Hi,
the ML phono-modules in my ML326S must be really bad news, they ONLY claim +/- 1dB!
A previously owned GCPH claimed 0.25dB (+/-?)
The ML (in)boards sound better, hm.
Now take any cart MM to MC and each and every one sounds different in the same phono-modules, some actually one hell of a lot --- from to bright to balanced to dull and so forth.
I have a suspicion that even +/- 1dB is 'peanuts' compared to the much higher deviations that carts bring to the table --- YMMV.
A. |
Hi Eldartford,
>>> Perhaps your spec of 1 dB is a misprint. <<<
Maybe ML printed some figure based on reality?
I am suspicious of measured claimed performance until someone else measures and verifies it.
Looking at J.A.'s (Audiophile) RIAA measurements of some highly regarded phono-stage makes me say that.
Most, or all of them do not do any better then that, and the GCPH? They didn't bother to measure it, so how accurate it the claimed 0.25dB ? --- And I mean at least across the full 20Hz to 20kHz.
Also, looking at the SMD technique used (ML), how on earth are you going to get much better than +/- 1dB, I wouldn't know right now.
(Pre-selected components to 0.1% from a component bonding automat??) That be something new to me... |
Eldartford,
you mentioned the cutting lathe and applied (inverse) RIAA.
I would like to know about % deviation found with well regarded 'commercial' phono-pres (not boutique audio).
Looking at the few test graph showings in audiophiles measurements --- "With all this going on, extreme accuracy of the RIAA equalization seems unnecessary to me." --- it seems some more manufacturer sharing this opinion.
We all know that accuracy will be nice to have in deed, but is it THE prime design parameter I seem to hear it is? Aren't there other much more important ones?
In other words: will it render another product much inferior just because it does not go to the ultimate in this RIAA matter?
Again, (yes, my system sux) listening to my 390S CD and then to the same on LP, I can hear NO colouration with a +/- 1% spec. We also know there are units out there with more than 1% deviation (and not too cheap either). |
Hi,
I'm sure there is more then one way to measure RIAA error to start with.
If so, we are arguing about the emperor beard.
For instance to get to a fat response you need to have an inverse RIAA network, yes?
Now that in itself needs to be MORE accurate than the one you try to establish in the phono-pre.
Due to component tolerances there will be no two stages the same exactly, even if you go through 100reds of components.
All of this just plain and simply just begs the question of the manufacturability of such high tolerances --- if ALL surrounding it is WAY-OF in comparison.
Seems to me, like insisting your tyre pressure to be 0.01% correct... and it will make actually no difference if it is correct to 1%.
I can claim 0.01% but how to measure/confirm that it's like this in the first place, and then the temperature might just have changed, what now? |
Sorry about the typo's, (need an editor sooner or later :-)
emperor = emperor's; fat = flat; just begs = begs; WAY-OF = WAY-OFF |
Dear Raul,
>>> ... in some way this part tolerances are the limits to. <<<
Exactly, what was on my mind also, tires have tolerances so have measuring gauges.
Pushing the envelope is fine by me - but maybe not always quite 'reasonable'?
I listen to CD on my 390S and then listen to a +/- 1dB 'quoted'/spec. RIAA module, and all I hear is NO colouration other then what the different carts produce.
The least colouration CD vs. vinyl is provided by my Windfeld, known to be very neutral.
Then I listen to a S1000ZE/X that has colouration (more low end than any same CD), but it is nicer than CD.
I actually cannot easily assimilate how +/-0.0075dB error is going to make this any different.
Maybe if I put my head in vice?
The variations in moving my head will actually be bigger than that 1% RIAA error... hm. |
Dear Raul:
I actually think you explained your position VERY WELL, and I also believe what you say when referring to your testing and listing --- AND I also think that the better tolerance is a better thing to have, --- if it makes commercially viable sense. This is here, where we are at X purposes.
If 0.01% RIAA error HAD TO BE, you could 'trash' just about every phono-pre under sun, except the 3160 --- and this is where I beg to differ.
Simply because a GOOD non-RIAA replay unit like a CD player sounds 1:1 with a 1% error spec. phono-stage.
I think, I would first have to look very seriously at my speakers to be able to appreciate ANY difference.
Call it a question of the right priority?
Yet, I also know that the Burmester 961's have a VERY linear frequency response also, so then it'd be back to my room?
But now I also know that I have very good room lock / good diffraction / no standing waves...
OK, now we need a much bigger listening room first and I would not disagree but my pockets do :-)
And all this so I can truly appreciate a better RIAA spec?
Again, there is NO, ZERO notable difference in tonality between CD and Vinyl recordings OTHER than provided by different cartridges.
The more neutral the cart the closer in tonality to the CD, with the difference in vinyl adding some more LIFE, simply by the analogue's higher resolution of micro details, e.g. hall information, etc.
We all can agree, that the RIAA error does impact tonality but NOT resolution, (given that L/R are ~ <0.75dB out) |
Hi Eldartford
I'd love to learn from the pro's perspective about that "RIAA equalization when the LP is cut", please if you would share it.
I think it should add some perspective to the subject on hand i.e. "Riaa curve" and not RIAA curve error tolerance...
A. |
Hi Atmasphere
good points you make, Raul will have a field day :-)
This also means, there is no way, but NO way, to do this RIAA circuit other then by a most tedious hand selection and soldering in/out process. In the case of your cutting lathe I've no problem, after all it the one that sets the 'standard'.
But as to phono-pres it means 'bespoke' only! --- and well that just about killed 98% of all phono-pres by then.
Food for thought... |
Funny, as I follow this % back and forth, I think of cartridge specs. - quoted cartridge specs - also in 0.2dB region say of channel balance.
Then we test this baby - ha, ~1,8dB........ and all say wow, sounded marvellous. Brinkmanship?
Who I ask, of any end-user will be the judge that these specs are actually the case?
Sorry, to say that testing of some of these claimed specs, made me highly critical or non-believing.
As the saying goes: "Paper is patient..."
Greetings, |
Maybe I aught to mention, I'm well acquainted with:
- MIL spec requirements
- Hi-Rel component testing and selection
- Hot handling (testers)
- Burn-in of components (re.: child-mortality)
i.e. Component assembly and Testfield procedures, and MIL spec QA requirements.
It could well be the reason I have a healthy respect of what is required to achieve superiour - long term - stabilty, never mind 1ppm failure rates, 0.01% tolerances.
All of this hi-spec stuff has to come at a PRICE!
I am hearing it loud and clear, when Eldartford is weary of over-engineering, just because 'we can' and not because it is a clear requirement in the first place.
Greetings, |
