Phono Stage - The great analog tragedy


In the world of analog playback, there is an interesting observation. There has been tremendous innovation in the field of 
Turntable - Direct, Idler, Belt
Cartridge - MM, MC, MI
Tonearm - Gimbal, Unipivot, Linear Tracking

For all of the above designs we find some of the best reference components designed in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Most of the modern products are inspired from these extraordinary products of the past. But when it comes to phono stage, there is hardly any "reference component" from that era. They just standardized RIAA curve for sanity and left it. Manufacturers made large preamps and amps and allocated a puny 5% space for a small phono circuit even in their reference models, like a necessary evil. They didn’t bother about making it better. 

The result? It came down to the modern designers post 2000 after vinyl resurgence to come up with serious phono stages for high end systems. Unfortunately they don’t have any past reference grade designs to copy or get inspired from. Effectively, just like DACs, reference phono stages is also an evolving concept, and we don’t have too many choices when we want a really good one which is high-res and natural sounding. Very few in the world have figured out a proper high end design so far. And most of the decent ones have been designed in the past couple of decades. The best of the breed are probably yet to come.  

It is a tragedy that our legendary audio engineers from the golden era didn’t focus on the most sensitive and impactful component, "the phono stage"

pani

Showing 5 responses by dover

@mdalton 

Your post on active vs passive vs LCR RIAA equalisation is all well and good, but the Marantz 7 ( I have 2 - one modded, one original ) leaves the Leben phono ( which I've had in house ) in the dust. The Leben is very low resolution ( and low gain ). It's a dog.

In a LCR phono the inductors have their own issues - there are positives and negatives whatever road you take. 

To be clear, there were separate high end phono stages in the 70's & 80's - just not in the magazines. There are audio companies outside of the US.

Examples would be Analog Devices AD-E1 ( Japan, price 1.7million yen in the late 80's ), Burmester ( Germany, 838 phono in 83 ( cheapie ) ), Final Audio/Takai Labs ( Japan, 70's, bespoke phono stages with up to 4 phono inputs ), Mactone ( Japan, 60's ).  There were plenty of others.

 

They can exist in the same chassis, but the advantage of these being separate should be obvious. 

No it's not obvious. One could argue the opposite. Don't believe the all the marketing bs and hype.

 

Except for tubes, today's parts (discrete transistors, ICs, capacitors, resistors, inductors, diodes, etc) are simply superior to even the very best available 50 years ago. 

Not necessarily true. I have components using teflon insulation and exotic materials dating back to the early 50's. I have components from the 50's with metallurgical properties that are now too expensive to produce.

The magic is in the circuits, their design and topology etc. You can put the best components made today into a circuit but if the circuit sucks, you'll just expose the flaws - lipstick on a pig.

A good example would be my old Theta tube preamp from the 80's - its unmodified apart from some coupling cap upgrades, still the original power supply components, resistors etc - but it's good enough to pull out of the cupboard, and see off many much vaunted modern high end phono's that cost north of $5k, particularly in the area of information retrieval, resolution. It decimated my Klyne System 7 phono. Last time I took it over to a guy that was auditioning an Audio Reference top of the line pre in his home - the Theta smoked it.

The most obvious improvement in today's high end components should be stability and low noise floor. I say should be because it often isn't.

But how do you explain a product like the CH where you can buy a phono for $70k and then buy another for another one for $70k to run mono, which according to users sounds a lot better, then spend another $70k for an additional external power supply, which according to users sounds a lot better, and then another $70k for another additional power supply to get to dual mono stage and power supply ( 4 boxes )  - $280k all up. It's a joke.

High end is now about bling and brinksmanship. They get away with it because folk no longer know what real music actually sounds like. Go to any audio show, the higher the fi the less it sounds like you hear at the local concert hall. And unfortunately when you compare some the top components to some products of the past that were exceptional, from massively expensive solid state that is not that transparent to exotic valve gear that presents a horribly coloured sound with speakers that are horribly coloured to match.

Years ago I auditioned the $1m full monty Kondo system - sounded very nice until I I put a full orchestra recording on - no power, no control over musical timing - a mess. It fell apart.

Similarly I have heard a few ( I won't name them ) current much vaunted as state of the art, $50-100k solid state components that are not as transparent as my trusty modded Marantz 7/Bel 1001 monos. Dogs, expensive dogs, unless you are buying them for the price, number of boxes, looks and want to impress the neighbours with your moolah.

The good news is that there are good products out there, but you have to look hard to find them.

 

 

@dover your list of vintage standalone phonostage is very interesting. I will check them out one by one.

@pani 

I only gave some examples, there are many more. But from your posts, with all due respect, you would be better off looking at recent products that you can audition and that can be serviced. Spot buying vintage ss components that may need extensive restoration is a recipe for disaster unless you know what you are doing.

Tube gear less so unless it is using obsolete valve types.