Step Up Transformers….Are they Worth the Trouble?

@moonwatcher

Thanks for the link to Steve’s video. Zesto Audio is another brand that intrigues me..lots of praise. I am surprised no one had mentioned Zesto Audio until now. While not cheap, they offer good quality and versatility in their product line up. 

I watched the bulk of the Video, a rare thing for myself to do.

I have been sharing the experience this man is having since approx' 2010, I do believe there is a fire put into some individuals bellies when such a discovery of what can be encountered is discovered.

Variety is a Wonderful Option, especially when achievable with minimum effort, even better if minimum outlay is the cost as well.

I have a selection of Cart's able to be used in LOMC - HOMC - MM and Ceramic. All have their own Identical Magnesium Headshells 

I run 2 Phon's MM Inputs > 2 SUT's Types + Occasional used Head Amp. I run one of the Phon's MC Input as well. 

I have experienced in my system on Phon's designed as a Valve Input /  Output, Valve Hybrid and SS the LOMC Cart' used as a MC Input and a MM Input > SUT or Head Amp.

Additionally to this I also have options for Valves and fully understand how a few selected Valves can influence the end sound.

All SUT;s experienced have not been experienced through the same Phon's on the home system, the time line for experiencing SUT's has be quite long and fair number have been demo'd.

In relation to the Video, at times between 3.28 - 3.55 -- 4.25-4.50 -- 8.20 - 8.45 I see no reason to question the discoveries being shared or the thoughts about the discoveries. I know the bite that takes hold to have a insatiable appetite for new experiences. I also totally agree with experiencing the Phon's Built In MC Input regularly when trying the Phon's MM Input with a alternate amplification method, the Built In MC Input is quite capable on a large range of Phon's and really does prove to be more than enough for certain types of sensitivities to a produced sound. 

I do question the comments made at 11.30 - 11.47, in the Video. It does seem there is a need to explain something but this might not necessarily be what has been experienced ?

In my trials of Phon;s > SUT or Head Amp'. My whole fundamental is to discover if the most attractive areas of the replay from hearing the End Sound minus additional amplification are preserved when the additional amplification method is added.

My experiences had, have led me to making choices that has the attraction to keep the additional amplification device maintained in use, as the added amplification device provides more to the End Sound, that has an added attraction, with no loss to other attractive traits already discovered. 

Note: There has been quite a number of SUT's not given much attention by myself, as they have produced an End Sound that is quite a way of from my objectives for what an End Sound can be. This is no Different to my changing direction for Cart's, Valve or SS, Valve Types, Signal Cable Type, Cable Connections and Speakers, each of these can change my perception of how my objective for an End Sound is being steered toward or away from.

The Subject remaining so tightly focused on an area of a method used for entertaining oneself, where an individuals choice is made to add amplification, as a built in design or off board design seems a futile exercise, especially when each method produces the Goal very very successfully, to be entertained by listening to recorded music from a Vinyl Album Hard Medium.

Each to there own, Life is way way too short  .   

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?

@lalitk  :  There is another way critical issue against MSIC that no one touched in the thread in reference with the option you are looking with tube phono stages and the issue has a name inverse eq. RIAA Deviation:

 

the today top phono SS stages has A RIAA deviation of at least 0.1db and lower than that, mine is 0.011 and FM Acoustics 0.05.

Tubes units normally have really high RIAA deviation 20hz-20khz some witn a swing over 1 db and why is important this deviation?: because we are talking of a curve where any discrete frequency deviation affects around 2 octaves in that RIAA curve and the deviations exist almost in all discrete frequencies in that  RIAA . You can use tubes in any place but phono stage due that in reality makes a damage ( sever ) to that cartridge MUSIC signal. In theory the RIAA eq. in a phono stage should has 0 deviation ( only through digital we can reach that 0 deviation. ) to avoid added signal fully colorations and SS in this regards is better aproach.

 

So it's not only the SUT but that RIAA too. Do you know the deviation level in the  Konus Audio unit or other of your tube options?.  I think  could be  time to ask those manufacturers.

 

Btw, for almost 10 years I used tube electronics and through my audio life I owen around 15 SUTs as a fact I still own 4 SUTs: Entré, Audiocraft and 2 Denon.

Through my first hand several experiences in my system and other systems I learned a lot and that's why I don't use any single tube in my system.

 

R.

Dear @dogberry  : "  you can see we should all listen to our music through equipment that we do not like.   "

Maybe you but that is not my case.

 

"  I listen for pleasure and I'll maximise that pleasure if I can. "

 

Me too and my room/system  is " build " around that " maximise " to stay nearer to the recording and to the MUSIC. Objectivity and subjectivity in equilibrium is the name of my audio " game ".

There are different levels of pleasure depending which " road " you take or took that depends of each one of us targets.

R.

My system is set, there is little to be done, and yes the process has been but not absolutely intentional to fall into a description where Elaborate is a reasonable word to use.

My choices are made and are concrete. I have little intention to bring in New, I have been very carefully guided in my making some of the final introductions to the system.

Much of the time for making choices that are for myself at this present time deemed as final, has been resulting from designs of interest have been evaluated, where  my time is Spent in the Company of others, where assessments of the Ultimate selections made, are very clearly discussed and reasons for the choice made is very well understood by myself for the impression that has been able to be made in my own system and systems belonging to others.

By introducing others to some of these choices made, some have almost immediately converted to the idea, and later realized the idea into their own systems. The result being I get opportunities to be demo'd close matching Sources, using devices I use myself.  

I don't need my full home system assembled to remind myself of how Sources I use can impress. I have given reasonable accurate descriptions of assessments made about such devices, resulting from experiencing them over a broad range of interfaces into systems.

Additionally, items under discussion are quite portable and are regular offered up as a loaned item, sometimes for a demo' purpose and others as a demo' and increased loan time. The end result being, I have plenty of opportunities to refamiliarize with the End Sound that owned Cart's, Phon's, SUT's, Cables, CDT, DAC are able to deliver, as well as measure their capabilities when used in other systems or measure their Capabilities against other comparative devices brought along to be used in a similar way my own ones are to be used on systems visited.

In most systems listened to regularly, Valve Amplification and ESL's are the Speakers the downstream support and those less regularly listened to, will bring SS Amplification and Cabinet Speakers into the downstream supporting Audio Equipment.

As stated by myself in this Thread previously: 

 For many many years the Bulk of my experiences are from a approach where Social Activity is the fundamental. Where experiencing Audio Systems and different devices as demo’s in such systems are the basic theme to create a reason for a Meeting. The real value is friends getting together, sharing Banter, sharing Lunch and enjoying New Music Tracks and few Old Faithful Tracks to get an ear in to the end sound on offer.

I whole heartedly encourage others to see if they can find a way to have very similar experiences on a regular basis, there is potential to learn vast amounts, through the broad range of individuals who can start to show up.

I make no secret on this forum that the bulk of my main audio system is packed away for storage, as there is a Home Overhaul being planned to occur.

I make no secret on this forum, that much of my musical experiences had in my own home are with my Wife and supplied by using her Amazon Alexa, which in my own opinion are as enjoyable as a musical encounter as any had anywhere at any time, just not as refined as a dedicated audio system can create as a end sound. The Grandchildren totally enjoy the interaction as well, one song being danced to is Alice Cooper the next from Horrid Henry 

For the record, I can use the CDT> Valve DAC with the Valve Power Amp's > Cabinet Speakers within a few minutes of wanting to listen to a CD source, with the only obstacle being a not so pretty dedicated audio room as it is with Storage Crates in the space.

If anybody thinks such a circumstance discredits me as a contributor on this forum let me know, if it is offensive to a group, I will happily take a full Hiatus from Forum Activity.

At the same time anybody who shares on experiences, where other very familiar systems are used for an assessment or other assessments are offered resulting from attendances at Forum Events or Commercial Events, should be very clear about making this known, if there is a suggestion that is seemingly aimed at asking how does one qualify themselves to comment, if the experience had is not in ones own system. 

Surely if one is experienced and has experiences, their assessments of such experiences had, are much much better aired than kept quiet.

Alternatively, there is the claiming I don't like the Math or the Methodology, so I don't like the experience that can be had. Hence I will knock the whole idea of encouraging the seeking of a experience of the Methodology to occur. 

The latter is a commonly seen weave produced in the fabric pattern of many Gon - Analog Threads.

 

  

Does anyone have a direct experience with Allnic H-6500 Phono-stage? How would you characterize Allnic sound. Thank you! 

@lewm "reference" means only that. That he uses it as a reference for comparison. It doesn't mean it is the most expensive, nor the "best", just a price/performance point comparison to other gear. Steve will change devices and speakers in his "reference" system slowly over time, for instance he switched from Klipsch Cornwalls to dipole speakers a few months ago. 

The problem for reviewers is knowing what synergy they have between components in their system such that any subjective observations, when reviewing another piece of gear or speakers, can be made that might apply to the majority of the audience.  Otherwise, there's not much point in trying to do reviews. 

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.

@lalitk  : Just by curiosity I check the RIAA deviation on the Allnic and " one of your favority " Air Tight and what I found out confirm what I posted about the bad RIAA performance with tube electronics:

Allnic has a swing of 0.4db and the AT 3011 is really terrible: 0.4db from 50hz-20khz and  -2.5db at 20 hz. Go figure ! ! ! ? ?

 

R.

My experience is with the H3000 mk2, so it might be of marginal interest, although my understanding is that the H6500 uses a similar circuit, SUTs, and power supply. I find the Allnic to provide deeply satisfying inner detail and harmonic structure, excellent dynamics and plenty of openness and air around instruments. It’s tubey but not too tubey, providing that palpable quality without overt coloration. It’s quiet. These qualities are pretty much the Allnic house sound, I believe. After a decade I have no desire to replace it.

The main downside is that it is really only usable with MC cartridges that are SUT-friendly. So that leaves out, e.g., the top Benz carts like the LPS and Gullwing, which combine high DCR with higher output. OTOH, the Ebony TR is a perfect mate to the 1:40 option on the Allnic native SUT. I’m currently using an MC Diamond and Lyra Etna Lambda with excellent results. So the limitations are minor but real.

The MM inputs are quite good. I run several MM/MI and they sound terrific. The native Allnic SUTs get slagged sometimes on forums but I think they are exceedingly open and resolving without being thin. I’ve compared them to Bob’s, K&K using copper Lundahl LL1931, Quadratic, Rothwell, and Phase Tech (all of which I still own except the Quadratic and Rothwell) and I consistently prefer the native Allnic SUTs. Of course, this could be in part because they’re built in and need no extra cabling.

Another oddity of the H3000, and I’d surmise the H6500, is that the external power supply controls the sound to an absurd degree. This means your choice of rectifier tube will have an extreme effect on all aspects of the sound. The good news is that you only have to roll one tube and it seems all 5ar4 analogs are OK. The other tubes can stay stock. What you place the PS upon will also have an outsized effect, as will your choice of footers. The stock footers do it a serious disservice, IMO, making the sound too dark and unresolving. So you’ll have to do some tweaking but the results, at least to me, are worth the effort.

Tubes units normally have really high RIAA deviation 20hz-20khz some witn a swing over 1 db and why is important this deviation?: because we are talking of a curve where any discrete frequency deviation affects around 2 octaves in that RIAA curve and the deviations exist almost in all discrete frequencies in that  RIAA . You can use tubes in any place but phono stage due that in reality makes a damage ( sever ) to that cartridge MUSIC signal. In theory the RIAA eq. in a phono stage should has 0 deviation ( only through digital we can reach that 0 deviation. ) to avoid added signal fully colorations and SS in this regards is better aproach.

Dr. Stanley Lipshitz wrote an article that shows all the math for producing a proper RIAA curve. If you do the math the curve will be accurate and this has nothing to do with tubes or solid state.

 

The Link is to a Thread produced by a Forum Member on another for and one who I have a lot of trust in what they report.

In this case they are making known a experience had using different Phonostages in comparison, as well as using SUT's on a Phonostage Model that have been referenced on this forum recently as being a state of the art design costing $30K.

A extended read is the least the link is able to offer.

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/my-next-phonostage-boulder-2008-or-ch-precision-p1-or.26346/

Dear @atmasphere  :  " this has nothing to do with tubes or solid state. " 

 

Ok, then is a huge coincidence that all SS  units outperforms in that regards  tube units and according what you posted I can infere that all those tube designers has not the technical knowledge levels and skills.Just incredible that so low level in tube designers. Could be a " shame " for them.

 

R.

'All' or most that you know of?

At any rate, I have to agree with you that 'knowledge levels and skills' is an issue. People seem to get into this sport out of desire rather than if they have the education or not.

If you take the time to read Dr. Lipshitz's paper you will see that it has nothing to do with the kind of amplification. If the electronics are designed according to the math in the paper it will have correct EQ.

the today top phono SS stages has A RIAA deviation of at least 0.1db and lower than that, mine is 0.011 and FM Acoustics 0.05.

chasing numbers like this is a fool's errand. There are so many errors introduced in so many stages of the process that these small deviations do not matter.

Everything else being equal then of course go for the better measurement, but everything else is never equal ... so how does it sound? That's really all that matters..

regarding SUTs and loading , someone much more knowledgeable than me (Dave Slagle) advocates for choosing an SUT ratio to get the gain you need, then loading it on the input side to get the load you need, DO NOT rely on the reflected impedance of the phono stage. The problem with this approach is that most phono stages use the arbitrary 47KΩ load, which is usually not the ideal. It should usually be much higher. That is the Emia approach which has proven to be audio nirvana for me... not chasing measurements.

 

It is very fortunate for retailers of Audio Equipment many of the potential customer base are seeking a Buzz more than a Doctoral level of Education. 

When I watch recorded TV programmes / films as a form Audio Visual form of entertainment what is expected of my education in TV Technology, at best how to Navigate the TV's Settings Menu, maybe even extend to being able to change the remote batteries, these two capabilities are usually more than enough to substantiate myself as acceptable type of viewer.

When I choose to use a Audio System as a means to listen to recorded music to   be a form of entertainment, a different criteria prevails to substantiate my acceptability for being a listener. I am expected to have some acquired superior understanding or it is suggested that I lack in substantiation as a listener.

How Very Strange, or is just how the Very Clever Marketing continuously presented over many many years has engineered a mindset, that has successfully created a false belief, that there is something quite superior over Recorded Audible Entertainment vs Recorded Audio Visual Entertainment?    

“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.

@wrm57 

Thank you for taking the time to provide your invaluable feedback. I found your personal experience with Allnic very helpful and encouraging to try the H-6500 in my system. I know from past experiences that power supply plays is pivotal in any given component so I will make sure to experiment with rectifier in PS. 

@lalitk, sure thing, you’re quite welcome. If you get it in and want to talk about anything, just PM me.

@wrm57 

Appreciate the invite! 

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.

exactly. https://myemia.com/SUT.html

https://myemia.com/Loading.html here's a discussion

 

 

 

anybody else having issues with this thread? Unless I go to my responses page I can't see the latest updates

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.

agree completely. How much error is introduced on the production side? Does the deviation of  EQ applied in the electronics that drive the cutting head approach such small amounts, or the other errors introduced in the cutting process?  I'll answer that...... no. Your speakers in room response introduce many dB of deviation, etc. At some point you have to focus on things other than getting distortions down to such ridiculously small amounts, like how it sounds. 

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.

This is why we use passive EQ; as the tubes drift the actual EQ does not. For passive EQ you need a series resistance; we have that value set high enough that it dominates the equation of source impedance driving the EQ network so the tubes become irrelevant. In this manner the EQ accuracy is determined entirely by how well we're able to get the components to meet the values in the formula.

Dr. Lipshitz's math generates an EQ network that is as ideal as it gets.

On the record side, the cutter manufacturer goes to great lengths to make sure the cutter is spot on to the proper pre-emphasis. To that end the cutter head and electronics are matched and the electronics tweaked slightly to compensate variations that exist in the individual cutter head assembly. As a result RIAA pre-emphasis is extremely tight across all cutter head producers unless a cutter got separated from its original electronics. 

 

On the record side, the cutter manufacturer goes to great lengths to make sure the cutter is spot on to the proper pre-emphasis.

you have more faith in your fellow man than I do

and do you really think they get within .01 dB or whatever it is that Raul thinks is needed on this end?

 

For passive EQ you need a series resistance; we have that value set high enough that it dominates the equation of source impedance driving the EQ network so the tubes become irrelevant.

and what is "irrelevant?" Your irrelevant might be another man's terrible, although in my world I think we agree on it. 

and do you really think they get within .01 dB or whatever it is that Raul thinks is needed on this end?

@herman 

No. That spec sounds dubious. There would be no way to verify that in field testing since the margin of error in the test equipment (and inverse RIAA network used) would be higher than that. FWIW I looked on the FM Acoustic site and found things in the same pdf as the specs that weren't correct. For example they claim to make the only true balanced phono preamp, which isn't true. We've been making one since 1989. I know its a logical fallacy to assume everything in the pdf is false (and it doesn't appear that way to me) once one thing is proven false but it did cause me to be suspicious.

Dear @herman : " chasing numbers like this is a fool’s errand. There are so many errors introduced in so many stages of the process that these small deviations do not matter. "

 

" focus on things other than getting distortions down to such ridiculously small amounts, like how it sounds. "

 

Clasic posts of an audiophile but certainly not a MUSIC lover.

Yes,speakers could have several dbs deviation in room frequency response but that is not the issue.

Gentlemans as you are the " market centuries bargain " for the manufacturers/designers/sellers in the audio world where almost none takes care why or what gives me the audio item I buy for the money I paid for it and manufacturers/designers know that they do not have to make a higher quality design efforts due that no one is asking for. Their customers are way " easy " customers " easy " to let satisfied ( just as you. )

That " bargain audio market " it’s conform and with no comply about quality level true performance.

Those gentlemans like you that stay in the " bargain audio market " are the ones that impedes the audio market designs truly grow-up but only " more of the same ".

Look from everywhere and you will see that the quality audio design almost is in stand-by real situation and ( again ) manufacturers are truly happy with because audiophiles today pay 10 times the kind of money for audio units that almost has no true improvements .

However, I can see that you are not using " lamp cord " for the electrical power in your system or a simple IC wire from your tonearm and I can see that you use too a TT " diferent " mat and that you or some one made for you the TT plinth and many other things. Maybe you don’t use a protractor to cartridge/tonearms alignments and many other " maybe’s ". Why took you all that time and money with your room/system modifications including the Voxativ? or why posted those silver connectors picture?. I don’t care, you are.

 

Now, we can’t modified what already happens in the LP whole recording process but we can take care with the playback proccess and between other several " things ". the RIAA is there.

I know that you should understand that the first main subject to exist a phono stage is because is because the grooves recorded information comes with the RIAA pre-emphasis and we need some way to have the inverse RIAA eq. to translate that recorded information in our " language ", the second main reason exist a phono stage is that we need to amplify the very low cartridge signal levels. A stupid question could be: do you know why the inverse RIAA eq. needs to do it at the very begin of that signal that pick up the cartridge and before any other stage?

 

What we listen at the other end of the system chain is an accumulation of several kind of distortions/noise/resonances/frequen cy deviations and the like along the room/speakers contribution about.

Why can you change the VTA or VTF or AZ in a cartridge/tonearm combination?. Well and between other things to achieve at minimum any kind of added distortions/degradations to the MUSIC signal.

Obviously that you don’t care about accuracy where it matters " th first " and maybe you don’t care because what you have is what you like it ( btw, the swing in your unit RIAA is 0.6db ) additional I can see that you are not in favor or a cartridge signal short path but the other way around. Nothing wrong with me and neither with you but for the MUSIC tht at the ends is the only subject it matters to me.

In the same way that is critical the cartridge/tonearm accuracy alignment in even more critical way is the phono stage inverse RIAA eq. accuracy. Any single minimal discrete frequency deviation in that curve ( I already posted ) affects at least 2 octaves and its developed harmonics and affects even when you have: + 0.3 or -0.3.

 

" they get within .01 dB " yes, absolutely I shared several times that RIAA again other phono stages RIAA and do you know how looks in aa chart both channels?.

you can only see a perfect linear line as if be only one channel instead 2. Yes, near perfection and yes I’m way demanding in the MUSIC reproduction needs and yes I know you are not. Nothing wrong with me.

lewm the swing in the RIAA is the true deviation and not only the: +.

 

R.

Clasic posts of an audiophile but certainly not a MUSIC lover.

how odd you say that....I don't see where anything you posted has anything to do with loving music, only chasing numbers.

MY system produces beautiful music. That is all I care about. Yet you somehow know me? 

I posted how I got there. You can nitpick it if you wish, no problem here.

and BTW , your claim of .01 dB accuracy with your phono stage is ridiculous. Even if it could do it, you can't accurately measure it. You are embarrassing yourself by making the claim....

Good day

 

@herman : No, I did not. In that measure regards you have not ( yet ) the knowledge level and skills to do it and understand it instead to follow chasing " numbers " or errors by me.

A mistake, it’s not 0.01 but 0.012. We did it and do it with each phonolinepreamp RIAA calibration in real time . No, you will never know ( the Audio precision System 2 is useless for that. ) and no we can’t have two phonolinepreamps with exactly the same RIAA calibration values ( very near in between but not exactly. We can do it with a little higher tolerance. ) because is almost imposible to match exactly all RIAA circuit parts.

Again, I’m not chasing numbers and I don’t care how good sounds your system because is your system and what you like . Again, you are not so demanding as I’m with the overall quality LP reproduction room/system. That’s all. You need to understand that.

Good day too.

 

Btw, @lewm , if you can’t hear differences then you need to fine tune your room/system because I know you are not deaf. No, I don’t want to follow arguing with you about, it’s not the OP subject.

 

R.

 

Raul. You have no idea what my background and understanding is.

What I do know and understand from many years of experience, is you are delusional if you think you are accurately measuring differences between .01 and .012 dB, and even more delusional if you believe that your RIAA is accurate to that degree from 20-20KHz

The fact that are even trying to achieve that tells me that you are indeed chasing numbers. I recommend hanging out at Audio Science Review where all that matters is numbers. You will be as happy there as I am every time I spin a record through my .6 dB phono corrector

P.S. My apologies to the OP.. I am done with this distraction, Get a good MM stage with high input impedance and a quality SUT and you will be as happy as I am in my .6dB world

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.

@herman

No apology needed. I always enjoyed reading your posts and appreciate you for taking the high road. Unlike our friend @rauliruegas, who has shown us repeatedly that he is incapable of respecting views of other participants. I honestly don’t get why some folks get so worked up. It’s okay to disagree but disrespecting others that don’t share your views is so unnecessary. The best course of action in my book is to ignore such poster’s.

Back to my journey, I just finalized a tube phono with good MM and MC capabilities. We plan to compare the tube phono in following configurations,

1) Fuuga ➡️ Allnic H-6500 MC ➡️ Accuphase E-650

2) Fuuga ➡️ Konus Phono (transimpedance) ➡️ E-650

3) Fuuga ➡️ EMIA SUT (copper) ➡️ H-6500 MM ➡️ E-650

I am hoping to establish a good baseline from above, should be a fun day.

PS: Thank you all for your feedback and a special shoutout to @wrm57.

@lalitk 

Sadly, these audiogon threads often become a demonstration of how NOT to effectively communicate. I can find myself being too wordy, repetitive, or combative at times - but then I read a thread like this, and feel like I've not been that bad lol.

Back to my journey, I just finalized a tube phono with good MM and MC capabilities. We plan to compare the tube phono in following configurations,

1) Fuuga ➡️ Allnic H-6500 MC ➡️ Accuphase E-650

2) Fuuga ➡️ Konus Phono (transimpedance) ➡️ E-650

3) Fuuga ➡️ EMIA SUT (copper) ➡️ H-6500 MM ➡️ E-650

what is the step up ratio on the EMIA SUT ? Just curious what load it will present to the cartridge without loading it. Do you have loading plugs to play around with that?

@mulveling 

LOL! I’ve come to admire and respect members like you and many others over the years. The combined wealth of knowledge and experience between some of you is simply off the charts. This is my second attempt at analog, so I am hoping to sustain my interest until I no longer able get off my chair to change out a record every 20 minutes…lol!  

“what is the step up ratio on the EMIA SUT ? ”
@herman 

The EMIA SUT has a step up ratio of 1:20 and designed specifically to mate with Fuuga. No additional loading plugs needed as per Dave. One other setup I forgot to mention in my last post, 

4) Fuuga ➡️ EMIA SUT (copper) ➡️ E-650 MM Phono board. 

I was told that if I chose to pursue EMIA, pure silver winding version would be the way to go. The copper version is A-Ok. 

No additional loading plugs needed as per Dave.

go with what Dave recommends 

I have the silver chosen based on what I read, and very happy with it, but not any direct comparison with the copper.

@herman 

I did opt for 1st stage Transformer Upgrade to Pure Silver Winding. So I will get a taste of Silver characteristics with H-6500 phono. 

I have recently purchased a Ned Clayton 1254 4 SUT and for about $600 +/- is outstanding. I find it more revealing than my Bob's device at double the price and it has nice, deep bass with clear highs. I am using a VPI Signature through the Ned's device with a Ortofon Bronze Cadenza cartridge through a MICHI X5 MM input. The 4 way adjustments on the Ned's device provide the Cinemag 1254's with a lot of breathing room and really are great quality.

I also have a Rega FONO MC that is attached to a Planar 8 and a Ania Pro Cart and it's decent stage that makes the Rega Asia Pro sing well but I don't find it as open as the Ned SUT. 

@mervo

Thank you for sharing your experience with NC’s SUT. One question, did you receive any consultation from Ned prior to ordering the SUT. How was your buying experience with Ned...I noticed buying options are available through ebay only.

@lalitk I am not familiar with the Phon' or SUT in use, but I do know the enjoyment to be had entertaining oneself trying out the extent of Permutations that can be created for the Vinyl Signal Path. 

I wish you the best for the next period of your Vinyl Endeavours. 

@lewm Not too long ago, I made known I have been very impressed with the experience had from being demo'd the Paradise Phonostage.

For my bringing the Paradise into the arena of discussion and for referencing the the Builder of 40+ Models choosing a particular RIAA (0.3dB) if remembered correctly. I was subjected to the usual ugliness of written stuff by one forum member at the least. When the Builder referenced the dB i reported on they did claim "this is the value the end user is selecting" ??, food for thought, or all owner / users are no better than Stupid DJ's - not my words ??  

As a show of my not caring about these types of individuals who spiel their ills onto the niceness of a friendly forum, ( I was always advised to Punch the Bully on the nose, rightly or wrongly). I am to continue making a reference to the Paradise, as it is extremely good VFM and will impress many many who encounter it. My own experiences of it in use strongly suggests, especially if individuals are expressing an interest in Branded Phon's up to £10Kish in Value. 

The following info, which is extracted from another forum where the Paradise is under discussion by a few Builders.

Two UK Based Paradise Builders are discussing their builds, One Builder is the above referred to and the other is the producer of a Two Box Model I have also been able to be demo'd and impressed by on the £200K System, where Bake Off's has occurred. These Two Phon's got into the End of Day Line Up to be compared to the Premises Resident Phon' all comers if proven by selection are compared to. 

As your earlier inquiry remains unanswered, this following info might help with some of the info that has been of interest to you.

__________________________________________________________________

Both SPICE simulation and I have reverse RIAA generator and Bruel & Kjaer signal generator plus widerange AC millivoltmeter.
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.
When I design and build phono stages I use the reverse RIAA generator to check the actual response as a "reality check". With many designs the topology is such that if the simulation says the RIAA is spot on then it will be in reality but it can be useful to check that eg the 1% parts used really live up to that spec and that nothing has drifted.
In some designs the accuracy of the RIAA can be affected by the topology and the parts used, I'm mainly thinking of various simple valve phono stages here in which the sample of a particular valve used and how worn it is can all effect the RIAA accuracy.... Not all valve phono stages are affected by this but many of the simpler and more popular ones are.

I've found values to get it within 0.02dB if anyone wants to try it.

Change: 73.5K to 72K, 9K1 to 9K8, 33.3nF to 32.7nF and 11nF to 11.1nF. Leave the 220R shorted or remove and place wire link in. I believe it's generally shorted by most users and if not then it causes a further kick up in HF above about 18KHz....

_________________________________________________________________

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.

Dear @herman : I know you by Agon since 15-20 years and I know that even you teach for some years circuit theory.

Again: I’m not chasing numbers. I posted " thousands " of times that my main syatem target is to stay nearer to the recording and to reach that target you need accuracy at each single chain system link and at the end you need " numbers " to look how accurate is " this or that " and not only in the RIAA but in THD or IMD:WE NEED NUMBERS, and like you posted: everything the same lower numbers are better.

I know very well your high knowledge levels but in audio phonolinepreamp designs you need skills too and more important is CREATIVITY because with out this you can’t reach that main target.

Now, been a circuit theory teacher along working in electronics I think that you understand that for the truly sensible output levels of the cartridge signal a short circuit path road for that signal outperforms a longer one: rigth?. Maybe not because in your system you choosed the long path for the cartridge signal. This behavior makes no sense to me knowing your technical background. @lalitk this for me is not " disrespect " not with herman or with any other Agon member never. @mulveling things are that normally I really have serious problems to explain me in english ( " become a demonstration of how NOT to effectively communicate. ) that’s not my native language along that I always try to be direct and always trying to help and not to destroy: I don’t say " look as white " if it’s white and then I say is white. Yes, several times Agoners think that I’m truly agressive because when something seems to me ( first hand experiences. ) is wrong I post is wrong no matter what but I don’t said in that way trying to diminish the other person in any way and I’m sorry for that.

Now and returning to that creativity what my technical friend ( designer ) and partner in the phonolinepreamp manufacturedid it was to " invent/creative " a propietary technique using ( between other things. ) the digital domain audio signal to calibrate in real time each one phonolinepreamp RIAA that allows an overall phono re-equalization accuracy to within +/-0.01 dB, guaranteeing that the musical information decoded by the preamplifier is completely neutral to the input source.

That means accuracy to reach my main system targe. Well this care wit that unit is the care we took in the selection parts that we did it hand tested each part, we don’t let nothing at random everything was measured. Along those chasing " numbers " we made really hundreds of listen tests in several room/system and always testing with the same LP tracks.

At the end what I did it and do in my room/system is not chasing numbers but chasing accuracy and proudly I can say that I achieved and the system has a very high resolution . Next is the link of my virtrual Agon system, yes to long to read it but for me is interesting and explain why it looks here as if I’m chasing " numbers " and why I use transistors instead tubes and why I don’t use any more SUT’s:

 

On the Quest of Audio Heaven. | Virtual Listening Room (audiogon.com)

 

Btw, @lalitk it’s a must that the phono stage you choose comes with the RIAA 3.18us pole that’s where the cutting machine stops ( around 50khz-60khz ) to avoid the cutting head burn-in. Not all the phono stages comes with and not all the ones that have it have it with out phase developed " problems ". Nearer to the recording means that the 3.18us most be " there " in your phono stage. Btw, the real issue with my posts in this thread is that what I said goes against what you want it and I don’t posted trying to " hit " you in any way but trying to help trying that you avoid the other gentlemans mistakes/errors because they are wrong ( with all respect ): black is black, no other word .

 

R.

@lewm I know all about discards due to testing matching, I supplied a substantial amount of monies for the Parts used on the Two Valve Phon's Prototypes of which I have one which incurred further costs by having the End Design voiced to my own preference.

I do believe the individual you have quoted does produce a RIAA that falls into the tight tolerances quoted, by being in a room with the builder, I vaguely remember their description making a reference to the RIAA and on other posts on forums they certainly make reference to it.

On the day a Two Box Paradise 0.02 dB RIAA? and a Four Box 0.3 dB RIAA?  

The RIAA dB's quoted are very likely to have been these, unless the Four Box Builder selects a tighter tolerance for their own Phon's RIAA, than the one they reference as being the purchasers selection, 

On the day, as made known in earlier Posts about the Paradise, the Four Box Model in my view, was the Phon' worthy to be Standalone A/B Compared to the resident £10K Phon' and separating them for which was the better was no easy task.    

As said, this in my view, places the Paradise in a position where for the monies to be laid out to achieve one, gets an individual a Phon' will comfortably hold its own with Phon's from the Branded World that retail at £10K and upwards.

What's not too like if one is a Vendor, Probably a Fly in the Ointment if one is a Retailer.   

“I do know the enjoyment to be had entertaining oneself trying out the extent of Permutations that can be created for the Vinyl Signal Path. ”
@pindac 

That’s been my goal all along! Thanks again for your input :-)

“I do know the enjoyment to be had entertaining oneself trying out the extent of Permutations that can be created for the Vinyl Signal Path. ”
@pindac 

That’s been my goal all along! Thanks again for your input :-)

Agreed - same here, and well said on that point @pindac .

@rauliruegas I respect your bilingual skills, especially as I have none to speak of. I certainly wasn't knocking that, nor singling you out - it was meant as a general comment as to how these threads always go in this analog forum:

1. Op has a specific inquiry or technical question.
2. The usual crew trots out briefcases full of their own specific, narrow perspectives, retrofits them onto the op's inquiry (often very poorly) and dumps them on op's thread.
3. There is the usual bickering between participants, as the thread descends into a wall after wall of text largely incomprehensible to anyone but those participants. 

So to admit my own guilt in this game, my schtick is that subjective listening experience and perception is key. I realize that some find this perspective worthless.

@lalitk I am a Curioso in character, but do need to have a Tangible Experience when attempting to attain a knowledge.

I see your activities to be undertaken as a very similar trait and I feel very confident in my saying much of what has been thrown at you to steer you away from your intention is a waste to you, not worthwhile to you.

As for Shortest / Purest Signal Path.

Take electronics produced at a time say around 2010, say a Phonostage produced from that era. Has it got Pure Copper or Coated Brass for the Chassis Cable Connections? How much lead is in the Solder? How much Silver is in the Solder? Which metal is the lead out wire on a component.

The list is just a few considerations, a well thought out Signal Path being very careful with math and metal types selected to be used at a interface will offer something quite special as an end sound.

My own investigations have left me to feel very confident, when a careful metal material selection is made for interfaces. This is capable of outshining another Phon' that only has a Math as its selling point, and is creating a inferior Signal Path resulting from inferior Interface Metals selected. 

Inferior metals are commonly selected when a design is to offer the most attractive margins as a return remuneration.  

I have been privy to work carried out on a Tonearm Signal Path and Bespoke Design SS State Phon' and my own Bespoke Built Valve Phon'. My fundamental influences proposed was when the Amp's were near Voiced and presenting with attraction, was to work on the Signal Path focusing on materials used for Interfaces. Great indelible memories are made, and the approach taken has become the method I thoroughly recommend to be experienced.

I have referenced some of the methods used within the forum. 

As to SUT's referred to in the Link I supplied.

Two Individuals who have seemingly owned over time approx' $180Kish Phon's of which certain models approach $30K+ Retail are both dedicated to using SUT's of various Types married up to these Phon' Models.

I have no reason not to believe both of these individuals know a thing or two about how to have a high quality end sound produced when using a Vinyl Source.    

Dear @mulveling  : " listening experience and perception is key. I realize that some find this perspective worthless. "

 

I agree and for me it's not worthless. With out those first hand experiences we can't grow up along each one of us objectivity trying to keep a rational equilibrium in between.

 

Thank's for your answer, appreciated.

 

R.

“With out those first hand experiences we can't grow up along each one of us objectivity trying to keep a rational equilibrium in between.”

@rauliruegas 

So after dozen posts, you’re basically agreeing upon on, 

“The importance of firsthand experiences that help us develop objectivity and maintain a balanced, rational perspective. It is only after our own trial and tribulations, we gain a better understanding on evaluating situations thus leading to more informed and fair judgments.”