Phono Stage - The great analog tragedy

There were plenty of great phono stages in the last century. The Vendetta SCB-2c of the 80s and the Mares Connoisseur spring to mind. Not everything was based on the RCA Receiving Tube Manual, not that that is a bad thing. And now we have lots of choices with LCR and transimpedance circuits as well as implementations in the digital domain, in addition to more historically conventional designs.

Vendetta was comparable to ARC Ph1 which is no where in comparison to reference phonostages of ARC today or other reference phonostages. My point is there is no equivalent of a reference Micro Seiki, EMT, Fidelity Research or even Technics in the world of phonostages that could command similar legendary status and be part of a high end chain today

Not sure what "legendary status" means, but you said the following, "It came down to the modern designers post 2000 after vinyl resurgence to come up with serious phono stages for high end systems." So there were were no serious phono stages before 2000? Interesting perspective.

Certainly, there are better ones today just as there are better turntables than the old, vintage, ones that you mentioned. Not that a Mares phono stage and a Micro 8000 would not be a very satisfying rig even today.

Those turntables you mentioned have been eclipsed by current models, just as the phono stages of the past have been, IMHO.

The classic phono stages of earlier eras were largely contained in what are now called "full-function" preamps. Before digital nobody needed a standalone line stage, but the low signal levels of vinyl did need the extra gain a line stage provided.

Over the years, phono stages have offered better flexibility in gain, loading, and input selection.  My Manley Steelhead, introduced in 2001, still does a great job for me and can double as a line level preamp when necessary.

Prior to that, legendary designs included the Audible Illusions Modulus 3a and the ARC PH3, both out in 1995.

I never followed the history of phono stages. But I did climb the progress of improvement. I owned one integrated in my preamps in the seventies, then a separate in a ARC PH2, then I upgraded to PH2SE, then PH3. Each time a big improvement in sound from the same table. Once I got to the ARC PH 8 I felt it no longer got in the way. While my ARC Ref 3 and Ref3SE are much better still, they are more on the order of other components in impact. I don't remember any old classic phono stages. 

From where I sit, it seems that audio components of all types evolve more or less in parallel with each other: in fits and starts.  What's new in phono stages is the idea of current drive and the implementation of integrated circuits, not discrete transistors or tubes, to do the job. But current drive has not and probably will never drive out voltage drive as a way of amplifying the meager output of a LOMC cartridge. As for the RIAA curve, it's a darn good thing that standard was adopted nearly universally by the late 50s.  Otherwise we would have another thing to argue about. Some agreed upon algorithm for pre-emphasis and de-emphasis was essential owing to the nature of magnetic phono cartridges.

Aesthetix IO (1995)

MFA Luminescence C (1990) 

Croft MegaMicro (1987)

Conrad-Johnson Premier 15 (1996)

@pani 

You refer to the phono stage as being the most sensitive and impactful of components. I'd question this because the turntable hierarchy is as follows:-

 bearing > power supply > sub-chassis > tonearm > cartridge > phono amp

The Phonostage being a Tool to amplify sent electrical signal from my own perspective of today is not a Tragedy.

The Phonostage is the device that made using Vinyl as a medium user friendly, where it has been this user friendly attribute, that made having a range of Vinyl Recordings at hand attractive. The range of Vinyl at hand, developed into a collection that is readily at hand to be experienced.

Over time an side interest in Phonostages developed and as a result over a period of many years, I was able to audition a substantial amount of Phonostages, where different circuits have been in use, such a Valve Input/Output - Valve Hybrid - Solid State.

I don't believe I have a preference for a Circuit Choice for a Phonostage, I have been equally impressed by all three circuits types produced by certain designers, as well as being equally unimpressed by all three circuit types produced by other r certain designers.

In the next few weeks I will have a Trilogy of Phonostages where a SS Design is to be added and make Phonostage readily available in the three circuit types.

More importantly, I have the confidence to be sure, that there is not too much more that can be experienced in Phonostage Designs that can undermine my present thoughts on what is to like about a Phonostage performance.

Electronics Skills and Components produce devices that transfer electrical energy as an amplified energy, there is no sound to be heard.

Sound is formed at the Speaker and Speakers function at their best in the environment they have been designed in, the so called ' Worlds Best Phonostage' will meet limitations of how its processed electrical energy is perceived when it is converted onto sound. 

The World Best of one Device is dependent on being used in conjunction with the Worlds Best of other supporting devices needed to produce the end sound, if the success of the designs are to be fully materialised - Yes / No ?

@noromance in the list you have suggested, only the Aesthetix IO can be considered to be in the company of a high end analog setup. That one was designed towards the resurgence of vinyls in 1995. I am talking about the golden era of audio which ended in the mid 80s, during which all the best of the analog innovation happened. We got the best direct drives, idler drives and belt drives which are still today the reference by which current TTs are measured. We got some serious MM carts and top quality MCs like the TSD15, SPU, Neumann DST and such. Where were the equivalent phonostages? Not one of that calibre was designed. Full function preamps with a small phono section was all we got. Hardly any standalone phono stages. We have no reference from that era against which today’s phonostages can be measured. 
 

@newton_john i didn’t mean to pit the importance of phonostage against bearing, Tonearm or cartridge. All I am saying is the standard of the TTs and cartridges were so much higher than the phonostages they made in that era. It was almost a neglected child which was there for the sake of completion. No serious effort was made to make top quality phonostages to match the remaining analog innovations. 

The 'imperial we" again raises its ugly head in the service of creating unneeded controversy.  Where's the benefit?

The TT > Tonearm are a Mechanical Interface, which to be the best interface achievable has to be optimised in their shared role of supplying the Stylus the very best interface when being in contact with the Modulation in the LP Groove.

The Tonearm in isolation is a Tool of Support Only, it serves to supply a method to place a Cartridge at a setting for a particular Geometry and enable the Cartridge to trace the Groove uninfluenced by the Tonearm, where the Cartridge is enables to be producing an unadulterated facsimile of the Grooves Stored Data.

The TT in Isolation, is a Tool to support the Hard Media that is containing the Stored Data to be extracted by the Cartridge Stylus from the Groove Modulation. The TT when functioning, has the role to ensure the mechanical parts are sufficiently supported in a rigid structure, the Spindle Bearing is a True Axis during the Spindles Rotation, the Platter rotates with no run-out, the Speed of the Hard Medias rotation is accurate.

Manufacturers of either of the above devices will have been mindful of the need to have a specific function and the need to consider tightness of dimension  tolerances to be maintained for the overall assembly of the devices to be used.

Being mindful of dimension tolerances does not equate to a design being absolutely optimised for its own function or the function in conjunction with another device. 

Slop between moving parts at interfaces in a assembly can be found in devices produced by the most renowned Brand Names from the OP's references to era of production.

At later periods of production when the knowledge was at the mainstream about the value of maintaining very tight tolerances, Long Term established Brands were seemingly slow in the uptake and not able to make the important choices to improve the quality of interfaces for moving parts.

Newly Established Brands proved to be the ones to address issues of variances of dimensions for tolerances and create designs using different materials and designs that proved to be advanced as a offered product to the Olden Designs still on offer and being used. Established Brands were forced through loss of marketing opportunities to conform to the latest designs from the new brands that were being presented to the market. 

Function of Tonearm and Function of a TT took on a new meaning when CD kicked the Vinyl Medium of the Top Spot in being a marketable commodity.

Manufacturers of Analogue related products prior to adopting their supplying CD Sources, did do quite a bit to produce items to be used for Vinyl Replays to be substantially improved over their earlier guises of offerings.  

  In my own experiences and within my budget, the most advanced work being achieved that I am familiar with, is offered by individuals with adept skills for improving a Tonearm or TT's Mechanical Function and Speed Function as their own bespoke designs, especially where alternate and more fitting for their purpose materials are introduced, along with the advances in material selection enabling the Machined Tolerance Dimension for interfaces for moving parts to be substantial reduced.

Add to the above the added research put into improving the material used for sending the electric signal from the Cartridge and the whole becomes something unimaginable for the improvements being created. 

The only outboard phono amps I remember from the 70’s and 80’s were MC “step up” transformers. I also found some mainstream equipment with above average phono stages. NAD 3020 (when it worked), Sansui AU 717, Pioneer Spec 1 preamp.

@motown-l brings up an interesting point. We had some superb SUTs in the 60s and 70s. Those are the references even today. But reference MM stages? Can’t think of any

Keith at Darlington Audio has an excellent History of Audio and Phono Preamps on his site, giving context to the phono stage in relation to other audio developments.

Could it be that the explosion of the CD sidetracked further innovation of an standalone reference phono preamp?

Pani, I don't know what country you live in, but in the USA, when LOMC cartridges were first introduced in the early to mid 70s, most audiophiles owned phono stages with only MM levels of gain.  Everyone needed a gain booster of some kind in order to appreciate the new idea in cartridges.  At that point in time, the first products in the US market were not SUTs, as I recall.  They were "head amps" or "pre-preamps", most prominently I remember the one marketed by Mark Levinson and designed by John Curl, the JC1.  For tube aficionados there was also the Counterpoint SA2, eventually. I owned one; it was noisy but good sounding. SUTs came along later, at least here in the US. Someone mentioned the MFA Luminescence C.  I owned two of them (consecutively, not both at the same time).  While it was "good", it would not hold a candle to any of the more modern phono stages I have owned and used extensively, to include Raul's 3160 Phonolinepreamp, the Atma-sphere MP1, the Silvaweld SH550, the Manley Steelhead.  Not that any of these could be regarded as recent designs, if you define "recent" with a 5-year envelope. Sometimes nostalgia makes us see with rose-colored glasses. But on the other hand, RIAA has not changed and the subject of how to effect the RIAA filter has been done to death (with resistors and capacitors, or with R, C, and inductors, or with inductors and resistors, or in the digital domain, or using an IC which may effect any of the preceding components to get the job done).  So, yes, there has to be some me-too-ism in the most modern designs. So why is there a bee in your bonnet?

I remember attending a Boston Audio Society meeting in the late 70s at which Tomlinson Holman spoke on what prompted him to re-think his ideas on phono preamp design, which led to the Advent 300 receiver's much ballyhooed MM section, and later the full-blown version in the Apt/Holman preamp.  

He was testing an unnamed "standard solid state preamp" versus that of a Dynaco PAS tube preamp and found that the HF overload characteristics on the tube preamp were far better.  He then focused on designing a SS circuit that matched the characteristics of the PAS closely, which went into the Model 300.  Curiously, this vignette is absent from the excellent history linked above by djspinner...West Coast bias?

It's no secret that tube phono stages tend to have much higher phono overload tolerance compared to SS ones. However, that is rarely a problem when the driving cartridge is a typical LOMC type.  It's when you pair a SS phono with an MM or high output MI cartridge that overload problems can arise.

Would someone please elucidate as to the point of this discussion?

Do things really need to advance so quick? I picked up a new transimpedance phono and it's been decent, but it's about to get replaced by a used Nagra VPS that's what, a 15 year old design that's sonically much better in all aspects. Also the cost to build new, borrowing from older designs, and not much better seems to be getting out of hand with price at least from a working class man like myself. 

Just saw a Phono preamp yesterday cost $80,000.  I asked my wife if I could get it and you’ll never guess what she said. Then I told her it was used and only selling for $40,000 and this time she didn’t say a word, but the look in her eyes spoke volumes!

The Audio Research SP6 was the preamp that quote William Johnson always wanted to build. This was 1978 when LP playback was the common music format. I am sure he put a lot of effort into the phono stage. The SP6 is still in the top category for LP playback. I have one.

I have very recently acquired a Soulnote E2 phono preamplifier and I believe it’s the best my vinyl rig has ever sounded. Maybe something to consider that Soulnote is a relatively newer audio brand but has been making some waves in hifi with very unique but quirky design choices but the music they make is proof enough of their success IMHO.

The ARC SP6 is a legendary preamp, with an internal phonostage. 

Where is the "Reference" standard for any audio component? Where is the "Governing Body" that sets the standards for component performance? The AES? Do we take a vote? Do we listen to the opinion of some audio guru?

@maverick2108 The Soulnote E2 is a very interesting phono stage, would love to know what phono stage it is replacing in your system to rate the claim that your system never sounded better. Enjoy the music

@tooblue I have had several like Manley Chinook, Sutherland 20/20, hegel V10 and most recently luxman E-500. 

It was the Audio Research SP3, 3A, 3B, 3C, etc, that captivated the premier audio journalist of the 70s, Harry Pearson. Not the SP6 so much.  I remember when a friend bought an SP3, because he worked in an audio salon and could get a big discount.  Lots of 12AX7s in there. And Bill, you are correct; there is no point to this thread.

A "tragedy"? More like a very minor first world problem. Also, 'the most sensitive and impactful component" is wildly subjective. 

While not truly "reference quality," I am using a Lounge Audio Gold phono stage with my Rogue RP-7 Tube preamp and Odyssey SS mono bloc power amps driving Fyne F-702 speakers, and the sound is remarkable, with excellent tonal qualities, supeprrb vocals, an a wonderful sound-stage, laterally, in depth, and vertically.  While memories going back into the late 1980s and early 1990s are of dubious value, my previous system I am comparing with was the same Thorens TD 126 MKII TT--now with an Audio Technical 540 ML cartridge, a Yamaha C-2x preamplifier (which was reputed to have a superb phono stage), and a McIntosh MC2120 power amplifier, driving Infinity RS-IIb speakers.  I do not recall my older system sounding anything like my current one, especially with some of the higher quality LPs, such as the Sheffields or the 45 rpm LPs I have. While perhaps not reference quality, I see no need to swap anything out at this point.

@maverick2108 Thank you

@pani 

Perhaps the phono stage was previously neglected because those other items that I mentioned gave a bigger bang for the buck. Now the full potential of the phono stage is worth exploiting because it has a more solid foundation to build on. 

How about holding a seance and channelling the Spirit of Harry Pearson - the Pope of Sea Cliff?  I am sure Harry would have an opinion of what's a Reference phono stage!

I have a Precision Fidelity C7A Revised, which began in the '70's as the C7. It's pretty much a dedicated phono stage, as the other circuitry's passive. It's really great- nothing tragic about it. As to the point of this discussion, it serves as evidence the phono preamp was attracting the attention of designers and listeners in this era. I remember reading somewhere Absolute Sound compared it favorably with the SP6 and others of that order back in the day. Checked out the Darlington thread mentioned above- wow, pretty impressive. But saw no mention of Bruce Moore or Precision Fidelity . . .

I recall driving in the dark in rural northern Virginia with a good friend of mine, also a crazy audiophile, to find the home of a guy who owned the PF C7, so we could have a listen. I think he was a dealer who could also sell us one.  And you are correct; it was a cult piece for a while. Once we got to the destination, neither of us was blown away by the SQ, but there were the usual caveats about the downstream equipment including speakers that would make it unfair to judge from this temporal distance.

@dynacohum Don't know where you're coming from ...

Actually, I do. And I love the Zappa punn in your user name.

I was going to write almost exactly the same letter, but you beat me to it. I also read the long and detailed Keith @ Darlington Audio history, waiting for him to reference Tom Holman and Henry Kloss. It's like a whole arm of phono preamp history was just left out. The Advent 300, NAD 3020, APT Holman Preamp, and Marantz 3250 Preamp all shared Holman's insights and secret sauce making them among the very best phono stages available around 1975-80.

He does mention the HK Citation 11 & 12, a great middleweight pairing. One system I helped a customer build began with an Advent 300, Large Advent speakers and Thorens TD-160 / Ortofon VMS20 cart. This was what his budget allowed, and he wanted a clear upgrade path. 6 months later, he added his Citation 12 power amp, and 6 months after that, he swapped his Advents for a pair of ADS L810s. He later tried a Citation 11, but decided it wasn't a significant upgrade from  The Advent, and he'd miss the local college FM,  so he upgraded to an Ortofon MC-20 and matching transformer. That was a sweet sounding system. 

I personally owned the NAD 3020, Marantz 3250 (which I sadly sold in a moment of financial desperation), and later, an APT. I kept the APT, and recently had it rebuilt and upgraded. It remains one of the best preamps I've ever heard, and ith unmatched flexibility. 

Maybe Darlington Audio could add that missing chapter to their otherwise impressive history. Tom Holman did, in addition to his contributions to phon preamps, win an Academy Award for his development of the THX surround sound  technology.

The founder of Leben has indicated that his inspiration for his phono pre (i have one) was the HK Citation IV, which apparently featured CR-type RIAA equalization (no negative feedback).  

Every phono stage in history up to about 10 years ago used CR type RIAA filtering. The Citation IV was pretty nice for an early SS effort. HP loved it, I think.

I started this thread. Few points made so far is very interesting but some are confusing too

1. I have been referring to phonostages of the Vintage era. Late 90s is not vintage. It was when good standalone phonostages started coming in. My concern is why didn’t we have great standalone phonostages from 50s to 80s ?
2. Most phonostages referred so far from the 70s and 80s have been termed as nice but noisy. Not great by today’s standards. That’s what i am trying to say too. They didn’t great standalone stages
3. To rephrase my own OP, I don’t know of any top quality phonostage from the vintage era that is sought after and worth putting into a high end system. This is in stark contrast to other analog components which still appreciates in price for their high sonic performance. 
    

The point of all this discussion is, if high end standalone phono-stages is a modern concept (like DACs and Streamers) without any legacy to refer, there is still a lot of innovation left to be done and given that analog is such a small market, not sure if there ever will be some final designs like we have for TTs and cartridges 

The reason I write all this is, when i look around for a high end natural sounding phonostage, there are very very few. I can count them on one hand. This is without bothering about cost. I have heard a huge number of stages so far. Most of them sound wrong or low res. High res and natural is super rare. The art of keeping natural authentic music intact while improving resolution is missing among most of the “audiophile” designers. Typically i fall back on old school reference units in such situations but was surprised there are no such examples to be considered from the yesteryear. They are all average stuff by today’s resolution standard. That’s the reason i call this an analog tragedy 

One could write a thousand words on this subject, but suffice to say that while no one can say that your dissatisfaction with modern phono stages is "wrong" (because you are entitled to that opinion), one might fairly say that your thesis for why there is a dearth of superb phono stages (in your opinion) is skating on thin ice and maybe not worth debating. I wish you good luck in finding something that finally makes you happy, but ask yourself if that is really possible. I personally have found that by first educating myself on the relevant aspects of electronics, I have been able to modify commercial gear that is already very good and bring it up to a level of performance that I find very satisfying and which doesn’t leave me yearning for anything better, though I try to keep an open mind in case something better does come along.  So far, current drive (for one example) as represented by the few such units I’ve heard, is not an answer. But then again, I am not about to spend $90,000 on a phono stage.

@lewm

Am no expert but don’t think that’s right re CR type filtering.  Pretty sure early Macs, Marantz 7, Fischer 400, and many others used negative feedback in their phono stages.  

It probably is the case that no one back then even thought of a phono stage as a separate component; that would explain the dearth of examples.  Back then, no one thought of power cords as discrete components either.  Also, the popularity of low output cartridges is a modern thing; their would have been no need for phono stages back then to work with such low output.

At this time to better the sound of MM, MI, and MC one needs to consider optical (DS Audio) and the available equalizers.  Vinyl appears to be maxed out technically and I wonder if manufacturers see that when considering product development.

The term “CR filter” as applied to an RIAA network means only that the RIAA curve is achieved using capacitors and resistors (also including the input or output impedance of a tube as part of the filter). Such a circuit can be passive or active and can use NFB or not. NFB and CR are two entirely different descriptors for the phono circuit.

As far as I can tell, “CR type” and “NFB” are typiically used interchangeably for “passive” and “active”, respectively.  That’s why I find it helpful to define terms, and also why I tend to assume others on this forum might know stuff I don’t.  

So I am trying to define some terms.  The only meaning of "CR" as applied to a phono stage is to indicate that the RIAA filter is effected with capacitors and resistors.  To say that the phono stage incorporates NFB or does not incorporate NFB is another matter entirely. With or without NFB, a CR stage uses capacitors and resistors to effect an RIAA filter.

@larryi in those days there were many high quality MM carts and MC carts from EMT and Ortofon. But they relied on SUTs for the MC gain. Those SUTs by Cotter, Jorgen Schou, Fidelity Research were all masterpieces that even today is held as reference. But as we know, the MM stage is the heart of the phonostage which provides the big dynamic range and resolution. That they didn’t bother to engineer to the same level