Phono Stage, Tonearm, Cartridge Question - Which is the most important?

The cartridge, tone arm and phono stage in that order. 

How the TT>TA>Cart' is supported on a Structure is an extremely important consideration.

When this is optimised, the Phonostage will then be better supported to carry out its role in the Signal Path.

 

@pindac

How would you describe the Phono stage’s role in the signal path?
 

IF, existing system, you have a TT, and some kind of Phono EQ in your Preamp

1. find a better sounding Phono Stage. Buy with return privileges’, it may take a few until you find one you really like. i.e. making your existing cartridge sound better.

....................................

2. NOW, knowing the Phono Stage is a keeper, it’s time for a better cartridge.

You will hear the most change via the cartridge, now through a phono stage you know is doing a great job. That’s why Phono Stage 1st.

a. MM Moving Magnet. There is the issue of ’wonderful sounding’, which is subjective, read reviews, research, ask specific advice.

b. There is the issue of IMAGING. That is revealed in the cartridges specifications, two of them very relevant to IMAGING.

b1. Wide Channel Separation

b2. Tight Channel Balance. Importantly to refine what is within that wide separation.

b3. My recommended MM Cartridge (to start or move up from a basic one):

https://www.audio-technica.com/en-us/cartridges/type/moving-magnet/vm540ml-h

channel separation :28db; channel balance: 1.0 db; microlinear stylus tip.

.....................................................

A great LP helps you hear the Imaging Differences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_Night_in_San_Francisco

the last two tracks on side two: all 3 guitarists play.

a. get it in CD, so no imaging error is involved

b. get it in LP. IF your cartridge is properly aligned, it should sound/image the same, if not, then something is wrong with cartridge setup, fix it.

c. now, TT sounding like CD, listen to the Imaging, wide? tight? hear center/left/right guitars more distinctly? 

...................................................

3. Move UP to the advanced technology of MC Moving Coil Cartridge (MC: lightweight coil inside a magnet rather than a MM: heavy magnet within a coil). Same thing, reviews, recommendations, ask for specific advice, research, don’t forget Channel Separation and Balance for imaging.

MC low signal strength (some are MC High Output signal strength) takes more advantage of MC technology’s. That low signal needs to be ’pre-boosted’ up to typical MM cartridge strength, then Phono Equalized like any phono signal.

Either the Phono Stage you bought has MC capability, OR, like me, you use a SUT Step Up Transformer to boost the MC low signal strength UP to MM signal strength.

My recommended MC Cartridge: (to start or move up from a basic one):

https://www.audio-technica.com/en-us/cartridges/type/moving-coil/at33ptg-2

Channel Separation: 30db; tight channel balance 0.5db; similar Microlinear Stylus Tip, now on a stiffer Boron cantilever.

............................

4. Now: a better TT, and a better tonearm.

I recommend a tonearm with a removable headshell, so you can easily change cartridges, yours or hear a friends cartridge thru your system, and perhaps a MONO cartridge IF you get into Jazz, hearing the developing years of many Jazz greats, which typically leads you back to Mono LPs (stereo came out in 1958).

CAREFUL selection of used may get you ’more’ than new TTs in your budget.

I prefer DDQL, Direct Drive Quartz Locked Speed, Heavy Platter, Heavy Base, successful Isolation.

 

 

This question is really a moving target. Especially as you move from one tier / class of gear to a higher one.

But in my cumulative experience, cartridge and phono stage are decidedly most impactful to the net result. Of course you don’t want to egregiously mismatch cartridge to arm, or throw a $10K cart on a $500 deck - but if we eliminate the silly hypothetical scenarios like that, then cart & phono (and their match to each other!) are usually most crucial. Both of these components have 2 of hardest jobs in 2ch audio (speakers and electrostatic headphone amplifiers are way up there too). 

Within the past two weeks there was another thread on this same subject, with similar very serious inconclusive responses. Why not search the archives? Cartridge>tonearm>TT, with high marks to the phono stage.

Well, let’s see after about fifty years owning turntables… probably six or seven. I am not a churner. My rule of thumb is spend equally on the turntable as the phonostage. So given a good tt… then the phono stage is number one. Typically I will spend more on a tt than a cartridge and arm, so the tt second. Then cartridge and arm about the same.

 

So Phono stage, turntable and finally the tone arm and cartridge. Obviously there is a lot of wiggle room. They all must be compatible and of the kind that sound like you want.

Let me check my thinking: is it the opposite of what Jason Borne recommended? Yes, check. So that is my answer. PS, TT then equally arm and cartridge… very generally.

 

To me,  of the three, that cartridge is by far the most important, then I'd give the edge the tonearm then phono.

@mulveling I am in total agreement. Especially that, I would guess, 90% of turntables come with a tonearm which really can not be replaced with a different one.

ghdprentice and any others, The question was to rank TT, tonearm, and Cartridge in order of importance for max SQ.  And I find myself agreeing with Jason Bourne.

Thanks for these responses. 
 

@lewm Sorry for the repetitive thread. As far as your last post is concern, my question wasn’t to rank the three components. The question was which of the three has the most impact on the sound of your system.

I would say phono stage. To get the best from a cartridge you need a great tonearm. To get the most from a tonearm you need a great table. From a table, a phono.

But cartridges wear out fast. Tonearms don't. Tables don't. Phono stages don't. So if you are considering cost, get a great phono stage first. For example, I had a Rega 3 back when - sounded good for the day. With an ARC SP8, the system sang.

I had planned to buy forever speakers that day - Magnepan Tympani IVA. But the SP8 made more difference, so that's what I bought. YMMV

In very Basic Terms a Phonostage receives Signal that is generated by the Interface of the Styli being in contact with the Groove and the Styli’s having LP Groove Modulation pass it, the undulations of the modulation are creating oscillation, which is transferred via the Cantilever / Armature into the Coils where the oscillation becomes a minuscule electrical Signal.

Note: Ambient Energies within the Listening Environment are able to be transferred to the LP Groove, resulting in a influence on the oscillation being produced by the Styli’s contact within the Groove. Contaminated Grooves also have the potential to influence the oscillation being produced.

The more faithful - unadulterated (not influenced by ambient conditions) the energy being generated and transferred from within the Groove as a Signal to the Phonostage. The more accurate a representation the Signal will be, when the transferred signal’s Gain is Increased by the Phonostage. It is not uncommon for a MC Cart’s Signal to be increased by a 1000x, which will be ideal for the next stage of amplification.

A Phonostage is Typically a tool to increase Voltage and carry out correction to RIAA.

RIAA is way to complex for myself, the Link will help if wanted to be looked into further.

What I am sure of over many years being a Vinyl Source Enthusiast and meeting with many who are similarly passionate through social interaction, is that Phonostages are not all viewed equally.

A Phonostages capability is as important to some as their most valued LP Pressings. Not everybody wants the same thing sonically from a Phonostage, in the same way not every bodies most valued LP Pressing is to be the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

In relation to the follow up inquiry about which is having the most impact on the sound.

I stand by the suggestion that a LP Sources Trilogy of Supporting Ancillaries, mounted on to a optimised support structure, will produce sonic far from what could imagine achievable. 

My take on it, is that expensive equipment required for Vinyl Replays, is being used to its least advantageous/ sold short, if not mounted on a optimised support structure.

I strongly suggest not spending too much money of any ancillaries seen to be an upgrade until the Support for the Trilogy of Ancillaries is addressed.

Ask anybody on any Forum would they revert back to former mounting methods used for the TT, after having discovered something perceived as optimised, the chances of getting a 'Yes' would be a hard find.  

If you can answer us this question, we can perhaps begin to answer yours: are your upper teeth or your lower teeth more important for chewing?

I stand by the suggestion that a LP Sources Trilogy of Supporting Ancillaries, mounted on to a optimised support structure, will produce sonic far from what could imagine achievable.

What does it even mean?

Being a manufacturer the phono stage is the most important.  We have access to so much equipment and the phono stage is what produces the sound.  You don't have to spend big bucks on a cartridge like the Denon DH103 and get a wood body for that, or a TT.  We have used older modified TT's with good wood surrounds and that will compete with most anything out there.

Happy Listening.

The record is the most important!

Can't we just say-it's the SUM of everything, AND it starts with the record?

 

Imo, your question is akin to asking which link in a chain is the most important. The hifi system, like the chain, is no better than the weakest link. Therefore the priority should be to replace or repair the weakest link.

A Phonostage is an ancillary only, and is an ancillary to be encountered early in the produced Signals Flow.

A Signal born from either a Digital or Analogue Source will only become an Audible Sound as the Signal exits the Speaker Xover and creates a movement of air via the Speaker Driver or Equivalent.

Setting the above apart, Phonostages 'will' be very influential on the Sonic being produced.

There are many models that will produce a Sonic that is OK, totally fit for the purpose of producing a Sonic that is a worthwhile listen. There will be discovered after a reasonable amount Phonostage demo's, where one is now experienced with a range of designs, the outcome being where some of the designs found have proved to be extremely impressive and much wanted to be kept in use. My experiences are that not all who produce Phonostages are able to create a extremely impressive Phonostage. 

At the point of discovering an ancillary that is perceived as being extremely impressive, one has to bite the Bullet and decide whether SS, Valve/Hybrid or Valve Input/Valve Output is the favoured option.

Decisions are required for what one wants to invest into. Inevitably some designs will be beyond ones foreseen budget to have a particular design as an immediate purchase to become a permanent at home experience.  

@pindac 

thanks for this thoughtful response

I think, mulveling's moving target answer is an excellent one, but I still believe that the table itself is the most important element. Arm/cartridge/phono is where it may get complicated but I would always want phono stage to be at least one step above the cartridge.

Moving on from the Support Structure for the Trilogy of Ancillaries to enable a Vinyl Replay to occur, there are the ancillaries themselves to consider.

With the intention being to have oscillations produced within the Groove, transferred as a faithful - unadulterated energy, it is not only the ambient energies within the listening environment and contamination embedded in the LP Groove that can produce unwanted oscillation.

Note: For the individual on a constrained budget, there is much that can be done to create a mounting structure that will be an improved influence without too much outlay. If further knowledge is wanted, a request to learn a variety of these methods adopted by others should become quite fruitful. A Method to Clean LP's does not need to be expensive if particular cleaning solutions and application methods are adopted.

Where expense will be found and for many expense that is way beyond ones budget, is to substantially reduce the energies being produced within the Trilogy of Ancillaries.

A Cart' seen to be able to be be adequate at this role, will in most individuals minds be the Cart' of choice in use, (it is not untypical for a Cart' owner in this price range to be expressing a desire to aspire to using a more expensive model) typically meaning most Cart' users are using Cart's from a range of cost between $400 - $2000. Cart's in these price ranges will be seen to be fine for producing a sonic, but will also in general be seen to be lacking in the assembly, where a particular material seen to be required for an optimised performance are not present in the entirety. Cart's containing all the materials and dedicated time required for producing a Cart' that can be claimed to be optimised are usually found at a cost that is substantially more than the above price range.

Note: My own experiences to date have been that I have been quite content with Cart's encountered and demo'd between £1000 and £4000.

Cart's are extremely fragile and there is no guarantee that the Cart' at any Purchase Value will maintain an optimised function during its time in service. The listening environment and user interface can be quite a brutal place for a Cart' to live in. UV Damage to Dampers, Contamination/Crud build up on Damper and Coils and askew Cantilevers can appear after short periods of a projected service life. I was fortunate to have a well known Brands Cart' modified by a Third Party Technician using parts that are critical to the function of the Brands TOTR Cart's from a certain era. 

The Tonearm can pass on generated energies to the Styli impacting on produced oscillation. There is endless debate on Tonearm design and how design types are able to generate various unwanted energies through the function. I no longer use a expensive to purchase Tonearm as it has in comparison to another Tonearm Design been detected as having a unwanted influence, in relation to how the sonic being produced is perceived. I now have a Tonearm that I feel has an energy produced that influences the signal being produced in a much more attractive way as a sonic and in keeping with my own preferences.  

The TT's Platter Bearing Function can pass on generated energies impacting on produced oscillation. I am experienced in witnessing work undertaken to improve the interfaces within the Bearing Housing, where the exchange of materials and new tolerances selected for dimensions are undoubtedly beneficial. The work undertaken is discernable for being a betterment at the time of hearing the sonic produced. I have for numerous years been using TT's with bearing assemblies that are in my assessment much improved over the original and are offering a influence on the signal being produced that is much attractive as a sonic and  in keeping with my preferences.  

Any of the Three Items above can incur considerable costs for an individual  wanting the interface between the Trilogy to be optimised.     

In other words the Source LP used today, that is the material supplying the undulations and following oscillation, when being transferred to the Coils to become the Source of the signal flow, then to be increased in Voltage by the Phonostage. Is at present, with my level of understanding an improved Signal to other versions I have had in use for producing the same oscillation type. 

I can claim with conviction a Phonostage benefits substantially from receiving the cleanest signal possible, the Phonostage is limited in how it can filter out unwanted signal, hence the Phonostage remains a receiver of a signal primarily and is limited in its abilities to filter what signal is being sent.

As said previously, only some Phonostages are, as a result of experiencing them in use, as an assessment, proven the design to be exceptional in the role of receiving and sending a signal.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

I don't say anyone else is wrong, but there is probably a definitive answer to this. The problem is that we are all subject to bias from what we upgraded last and which last impinged on our appreciation of our music. I'm just as subject to that as anyone else, so take this with a grain of salt.

1. Cartridge

2. Phono stage

3. Tonearm

4. Turntable.

And to qualify, if any one of the above is letting down the rest, it should automatically move to the top of the list for immediate replacement.

I have recently, after many months with no TT, upgraded to a much better table.

I had a really good Woodsong Garrard 301. And am using a super nice Triplanar arm, Grado Epoch 3 cartridge and great full function Atma-Sphere MP-1 preamp.

But after hearing a system with comparable arm, cart and phono stage with a $50K NVS TT I was inspired to sell my 301 and look for a better TT.

I got very lucky and found a beautiful Artisan Fidelity Lenco. New, it sold for about $20K. It creams my old Garrard. This clearly leads me to believe that the TT, by far, is the most important. Records that were previously unlistenable are now terrific. With the Garrard my collection was comprised of about 10-15% “bad” recordings. Now it is down to about 2-3%. 
BTW-There is now a very similar AF Lenco on USAudiomart from the same man who sold me mine. If you can live with its pearl white finish, it is a steal at $5K.

Phono stage

imo it’s the one thing that can be a legitimate bottleneck