Mijo, Sorry, based on your phrasing I thought you might be saying you preferred JC3+ over whatever Channel D you own, which didn’t make sense.
Note here that I refrained from making the obvious joke about turntables needing to be “well hung” (per Mijostyn).
|
You actually like the JC3+ better than your Lino C?
|
The Zeus makes 0.3mV at 3.54 cm/sec, or about 0.5mV at 5cm/sec, where most cartridges are rated. “100db” would indicate a voltage gain of 100,000X, or 50V (!!!) at 5 cm/sec. Whoever advised you is not to be trusted as a source for audio advice. 50V would drive some speakers directly, without an amplifier. Your Herron is more than adequate in terms of gain.
|
Like I said elsewhere, an outboard PS designed for the Garrard motor will likely reduce noise by running the motor at lower voltages. There are several good options and easy to resell if you’re not happy.
|
If it were I, I would want to have a concrete reason for why an outboard Etsuro SUT would outperform the SUTs built into the Allnic, before spending the bucks for the Etsuro. There are more readily conceivable reasons why that might be a downgrade rather than an upgrade (extra connectors, extra wiring, added capacitance, etc) than there are good reasons to expect an improvement.
|
The problem with current drive is that to have true current drive, the input impedance of the phono stage has to be zero, and that's not possible (because the signal would go to ground; in effect a mute switch). Atma-sphere made the interesting point that ICs (often used at the input of current drive phono stages) can present a "virtual ground" at the input. In other words, a virtual zero input impedance. But the real world impedance always must be a few ohms above zero. I think (I guess) that is where the unpredictability in SQ, when matched with various LOMC cartridges, of these devices arises. The BMC MCCI that I owned in fact uses discrete transistors, not an IC, at its input. It definitely worked with even my Ortofon MC2000 at .05mV to produce plenty of gain, but I didn't "feel" it.
|
I think it's fair to say that Mijostyn is relating his own experience, as he plainly admits. His experience is with one current driven phono stage that he owns. So I would say that for him, for his phono stage, and for his selection of cartridges, he has developed an opinion. Every one of the many current driven phono stages on the market has some finite input impedance greater than zero, usually at least 2 ohms and sometimes as much as 10 ohms or more. Thus every one of these stages will mate differently with cartridges that have different very low internal impedance. I owned a BMC MCCI for a couple of years. I found that it could be mated with a variety of LOMC cartridges rated at up to 12 ohms internal impedance. I sold it not because it didn't work with these cartridges but because I was never quite satisfied with its SQ. I could not rid it of a touch of classic "transistor" sound. Sorry, I know that descriptor is practically worthless. Suffice to say I have other conventional high gain phono stages that sound better to my ears in my system.
|
Every one of us would say the same. No surprise.
|
Mijostyn, I am curious what you mean when you use the phrase "match by a few ohms", where you applied the term to SUTs.
As to tubes vs SS, I think you would have trouble supporting the notion that the best tube phono stages are categorically less expensive than the best SS phono stages. For example, the Ypsilon VPS 100 costs $30K and only develops 39db of gain. VAC make some high end units, too, and there are others I don’t know about. I know that Channel D make a $90K SS phono that does both current and voltage gain, and I don’t know how much some of the stratospherically expensive SS stages, like Soulution (sp?) and others cost. (Has anyone heard any of those?) I think Raul mentioned someone brought the top of the line Channel D unit to his home, and they compared it to his 3180 Phonolinepreamp; results in his group of listeners favored the latter unit, and I believe it because the 3160 is the best sounding SS phono stage I have ever heard in my home environment. Which is to say it’s the only one I have auditioned that I could live with (and am living with) long term, among those I have heard. I’m a tube guy at heart but with some qualifications, like OTLs only, for amplification and a preference for tube/SS hybrid phono stages to achieve high phono gain. This is a bit different from the ARC approach (and which is used by a myriad of other manufacturers) of using a FET to add gain at the front end; I prefer a hybrid cascode input for high gain. On the low end, the market is replete with inexpensive SS phono stages (less than $500) that people swear by and which typically offer high gain. Op amps make it easy and cheap to do. But could we (you and I) live with any of those? The only tube phono in that low price range I can think of is the Bellari, and it’s MM only. Anyway, I have avoided SUTs for 45 years so far, but I never would say not to take that route. I am sure it can work beautifully. (Which is also what you said.)
|
My MC2000 cantilever and stylus are OEM, according to the seller. And the assembly looks like on-line photos of OEM.
|
Simaudio
Sutherland (also make outboard head amps operating in current or voltage mode)
Pass XP series
Atma-sphere MP1
J&R 3180 Phonolinepreamp
Manley Steelhead or Chinook
Goldnote
DarTzeel
Many, many more.... (Mind has gone blank.)
|
Raul, You are always right, but I do own and listen to the MC2000, and it does have a press-fitted stylus on its aluminum cantilever.
Lalitk, Do I understand you to say that you are going to use an EMIA SUT or a "transimpedance" phono stage (hate the term because it implies that the internal impedance of the cartridge and the finite input Z of the phono stage make no difference, but both parameters most assuredly do) or a tube phono with MM and MC capabilities? Presumably you will mate the EMIA SUT with the MM inputs of the last named tube phono stage, yes? So you will cover all the possible ways for amplifying the output of an LOMC, except the use of a head amplifier (outboard gain stage to takes the place of a SUT).
|
I am not sure, in fact I doubt, that the velocity of sound in the material used to construct the cantilever is necessarily directly proportional to the resulting audio sound quality, meaning "the faster the velocity of sound in the material, the more accurate is the cantilever". This is obviously because the job of the cantilever is to wiggle in the magnetic field due to undulations in the groove at the other end, thereby generating the audio signal as an electrical impulse. The job of the cantilever has nothing to do with conducting sound and might even be a detriment to accurate response to the groove undulations, because of secondary vibration of the cantilever. Further, aluminum cantilevers or any other type where the stylus can be press-fitted into the cantilever, rather than glued to a blank surface, may actually be an advantage. The glue adds extra mass just where you don't want it.
|
IMO, it’s just silly to pre-judge a cartridge on the basis of the material used to make its cantilever. The idea of ranking cartridges based on the nature of the parts per se was already discussed at length. I know that no one went away with a changed view of the subject, but nevertheless, it’s been done for good or ill. For only one example, I consider the Ortofon MC2000 to be one of the greatest LOMC cartridges ever made, not THE best, but certainly in the top rank. And yet it has a lowly aluminum cantilever. By the same token, many superb cartridges have ruby cantilevers. Fact is, these days most new cartridges are pretty darn good, and a given isolated user on a given day in a given mood might love any of them. Once you’ve spent the money, that alone predisposes you to a certain affection for the thing you bought. By the way, there is such a teeny tiny amount of beryllium in a beryllium cantilever, and since we don't eat them or shred them into our local environments, I find it hard to believe that the toxicity of beryllium is the whole reason we don't have cartridges with beryllium cantilevers any longer offered.
|
Mulveling, I was surprised to read that the weight of the core of a SUT could per se be a positive virtue (the idea being more is better). I say this because it is my understanding that an air core is potentially lowest in distortion, when it comes to inductors, and a transformer is basically two inductors placed side by side. I am no expert on transformers, but I wonder what others with more knowledge might say. The problem with an air core is loss of efficiency, so you need more turns of wire in the coil for a given effect.
|
Staying up all night doesn’t ameliorate the crap shoot nature of buying a new cartridge.
|
At last there is a scientific method for judging audio components. Weigh them and choose the heaviest.
|
Raul, I thought you were “against” the Neumann pole. Many are against it. In my 3160, I turned it off. This has not much to do with the subject of the thread. Sorry.
|
I guess the crux of your quote is this: "I only simulated it for the Paradise but it can be done more accurately in simulation than in real life as a perfect reverse RIAA generator can be used virtually which is built with +/- 0.00000% accurate parts. This can then allow you to design RIAA networks of extreme accuracy which will be limited only by the tolerance of the real components." This comment suggests he has a device that can run a perfect simulated reverse RIAA. (One question in my mind is what IS a perfect reverse RIAA? Is it the reverse of the Lipschitz equations, or what is it based upon?) Anyway, notwithstanding the fact that we don't know what model he uses for RIAA, I get it. I find the last paragraph kind of odd; if changing those values improves the accuracy of the RIAA, why not do it in the first place? Seems easy. Except of course you have to have exact parts values, else the curve will be off. And the resistors cannot drift in value when heated. Building these circuits to exacting standards requires a willingness to test parts values rigorously and to be prepared to reject parts that are off even by a small amount.
|
Raul, Can you say how you do your measurement of RIAA accuracy? I asked this earlier as a general question and got no response. I am curious how it is done by manufacturers in order to arrive at a spec which is then published in their ad copy, because I see there could be many pitfalls. I’d be happy to hear from Ralph or Dave Slagle on that subject, too. Just to begin with, what curve is used as the standard from which a deviation can be measured. Is it a hypothetical curve described by Lipschitz’s equations? With respect to Lipschitz, I heretofore thought his equations describe only one of a few other mathematical approaches to RIAA de-emphasis.
|
Here's a question that arises when one considers the RIAA equalization error in a phono stage: What is the standard by which the error is calculated? Is it the curve described by the equations in the Lipshitz paper? Or is it the ideal curve, which is not achieved in an analog circuit using the Lipshitz equations, where there is a flat plateau between ~500Hz and ~2kHz, sitting at 0db, flanked by straight lines from -20db at 20Hz to 0db at ~500Hz on the left hand side of the plateau, and 2kHz to 20kHz (0db to +20db) on the right hand side? Further, what about error on the pre-emphasis (cutter head) side? That must be a variable based on choice of cutter head, company producing the recording, and age of the recording.
I certainly yield to Atmasphere on use of tubes in phono equalization (also as a proud owner of an Atmasphere MP1), but as I understand it the reason a tube phono stage may exhibit slightly less RIAA accuracy compared to a SS phono stage is that tubes change with age. Adherence to the Lipschitz equations (or any of some other equations to define RIAA de-emphasis in a phono stage) depends exquisitely on the accurate values of the parts used to construct the circuit. Since the plate resistance (Rp) of the tubes figures in to calculations involving impedance (R in the Lipschitz equations), and since Rp does vary slightly over the life span of a tube, the RIAA error reported by a manufacturer probably has to be a bit wider in order to take that into account. Transistors don't change in that parameter.
I agree that one does want RIAA error to be as small as practical, but I don't agree that +/-0.2db (the actual data for the Allnic, reported by Raul as "0.4db") is anything to be concerned about. I also own Raul's 3160 Phonolinepreamp, and it's excellent too. I don't know the RIAA error of the MP1, but it's probably wider than that of the 3160. I don't hear that as a problem; I don't hear it at all when comparing the two.
|
“Loading on the input side”. Does that mean using a resistor across the primaries of the SUT (which on its surface sounds like a bad idea) or what? Dave is a great outside the box thinker.
|
I know what Steve G meant when he referred to the Parasound as a reference. My point was that the Parasound is not a top level high gain phono stage, in my opinion of course. Therefore it does not set a very high bar for a SUT + MM stage to exceed.
|
Pindac, how does the last post, detailing your personal listening experiences that are described as though you’ve got an elaborate system at your immediate disposal, fit with your having said that your equipment is currently (and previously) stored away owing to an ongoing home improvement program?
|
Problem is that the Parasound does not qualify as a “reference”, certainly not as a high gain phono stage. A classic “straw man” situation. My advice is keep an open mind, experiment as much as you can afford, then do what you like. Verbal arguments are worthless in this case.
|
I don’t think you can fairly make a case for SUT over high gain phono on the basis of simplicity. A high gain stage may consist of one gain device at the input of what otherwise is an MM stage. No extra ICs, no outboard chassis, much shorter connections.
|
I am making no value judgement, but be aware that Thoress uses a JFET in addition to tubes in order to develop sufficient gain with LOMC cartridges. Not that there’s anything wrong with that; the Steelhead does it too. What’s the big deal about the 6J5? It’s equal to one half (one section) of a 6SN7, which is a great medium mu tube and easier to find. I’d advise against choosing gear based on content of seemingly exotic parts.
|
Lalitk, My point was that your good opinion of the Monbrisson led me to look for some reviews. One was by Art Dudley published in Stereophile. Dudley was an avowed admirer of Ken Shindo, and so was predisposed to love his works. And indeed he did wax poetic about the Monbrisson, but the impression I got is that the built in phono stage only supplies MM levels of phono gain, i.e., ca 40db. He mentioned that the difference in cost between the Monbrisson and a more costly Shindo design was likely that the latter included built in SUTs that service the MC phono inputs on that other unit, whereas the Monbrisson lacked MC capability. So, based only on that information (sadly, the S’phile review did not include a tech description of the Monbrisson or any measurements), I would have guessed that the unit would require an outboard SUT in order to work well with the Hana Umami Red or any other LOMC cartridge. OTOH, it’s possible that one could have ordered up an upgrade to the Monbrisson that would include a built in SUT and MC inputs.
|
Pindac, Not all high end component designers are EEs, although ideally one would like to think so. Many/most are just intelligent guys with no degree related to EE who use math, and yes also their own personal biases, to design equipment. Which is why there is no agreement on what is "best". There is no general consensus even on something as fundamental as whether a phono stage should be balanced or single-ended, tube or solid state, transformer coupled or direct coupled, and on and on. BUT one can only hope that a given commercial design makes sense mathematically, else for example the RIAA correction is apt to be very inaccurate. So, go ahead and follow your ears and your heart in choosing your own gear, but verify that the theory is sound. What I am saying is that there are many many ways to get the design right, but they all depend upon the same mathematical formulae for calculating parts value, in order to get a good result.
|
lalitk, I thought the Monbrisson phono stage did not have sufficient gain for a LOMC cartridge and that it therefore required an external SUT. No? Was there perhaps an option to build in a SUT for LOMC?
|
What many do is to load the SUT incorrectly and then conclude that the SUT is lacking in some way. Being a transformer maker is not for the faint of heart.
|
For the very lowest output MC (Ortofon MC2000), Dave Slagle built me a head amp which I couple with my very much tweaked tube-rectified and tube voltage- regulated Silvaweld phono stage. This combo is the best sounding of 3 possible ways in which I can achieve the gain necessary for the MC2000 output of .05mV. The others being a high gain SS phono stage or a high gain hybrid SS/tube phono stage. So the common denominator is that Dave Slagle knows what he is doing.
|
