Hi Kirkus,
as always, a thoughtful and well laid out response.
As far as SUTs go, yes they need to be matched, well matched! But if done, they have some 'magic' of their own and can make an MC something more full of 'live' and vibrant.
As to this RIAA 'ping-pong' you say: "Well, error is error . . . and it's always statistically additive in this case"
Not necessarily since there are errors to the (-) and (+) side of the curve, yes?
And we are actually talking about observed 'tolerances' just not quite the same as ERROR, in my vocab anyway.
Now, tolerances can be additive or subtractive.
This would also mean that some of this 'synergy' so often mentioned, is just one of the things that make one cart sound better in a given set-up then in another. |
As far as SUTs go, yes they need to be matched, well matched! But if done, they have some 'magic' of their own and can make an MC something more full of 'live' and vibrant. Oh yes, absolutely agreed! Even in a purely technical sense, there are many inherent advantages to transformer-coupling a LOMC cartridge . . . and I obviously chose this approach myself. I simply wanted to give counterpoint for those that feel that SUTs are inherently inaccurate and colored - because I understand how one could come to this conclusion . . . as most implementations on the market IMO don't really realize the full performance possible in the transformer approach. Not necessarily since there are errors to the (-) and (+) side of the curve, yes?
And we are actually talking about observed 'tolerances' just not quite the same as ERROR, in my vocab anyway.
Now, tolerances can be additive or subtractive. From a statistical/tolerance standpoint, yes, this is purely additive error. In electronics design, there is a specific procedure called "monte-carlo" analysis . . . which takes the maximum allowable tolerances of each component and combines them all in the absolutely worst-case situations - and this gives you the performance tolerance of the entire circuit. In the audio chain, to define frequency-response as a deviation from perfection . . . keep in mind that in this definition we may have no idea exactly what the particular error is for each part, only that they are within certain limits. So while we can hope for that perfect synergy where every error just happens to cancel each other out . . . if we are to truly take responsibility for the performance, we have to assume the "perfect storm" where all the errors just happen to add up in the worst way. |
Hi Kirkus,
>>> ... assume the "perfect storm" where all the errors just happen to add up in the worst way.<<<
"Monte Carlo" analysis, OK... the inventor must have lost it ALL then - worst case.
BUT he did not consider any form of 'synergy'. The importance of synergy has been pointed out over and over, in fact lots and lots of times by Raul himself :-)
Must be some concession to this 0.075% perfection.
I worked in pcb, and later semiconductor assembly, that gives me that practical bias what can be done if it gets 'commercially' viable.
No way to have much better then 1% components on a tape-fed bonder doing SMDs, as I mentioned earlier.
Also no way to start improving tolerances after the stuff (not only SMDs) are on the pcb. (Note: >3x rework = reject)
I have a pretty good idea, that this is where some realism in terms of tolerances has to prevail, meaning ALL hand build, bespoke, and nothing done 'commercially' will qualify --- seriously, that doesn't float my boat yet.
Why? Because a lot of 'bespoke' products have plenty more hidden QA issues then something more 'commercial', where errors have been weeded out to a much higher degree.
|
Pablovila, Your list of candidate MM preamps looks like the one I posted on 6/26. I consider it incomplete. Below $1500 we also have the PS Audio GCPH and the Graham Slee Reflex, discussed above. Just to make it more confusing, I wonder how some of the highest end preamps from the "good old days" would fare if one were to upgrade the power supplies and the parts in the signal path. I am thinking of early Audio Research, for one example. |
Thank you very much for the additions Lewm. I've already made an offer for an Allnic H 1200. Let's see if the seller accepts it and, eventually how it sounds with the Soundsmith The Voice. Pablo. |
Hi,
I'm still looking for a clue, given that MM carts like the 'simpler' single-ended designs, and some that find:
- the fewer components in the signal path the better- it could make for a 'simple' but great MM only design. (Don't forget a tube)
In fact, having mentioned Jadis might just be that, alas too much $$$$ for their flavour of genius...
Next up I'd think of Tim de Paravicini's EAR834P MM only, as some would say the step-up for MC could very easily be bettered. So for MM only - no need.
One thing might be power supply 'simplicity' (no regulation at all?), and some other circuit issues, that sprouted a number of aftermarket mods.
Are there any other such designs we could add to this one?
Axel |
What about the Audion Premier? |
Audion Premier?
anyone can tell us something about it at all? |
I would thoroughly recomend the DIY Pass Pearl phono stage. I built one , and using it with transformers for MC level gain. It marvelous |
From my understanding the Audion Premier is the same as in the Audio Premier Quattro and here is someone that likes it a lot http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-PhonoStages.html |
Audio*n* Premier Quattro ==> 4 Box Pre-Amp, OK, I see :-) |
Axel, are you familiar with it? |
What about the Art Audio Vinyl One MM only version? |
Did not know that existed. I have never seen one advertised that was MM-dedicated. Thanks for bringing it to our attention; have you heard it? Can you compare it to anything? |
Hi,
it looks like I'm sorted with my set-up now.
I'm using a V15 III xMR cart going into the 60dB! (40dB sux!!!!) phono-module input (differential) inside the 326S and use unity gain (0dB) setting.
It also balances OK with my CD (390S) XLR only needs to go to +6dB upped input level, no sweat.
Right now I can not see that this can be bettered without changing to a different phonolinepreamp, tubes and all - with the trade-off in loosing a LOT of ML convenience (which I truly DO appreciate :-)
A. |
Art Audio Vinyl One, MM only = $2400, new. It's a little above budget but I bet it's very good. |
>>> ... but I bet it's very good.<<<
Apparently if you like it a little bit more 'warm' ---
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue11/vinylreference.htm |
The review is about the more expensive version, the Vinyl Reference. I've encountered more so so reviews on the Vinyl One (the less expensive version) on the internet as well. Somebody told me that the Art Audio Reference is a retrofitted version of the K&K Maxxed out Kit. Going back to the idea of using the MM input of a good preamplifier instead, what about the John Curl MM design that Audible Illusions offered as an option in the AIM3A? Pablo. |
That's a review of the Vinyl Reference, their more expensive phono stage, driven by an MC cartridge, so its relevance to the present discussion is limited. |
I guess this thread is on its last legs, or already dead. I for one would love to hear from anyone who is using a vintage phono stage with an MM cartridge. |
