with apparent roll-offs at the top and too much lower midrange which deadens string tone among other things -- when using RIAA de-emphasis that is. (At some point this changed.) Perhaps it was also assumed that few people would honestly hear the difference, or know why it was there, or there was a concern that loyal customers of the label were already using 'their' playback curve and they didn't want to disturb their customer base. In any case, I think that for serious collectors who have many non-US recordings of the 50s and 60s, a phono stage with more de-emphasis choices is desirable. Tony Cordesman reached the same conclusion when reviewing the re-do of the Citation I preamp. This unit might be a good choice, though it may lack ultimate clarity and transparency which to me reduces its appeal. YMMV. Jeff |
lewm, no such inference should be made from my comments. big apologies! there are no hard and fast rules to defining a music lover. although, i would suggest that if your budget on equipment and music isn't in the stratosphere (90% of audiophiles), then choosing say, a $10K phonostage is choosing the path of the audiophile and not the music lover. additionally, one's system will also have to be comprised of similar statosphere products to achieve full benefit such a costly phono stage. without going the DIY route. and as Atmasphere pointed out, the more resolving your system is, the easier it is to hear the colorations of the transformer. logic would indicate that in most real world yet audiophile based systems, transformer less designs are not a priority. i would also say that $10K for a phonostage is not prohibitive to some. it is prohibitive to most. i don't know original poster Viper, his/her price range, and whether his/her system is appropriate for one of those stages. did anyone ask? thanks, I will check out that diy site. btw, i have no allegiance to transformer less phono stages. in fact, quite the opposite. i have tried three highly regarded stages priced at what I would call the affordable range (less than $3K) and they all were sterile compared to the tubes & transformer sound. The Klyne was the best of them and I could easily live with that one. The others were ASR and Pass. Really nice equipment but not my preference. Both methods can bring great sound. i can't deny the experience of others with very pricey transormerless phono stages. i don't have that experience. PS. i'm starting to think that if a tree falls and nobody hears it, it didn't fall. and if very few heard said tree fall, the sound it made isn't all that relevant or important. |
Hi Raul, back at my level of sonic reproduction, I'm now switching between a DV XX-2/K&K step up and a Ortofon 2M Black thanks in part to your encouragement! Not sure if in my system it makes a difference but the 2M black is cheaper. Both cartridges have their benefits. Shindo Aurieges Pre with MM ($4K) Wright AU-15 2A3 push pull ($4K) or Scott LK-150 ($1K) Devore Gibbon 8 ($2.8K) Lenco/Rega RB700 (approx $1.5K with plinth) Many more $Ks must be leftover for records. Cheers! |
Dear Plinko: +++++ " then choosing say, a $10K phonostage is choosing the path of the audiophile and not the music lover. " +++++ As Lew point out both terms: audiophile and music lover can/could " live " at the same time ( like in many many of us ) one of them not exclude the other. Of course that exist the 100% audiophiles ( many of them with very high price audio systems ) that are not a music lovers ( they only enjoy the " sound " but nor the music. ) and the 100% music lover that does not care about " audio hardware ". José and I take the DIY route because we first are music lovers than audiophiles and we like/want to enjoy the music ( not only sound ) in the top way that we can. I don't buy any audio item or build it just to have the the best and latest audio item, I only take that kind of decision ( and the money is not the principal issue about ) only if that item ( new or a modification of what I have ) can improve the enjoyment of the music. Take a look to my system: very " old " items that ( with the right mods and DIY like the Phonolinepreamp ) give me an enormous and wonderful enjoy of music and what music can make in my emotions/feelings. I always try to enjoy the " software " not the " hardware ", the " hardware " is only a " bad necessity " and the best the hardware ( and your know how about ) the best your music enjoying. Regards and enjoy the music. Raul. |
