Dear @atmasphere : Your first statement/sentence you have to ask Peter Ledermann and if I remmeber you already did it 10 years ago and he gave the answer and here I added a wide explanation.
That you don’t agree with him is a different matters. Nothing is perfect. Remember tghat in that subject we are only talking of trade-offs. He already make his choices/trade offs in the whole subject and he does not needs to convince you or convince me. All is up to each one of us.
Kind regards,
R. |
Well @ramtubes. I can say the same for your behavior and if @clio09 permit me: whom do you think you are to post that last statement other that’s any one privilege to post that kind of things but coming from you only tell me who really you are?
My opinion is that at least me do not needs your kind of behavior in Agon.
No, this is not my last word because I think to start a new thread with out you. This is what your last post told me. Yes, I know that out there are a lot of gentlemans that applaud you. Good for you and oplease remember that forums as Agon are " places " where each person can post what ever he want it, is a " free world "/democrazy/freedom to speak.
Good luck and regards. Please no bad feelings.
R. |
Dear @atmasphere : No eq. was and is the P.Ledermann decision/choice and he has very good reason for it. As I said that was the subject why that discussion transformed in a very hot one because , like you, I was against his choice.
All is about trade-offs. Which the SS/PL trade off?: that swing of 2db deviation away from accuracy response.
Which are the trade offs with magnetic cartridges? : the phono stage signal degradation due to that terrible inverse eq. and the gain stages need it to handle the low output of those magnetic cartridges.
If you take the reasons behind P.Ledermann trade-off choices about with out doubt from my part are better trade-offs against the phono stage ones.
Our ears are extremely more sensitive to time errors than amplitude ones: words by P.Ledermann and I agree with.
That's me. Ok? You can think in a different way and I know you do because in those threads your way of thinking was similar to your way of think today. Nothing wrong with that.
Difference is that today for me makes sense P.Ledermann choice.
R. |
Dear @atmasphere : Let me know what is my take with all the information we have:
I read in the SS site the same as you and noted that " contradiction " and of course that the response is not flat and P.Ledermann said and decided that way. He has reasons about and trhough those old threads and I think in his site too he say that the human been ears/brain is way more sensible to time errors ( developed by filters, example: phase error on it. ) than amplitude ones and you and me know that that's true, we are extremely sensible to pitch/time. For PL this is the main foundation for his decisions in the way he handled his straing gauge electronics: with no eq.
Now, in those threads he had in his site a link from an Italian review of his strain gauge cartridge where was a chart/diagram comparing the de-emphasis eq. curve against the SS cartridge with NO eq. ( after that hot discussion he deleted from his site that review that was really interesting today. ). The comparison was not on the pre-emphasis curve but de-emphasis and this I remember with clarity.
Like PL said the response is not flat and in those threads he made it a live measurements where the deviation ( with out any eq. ) is: plus,minus 1db. This is a swing of 2dbs against the today " normal " plus,minus swing of only 0.2b
As a fact that kind of deviations was the main subject in that very hot discussion.
Today I agree with the trade-off he choosed: eliminate totally all the full and high degradation that any phono stage ( no matter what ) makes to the valous cartridge signal in change for that plus,minus swing of 2dbs. As a manufacturer of phono stage but as an audiophile too I could think that you could agree with PL too because you and me know all that degradation to the signal I'm talking about.
Now, what I learned here and is my take obviously is not what we can read in wikipedia becvause almost all already knew about and on that ramtubes " noise reduction " is not something new.
My take: ceramic cartridges disappears when the RIAA eq. started and time latter ( very fast/short. ) things were that 100% of the market was only for magnetic cartridges, not ceramic any more or strain gauge if any, and here " borns " the RIAA plus magnetic/velocity compensation pre-emphasis that we know and that wikipedia talks about and " borns " too the inverse RIAA eq. curve in phono stages that the 100% was designed for magnetic cartridges.
So for me your take and mine on wikipedia is totally rigth because exist that RIAA plus compensatioon pre-emphasis on each LP.
P.Lederman decided that his strain gauge cartridge don't pass through the need it eq. between those two corners ramtubes talks.
That's it, at least for me. Nothing of that is about maths, it's about to understand as a whole with all the informatiobn we have at hand.
Can I be wrong? of course can be that way but at this precisely moment is what my common sense dictates.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Dear @atmasphere : in this thread I really make a " hard work " trying to understand what RM posted, that's from where came his high ligths in his posts/link that I posted.
After that I said him thank's and Bravo because I learned " something " ( @lewm it is not semantic but common sense and other than me no one including you posted nothing about. ) but again you and Al re-posted more of the same both already posted and again generated a " small doubt " in me.
Then I remember that very old threads where I had a way to hot discussion with Peter Ledermann who inclusive rigth there posted to me that till that time never in the life SS will re-tip any cartridge coming from me ( in the past I sended 3 cartridge including my MC10 Sao Win. ).
The discussions in those threads founded by the ignorance from my self of how his strin gauge cartridge works and that his explanations were not understanded by me and almost any one but @kirkus ( the gentlemans that I posted his explanation. This gentleman technically is second to none but additional as he showed in what I posted here has common sense. Even that I disagree with him in those times ( my mistake. ) ).
Even in one of those threads you questioned to PL about eq. in his straing gauge design and you conluded : no eq. at all. Before and after that he explained why he decided to do it that way and he was and is rigth about.
Let me tell you this: in one of my trips to USA showing " under my arm " the Esential I arrived to @vetterone home ( he hosted me. A gentleman. ) to show him my unit and things was that he had in his system the first version of the SS strain gauge that I never listen before and even I never read nothing about it.
I can't remember for sure but I think was mounted in Schroeder toneam and the TT was the SP10-MK3 surrounded by RM electronics playing MBL speakers in a dedicated room/audio system.
Before we integrated the Essential to his system we listen to the strain gauge set up and what I listened was impressive a priori but after a few minutes my brain told me that something was not " rigth " because the high frequencies were extremely agressive and I said to Vetterone which magnetic cartridge he had on hand and the cartridge was the Lyra Olympos that he mounted and listen with his system and then through the Essential. Of course that I was satisfied with both phono stages because the Olympos quality performance was nearer of what I was accustom to.
Unfortunatelly and due to my ignorance of what P.Ledermann made it with I did not ask Vetterone to connect through my Essential design the SS cartridge directly to an aux input in the Essential.
Today I know ( as you posted me. ) that that SS cartridge will play directly in my unit and will play with high quality performance.
I understand that today SS strain gauge cartridge comes with the user choice of that eq. for those two corners shared by ramtubes in this thread.
P.Ledermann made something great ( that Panasonic and Sao Win did not. ) that only today I understand it and that " something great " is:
to avoid totally the cartridge signal " destroyer " the link that maybe makes the worst for that MUSIC/audio signal information: just dissapeared in one single shoot the whole phono stage ! ! !
that means no more needs of the way terrible cartridge signal degradation made it by the inverse RIAA eq. curve but not only that but additional that so dificult to design input stage in an active high gain phono stage or any STEP Up Transformer in that signal ! ! !
That's what kirkus applaud on those P.Ledermann posts.
Obviously that the PL decision was/is not perfect and its trade-off is that what we listen through his cartridge has a deviation of plus,minus 1db.
Is it worth that decision?, the answer have to come from the analog audiophiles . I reserve my opinion on this specific issue.
In those times P.Ledermann made an explanation with some " ambiguity " like the RM here but in those old times was worst for people like me that was totally ignorant of what he try to explained in his own words.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Dear @atmasphere : Your answer appreciated by me. Latter on I could give a comment on it but thank's again for it.
R. |
Dear friends: What I learned here is that the RIAA explained in the wikipedia that’s the one we all knew from several years is the RIAA plus the compensation for magnetic cartridges and this is what all we have in our phono stages .
For me is very clear what @ramtubes here and P.Ledermann in his " vintage " posts I posted said and that are exactly similar but in those old times I was not willing to learn.
It’s useless and futile for me trying like @almarg and @atmasphere where they are looking ( is what I can see here. ) to find out a single letter or word to follow " disturbing RM. I think that Al is not even a recording man as P.Lederman or with the first hand experiences of RM or Ralph.
Of course that they can follow doing it and I respect their rigths/prilege to do it but seems to me that at least till this moment they continue sticked with their believes and just can’t " asimilate " what I already did it through this thread even if I can be wrong according to they.
Anyway, good for @ramtubes .
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Dear @atmasphere @ramtubes : In the past I had a really hot discussion in a SoundSmith strain gauge subject here in Agon.
The " hot discussion " was with P.Ledermann and the discussion came exactly for what you are discussing in this thread because as you I always knew/know exactly what is on that wikipedia link. This is what almost any one of us knew: not only you and me but Al, Lewm and everyone one but ramtubes.
Ok, so what?. That joining the @ramtubes statements in this thread with the P.Ledermann statements on those " old times " ( when he started the manufacture of his Strain gauge cartridge. ) seems to me that these both gentlemans are rigth and at least me am wrong.
Here I took some high ligths from PL posts and from his site and even a question that you made it him and his answers:
"""
The Strain Gauge cartridge is a displacement device, producing an output that is dependent and directly proportional to the amount of displacement of the stylus, NOT the velocity, like magnetic cartridges. It therefore inherently plays the RIAA encoded groove correctly. If one inspects the RIAA EQ, one will discover that there are two areas that occur where a displacement type cartridge will deviate a small amount from a perfectly flat playback of the recorded RIAA groove, and therefore will not produce a perfectly flat response.
It is the Soundsmith’s belief that human hearing is much more forgiving of amplitude errors than time errors, so we have made the required but absolutely minimal efforts to correct for any amplitude deviation from absolute flatness. The result is a very flat signal that does not deviate from the RIAA curve in an appreciable manner. We have also done it with NO ADDITIONAL circuitry that the signal must pass through. """
note that P.Ledermann was talking ofv those two corners @ramtubes reffered in this thread. According with PL his SG cartridge reads directly with no additional eq.
"""
I have measured the SG in many arms, and recently in my Schroder Reference SQ, the new SG design (which you did not hear) it was +/- 1dB from 50 Hz to 12K in conformation with RIAA. And you know what?? I cried when the record was over.
The rest is magic. """
yes, is not totally flat but all what he argue gives the reason for his decision to not use additional eq. ! ! !
he followed:
"""
The Neumann lathes have “adjustments” for RIAA to keep the system tweaked to “conform” as it can and does drift. """
then you ask him:
" So- do you offer an equalizer? "
and he posted:
"""
Displacement devices have an INHERENT 6dB/octave curve, very similar to the RIAA (not an accident, BYW)....they DO deviate slightly from the RIAA at two points, BUT, we do NOT correct for this, for doing so would ruin the beauty and simplicity of the device; the one super clean gain stage between you and the music we designed is almost one too many.
It refers to this graph as the �typical� RIAA response; in reality, it is far from the �ideal� response that one gets from the theoretical filters due to interaction of those filters. This, not the �ideal�, is what we have all been listening to for years with magnetic cartridges! Superimpose a 6dB/octave curve (Strain Gauge) and you will find that it deviates less than plus or minus one dB.
My consideration in the Soundsmith Preamp is to make it mostly flat; the decision to mainly use the inherent 6dB curve of the Strain Gauge elements is based on 35 years of listening and talking with other designers and SG owners. """
then you posted:
"
So no EQ unit then . "
P.Ledermann followed with you ( answering you. ) with these posts:
"""
My comments again, are not to present a position that an EQ absolutely cannot be used; I am however, indicating that according to many, it is not required, and to do so would result in less performance for a variety of reasons I have tried to illustrate.
I am also concerned that your figure of 24dB is very far off from the reality of the device; it would make it unlistenable! Please observe the "real" RIAA curve in Galo's figure 1, and superimpose a 6dB/octave line on this "real" world RIAA graph, referencing both at 1Khz. The greatly simplified result is that in the response below 1KHz, the SG would be slightly boosted, and above 1K, slightly attenuated. For a cartridge with 70Khz bandwidth and immediate speed of the Strain Gauge, this slight upper end attenuation is not missed at all as there is a definitive acoustic signature that many notice, which more than makes up for this slight "loss".
I have never heard anyone complain that the Strain Gauge was "dull" sounding at the top end. Quite the opposite, if anything. So, with that in mind, a 24dB error (gigantic!) would make it unlistenable, which it certainly is not. By superimposing the curves, you will readily see that any "correction" required is very small indeed. Not 24dB!! """
those 24db came from you.
in those old threads that I participated as you did it this next post from a gentleman with not only deep technical knowledge levels but as PL, RM, you was with deep experience in the recording issue. Confirm what ramtubes posted here and that many years ago in those threads I did not " catch " the TRUE on the subject that today just tell me I was wrong for years and years:
"""
I believe that Raul's main point is that when there is a presumed, widely-adopted technical standard such as the RIAA equalisation curve (or 75uS FM de-emphasis, or the 200nW/M cassette Dolby level) that any deviation from that standard, makes for an inherently inaccurate reproduction. I in general agree with him, including as it pertains to a "statement"-level phono preamplifier intended for magnetic/dynamic cartridges . . . most errors here are the result of cost-cutting, poor engineering, and poor manufacturing tolerances. Raul's specification of +/- 0.1 dB error for this particular part of the reproduction chain is definately attainable, and quite arguably expectable given the high prices of many commercial units.
I also think that when a manufacturer claims something like "don't worry about that [common-practice technical standard] . . . it's not necessary with my [new, better, revolutionary] design" -- this is the grounds for the deepest skepticism. But in the PARTICULAR case of the Strain Gauge cartridge . . . there may be some technical/historical validity to this claim . . . and unfortuneately, Mr. Ledermann doesn't do a very good job explaining the subject in his literature, or in his posting . . . so I'm going to be presumptious and give it a try:
Historically, the technical standards for the RIAA curve (318uS, 3180uS, and 75uS) come from an amagalm of industry practices from the major record manufacturers, as recorded music (and high-fidelity sound) became more and more popular after World War II. At the time, the methods of cutting records were carried over from the earilest days of electronic recording before the War. In these early days, most electrical phono cartridges were crystal types, there was NO EQUALISATION used on playback. Thus, the engineers developed electrical pre-equalisation practices for cutting records, that were designed to give the best sounding/most accurate reproduction they could, with the types of pickups (both electrical and acoustical) that most people were using.
Enter the 1950s . . . and "magnetic" phono cartridges (moving-magnet and moving-coil) became the dominant high-performance type available, as a result of refinement of manufacturing techniques, and improved magnetic materials developed during the War (i.e. Alnico). The only caveat was that these magnetic cartridges respond to the VELOCITY of the stylus movement, rather than the AMPLITUDE of the stylus movement, as crystal types had. Because of thus, magnetic cartridges REQUIRED EQUALISATION in the preamplifier. (Crystal cartridges were replaced by "ceramic" types that still didn't require equalisation - and continued as the common type for cheaper equipment until the Digital Revolution [sic] of the 1980s.)
This change in standards between phono cartridges and preamps wasn't a big deal at the time (late-1940s/early-1950s), because most of the public was buying integrated phono/tuner/preamp/amp/loudspeaker console sets. Audio dorks were buying units like the McIntosh C8 and Marantz Model 1, with highly-customizable equalisation options. It wasn't until the late-1950s/early-1960s, with magnetic cartridges being the universal choice for high-quality systems, and this new "stereo" thing on the horizon, that there was a need for true standardisation of recording/reproducing equalisation. So the RIAA set a standard that was a pretty close "midpoint" to the current equalisation practices of the major record manufacturers . . . and these practices were refinements of the techniques developed for crystal cartridges.
So the hi-fi world went completely to magnetic (velocity-sensitive) cartridges with standard equalisation for recording and playback, and ceramic (amplitude-sensitive) stayed around, with no playback EQ. This worked well, because the average frequency response of a CARTRIDGE was, in general, MUCH less accurate than the electronic equalisation found in an average stereo . . . and ceramic cartriges were "close enough" for the cheap systems in which they were found.
But today, we're all trying to get that absolute last "n-th degree" of performance from our turntables and record collections, and we have more high-quality cartridges (both new and old) to choose from than ever . . . so you have guys like Raul that feel the only way to truly hear what a cartridge and tonearm have to offer, is to get the electronics so precise that they're completely out of the picture. I agree with him, and applaud him for his efforts.
BUT we also have a guy like Peter Ledermann, who has developed a strain-gaugecartridge system . . . and this system is AMPLITUDE-sensitive, NOT velocity-sensitive. And this puts the strain-gauge system in a unique position, because it may actually be the first time in over fifty years that there has been serious development in ANY ultra-high-performance, amplitude-sensitive phonograph pickup. And of course, the concept of "absolutely correct RIAA equalisation" is completely non-sequitur to an amplitude-sensitive cartridge . . . and this has ALWAYS been the case . . . we've just all forgotten.
So to the question of, "does the Strain Gauge system feature extremely accurate RIAA compenstion?", the answer is "of course not - that's for magnetic cartridges!". And to the question of "how accurate is the frequency response of the Strain Gaugecartridge/preamplifier combination for RIAA-standard records?", Mr. Ledermann's response is something like "very accurate, when compared to other [conventional] cartridge/preamplifier combinations." " "
Remember that I told you as to @almarg stay away for all we learned and think out of the box?
You did not when I did it and Al always is steaked with maths but here all is about common sense and I posted in that way.
I'm not against you or against Al. I insist that for a moment you have to think: what if ramtubes is rigth? could be?, of course could be and for me when I joined P.ledermann and RM confirms what my common sense told me before in this thread.
It is not only ramtubes who told you that our way of thinking on the RIAA subject is wrong by ignorance for our self but many years ago P.Ledermann said us the same ! ! ! and can't " seen ". That was my mistake.
@atmasphere what do you think at this precise moment with all those statements that says we are wrong?
I already accepted (before in this thread. ) I'm wron and I just learned because I always am willing to learn: no matter what, as I said I'm not married with any of my audio believes I'm only married with MUSIC.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
Dear @atmasphere : """
The recording eq. happens only at two corners between 500hz and 2,212hz . """
I know you don't agree with but just suppose it happens that way. I'm asking you if the next statement is true because of that or what is happening with a straing gauge device that's not magnetic but a displacement device:
" That’s why a straing-gauge cartridge ( as the SS. ) can’t be connected to any phono stage with velocity frequency eq. ( that are the ones we all own. ), a strain gauge cartridge is a displacement device not a velocity one and can read perfectly/direct any LP through a phono stage WITH OUT that velocity/magnetic eq. de-emphasis curve named RIAA. ""
Could you comment about?, thank's in advance.
R.
|
Dear @clio09 and friends: If that RM person is the one you supported in this thread my take ( for everything he showed in this thread. ) is that he really does not deserves that.
He already had enough time to explain with precise facts all the doubts we can read in the different posts from other gentlemans.
I'm thinking that he started this thread with an specific " agenda " and that in that agenda was to hit @atmasphere as he did it.
From my way I will avoid any thread anywhere where appears the name of this non-trusty person.
Through my posts I really made an effort to understand his " meanings " and unfortunatelly still exist that ambiguety Al posted.
Regrdas and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Dear @atmasphere : Well, that link was posted by ramtubes who in " theory " took from there the statements he posted.
I took from there too the information in my latest posts and made some " cross references " with the other link that posted Al.
I know my take/understanding from there is different from yours or Al one.
May be ramtubes could think that some of us ( me for sure. ) have high ignorance levels and is futile to cotinue posting for he. We will see.
R. |
and the other one?. I know that you have an opinion about. Could you share with us?
Look, my post to you is not to in one way or other try to " hit " you. No, it's in good shape and looking for the certainty I don't have on the overall subject.
So, it's a transparent and clean post.
R. |
Dear @almarg : ""
ambiguity "", not only there but almost elsewhere with several of the posts in this thread.I don't know you but I want and can say NEED certainty in the subject/regards under discussion that " caused " so many confused statements..""
that is how I interpret it.."". I understand it but certainty means for me something more that what I interpret or you did it.From my point of view is MANDATORY that @ramtubes can come back here and explain with certainty facts what is all as a whole. He has the personal responsability to do it ( no matters what. ) because he started this thread and he can but should not stays " dead silence " and if he continue that way then for me ( this time for sure. ) is just a troller and not what many of us already think of ramtubes. He can't just avoiding his responsabilty with all of us, he has not that privilege, he losted when started the thread.Gentlemans, here is not a kindergarden, we are serious people as I think is @ramtubes.His attitude left him only two alternatives:
post his answer with certainty facts or close his thread. The choice is up to him.
R. |
Dear @atmasphere : I understand perfectly why you are sticked to that wikipedia link where we all are sticked too. In this thread and through my latests posts I'm thinking " out of the box " but you dislike for your self do it that and I think you have to do it even that I know that your way of thinking is that is: useless/futile think in that way. """
These two quotes contradict each other. """ well I respect your opinion but for my understanding are not in contradiction. In the first stament he said he is not talking of the familiarcurve for magnetic cartridges that includes a compensation and in the second statement teh engineers has not to worry because the cutter system is already ready to do it for it self ( I have no single experience with cutter systems. ). http://hifisonix.com/inverse-riaa-network/only for a change for you I would like your comments on what is stated in that link. Which your opinion and why with out took in count wikipedia link? and from : http://pspatialaudio.com/displacement.htma comment on this link statement: " But in doing so, it's easy to forget that this the physical "wiggles" inscribed in the disc do not match the frequency characteristic of either the pre-equalised signal, or the post-equalised signal. """ Could you?, appreciated. R. |
Dear @atmasphere : I learned the same you did it as @almarg and any audiophile did it. Think out of the box is part of the way I'm. Now, you said "
constant velocity if you want to................. So my advice is don't worry about it, since its irrelevant. """
Well, those two links and the Al foundation is all about: " velocity ".
At this time: why is rrelevant as you posted is out of my mind. Maybe you are rigth but at this time I can't " see you ". My fault not yours.
R.
Repo
|
Dear @almarg : In both links we can read the same " if " that for me confirms that that " if has a constant amplitude " is the way things are. In your link: """ if the record cutter-head is fed a signal with has a constant amplitude with respect to frequency (a signal with a flat frequency response), the cutter will respond to this signal with constant velocity. That’s to say, as the frequency increases and the slope of the signals steepen, the amplitude of the groove inscribed on the disc will fall. The cutter is thus an integrator because velocity is the time-differential of displacement . """ """ If this record is played with a cartridge which responds to the velocity of the stylus as it traces the groove (and all modern, electromechanical cartrides do), its voltage output will represent the time differential of displacement. The differentiating effect of the cartridge will thus reverse the integration of the cutter and the output signal will once again has a flat characteristic with respect to frequency. We can express this by saying; the falling response of the cutter is cancelled out by the rising response of the cartridge. """
"" This mirror-image nature of cartridge and cutter is why we can speak of complementary recording and playback equalisers. But in doing so, it’s easy to forget that this the physical "wiggles" inscribed in the disc do not match the frequency characteristic of either the pre-equalised signal, or the post-equalised signal. ""
{ this the physical "wiggles" inscribed in the disc do not match the frequency characteristic of either the pre-equalised signal, or the post-equalised signal. }
DO NOT MATCH what’s eq. in the recording or in the phono stage eq.
The recording eq. happens only at two corners between 500hz and 2,212hz.
That’s why a straing-gauge cartridge ( as the SS. ) can’t be connected to any phono stage with velocity frequency eq. ( that are the ones we all own. ), a strain gauge cartridge is a displacement device not a velocity one and can read perfectly/direct any LP through a phono stage WITH OUT that velocity eq. In the past the straing gauge Panasonic or Sao Win and others were connected to our phono stages through a black box from the manufacturer of it that could match the phono stage eq..to achieve flat frequency as with any other velocity cartridge devices.
That’s what I understand from ramtubes statements and both links. My take is that with the information in this thread all is about " common sense " and open mind/broke chains. As I said that's what I understand but this is me.
R. |
Dear @almarg : Your link that you posted twice is only what you seen and that for you is the " Bible ", nothing wrong with that, is very clear the link information. But exist the @ramtubes " other side " to the whole/main subject: "" Note that the cutting head and the phono pickup (cartridge) are velocity transducers and therefore the cartridge output rises at 20 dB/decade if the record groove is cut at constant amplitude. """
That says: """ the cartridge output rises at 20 dB/decade... """ I posted that ( last statement is mine. ) from the ramtubes foundation link that I told you that have you to check up: http://hifisonix.com/inverse-riaa-network/There is very clear too and because I’m not on recording industry this ramtubes link is more " clear " than the other. @ramtubes , as you can read still exist dudes on the subject so your intervention is need it for all of us. Up to you. Btw, I posted several times that I did/do not married with any of my MUSIC/audio believes. Always is time to learn coming from everywhere no matters what and I want to learn in this thread or confirm it my believe on the subject. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear @atmasphere : I think that the " problem " is that ramtubes has a different premises/references than you and some of us about that RIAA pre-emphasis .
Every one but him takes/took as the " Bible " what wikipedia states about and that’s each one of us reference even if we read it from somewhere other than wikipedia.
I already linked twice the ramtubes high ligths of all his posts and I posted Al to make a check point of the ramtubes posts. I did it and I understand what he said even if he can been wrong. I said that I learned on this regards by what he posted here.
Exist the possibility that we all are rigth and ramtubes too?, no way in the way he posted. Or he is rigth or we are rigth but noth both sides on this dialogue.
Look:
"""
I wish i could draw here but take some paper draw a flat line from 20 to 500 hz. Then go down at 6 dB per octave for two octaves (12 db) then flatten out again. That is RIAA playback without the magnetic (velocity) compensation. For recording just go up 12 dB instead of down. """
Note there: " without the magnetic ( velocity ) compensation ".
""" RIAA is just 12 dB. RIAA plus magnetic is 40 dB... Big difference. """
for him that’s the " original " and only RIAA curve.
""" During recording (encoding is not a good term, there is no code) the bass frequencies are not modified at all. Above 2200 Hz they are again not modified. Between 500 HZ and 2200 HZ the highs are boosted 12 db so they can be cut on playback. There is no squeezing. """
Btw, he posted a link about, that’s his foundation. In any MUSIC/audio discussion I always ask to my self: " what’s if I’m wrong " and I think that this question is valid for you or any one else including @ramtubes .
In other of his posts:
""" the main RIAA which is a accomplished by an expansion of groove size starting at 500 Hz . This EQ is then reversed on playback ( accuratey we hope) with the benefit of lowering the noise starting at 500 HZ. Over this two octave span the EQ boosts the recording cutter’s depth putting more signal on the disc. The 3 db rise is called at 500 Hz as one does in any filter. At 2,200 the curve flattens out again and we cut at constant amplitude just as we did below 500 Hz " """
""" "I am also not talking about the familiar curve which INCLUDES the compensation for a velocity cartridge. """
""" That is the curve of RIAA plus a velocity (magnetic) cartridge. For a displacement cartridge the EQ is 12 dB. That is what is cut into the record """
To understand all that yo have to go to the link he posted, that’s his premise for his statements.
Btw, In all my audio life I had not the opportunity to read any RIAA association white papers speaking in specific of the RIAA pre-emphasis and you said that in your cutter system manual that RIAA pre-emphasis comes as an appendices and even the wikipedia curve.
What I can see is that ramtubes is rigth in that the RIAA original is not the one for magnetic/velocity cartridges that needs a compensation. That orginal RIAA pre-emphasis ( two octaves ) is for displacement cartridges. So, he is rigth.
We are talking of different " things ": velocity vs displacement devices/cartridges. Obviously are different, way different as ramtubes said.
Even that exist some " dark " points in the ramtubes statements that he need to put some ligth, a wider explanation from zero to end of his " subject ".
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
Dear @almarg : The one that has the " word " ( because you are asking him. ) is ramtubes but from what he posted you can read:
"" Note that the cutting head and the phono pickup (cartridge) are velocity transducers and therefore the cartridge output rises at 20 dB/decade if the record groove is cut at constant amplitude. """
That says: """ the cartridge output rises at 20 dB/decade... """
You can go and to see from where came that in his posts. I’m not a math like you but that’s what " I’m reading there " and of course that I can be totally wrong or even I can been saying a " stupidity " but as you I want to be totally sure on that specific regards.
So, again the ball is in the @ramtubes field.
R. |
Dear @ramtubes and friends : Truly appreciated your last answer/post that was exactly the kind of answer I was looking from you. For many years I posted in Agon and other net audio forums that each single day is " a learning day " ( at least for me. ) and today is not the exception. Bravo ! for your answer. Btw, you ask in your OP for math people that certainly I'm not ( as others in this thread/forum. ) but I'm not even an engineer and was deep directly involved from zero to finished a SS phonolinestage ( MC/MM. ) with a close friend of mine ( that unit is the one that I linked in this thread a picture of its inverse RIAA eq. showing response both channels both channels. ). Anyway, checking your whole thread no other gentleman ( at least no one posted/showed something similar about. ) but me unsderstood your posts and was the " origen " of one of my posts in the thread. This post: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/how-does-riaa-pre-emphasis-work-on-reducing-record-noise/post... even no one made any " comment " on it. In that post I concluded what is at the end of the link, next: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ""
@ramtubes. What I understand for all those statements is that the " original and only true " RIAA eq. ( displacement. ) is the one you are talking about and is the one cutted in the LP and that for velocity cartridges, as the 99.99% of what we audiophiles use exist a " compensation " eq. to that ( displacement ) original RIAA eq. and from this " fact " appears/appeared the inverse RIAA eq. that we find out in any phono stage and that even displacement cartridges needs eq. on playback in between those two octaves you mentioned if we want evenly frequency response. Out of those two octaves the cutting is made it at constant amplitude. Is that correct or am I totally wrong? I really appreciated to give me an answer or answers of what is my understanding from your whole posts. """ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unfortunatelly you did not answer me and I have to " push " a little for it. In the mid-time atmasphere posted that what you said " is false " and following with my research in the net I found out S.Hoffman same way of thinking on RIAA pre-emphasis that atmasphere to your opinion in the about and I need to confirm if what my common sense told me in that posted link by me was true or I was really wrong. @ramtubes, perhaps in the last 20 years of my audio life ( other that my SS phonolinepream learning lessons. ) your precise answer to what I'm looking for is for me the main overall audio lesson ! ! and good for me because for many years I always posted here and elsewhere the critical importance that the inverse RIAA eq. really must " mimic " the pre-emphasis RIAA eq. cutted in each LP ! ! ? ? ? . I always posted of the importance about accuracy in the inverse curve and that both channels been evenly each to other. I know for sure that not only for me your answer was a " lesson " but it is for many others that if I did not pushed you so " hard " I never will be sure about. Thank you for that and sorry for my very high ignorance levels on that audio regards. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear @clio09 : My target with that post is to " listen " again him and that’s was achieved.
I know way before whom is RM, even I had the opportunity to listen one of his amp ( I can’t remember the model. ) in a good home audio system and was paired with not an easy to " handle " MBL speakers.
Again, the target was accomplished.
I never had or have bad feelings with any one no matter what and certainly I knew he is not a troller. Your post appreciated.
R. |
Sorry, this is the Steve Hoffman link where we need to read his first post in that thread: https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/vinyl-collectors-what-is-the-riaa-curve-and-why-do-you-need-i...@ramtubes at least here we have two gentlemans that are in the recording overall proccess: @atmasphere and Steve Hoffman and you have nothing like that and from what you posted both of those gentlemans and many of us are totally wrong only because your foundation said it in that article you linked but I can't see there or in any of your posts that the white papers/information came directly from the RIAA association or any cutting machine manufacturers on those times. How do you explain that? are you just a troller or your OP was started in " good shape " where you want to share valuable information to this forum? Your silence does not helps and here in my town people say: " the one that close his mouth consent ". R. |
Dear @atmasphere : I know all that, I said my way of thinking is the same as you and nowhere some one else proved we are wrong but always exist a possibility that we as almost everyone could be wrong in the RIAA pre-emphasis subject for velocity cartridges.
Now, and this question is for @ramtubes and I hope this time he can gives a precise answer. @ramtubes you said in your last post:
"""
Let us not be thinking that the groove itself has 40 dB (100 to 1) of EQ but indeed just 4 to 1. ""
"""
There is no encoding or decoding, just simple 6dB/octave filtering that has its first corner at 500 Hz and second corner at 2,200 Hz... """
Ok, let us think , for a moment, that you are rigth and that does not exist any pre-emphasis eq. in the LP other than in between those two corners/poles.
Question: where are the RIAA association white papers where they specified the inverse RIAA standard eq. for velocity cartridges that's the one that all phono stage manufacturers must design/end in their units?
I'm not a recording engineer/expert but if I was one the first question I will do for my self is: how can I know if the RIAA eq. pre-emphasis is over those 40dbs or only in the range you attes/attested? where is that pre-emphasis eq. programated in the cutting recording proccess?.
@ramtubes, please post and example with a Neumann or Westrex or whatever machine because " words are only that: words " with no facts in between and I'm asking for real facts.
Yes I have a high ignorance level but was you ( @ramtubes ) who posted the OP and the one with the responsability to answer in front of all agoners even that I told you that I " think " you had the answers to your OP and you confirmed that you had the answers but " something " in your posts are not conclusive yet.
R. |
Dear @atmasphere : In 02-05 I posted to @ramtubes a post that I'm link here where I took some highligths from his posts in the thread and at the end of my post I make a question that he don't answer yet to me: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/how-does-riaa-pre-emphasis-work-on-reducing-record-noise/post...Certainly I can be wrong on what I understand through those highligths but that is non important isssue. What's way important for any one interested in the RIAA pre-emphasis is whom of both of you is rigth and who is not and maybe the only way to know for sure due that I don't have a recording/cutting studio and no experience about is to play a LP recording with a velocity cartridge and see the chart in a PC/ossciloscope when the cartridge signal pass to line stage that has no inverse RIAA eq.. Maybe is stupid what I said. Now, I understand that for some time now you was involved in LP recording overall proccess by your self so that's means that you must know about that RIAA pre-emphasis. Unfortunatelly I think that no other goner with that kind of first hand experiences post in this nalog forum to have third point of view. I already ask to @ramtubes about but I would like to know too a true/live facts where he can prove what he is posting and in the other side and due to my ignorance I ask you the same: how can you prove what you said ( that was exactly what I always think about the RIAA pre-emphasis and that after this thread I really don't know any more for sure. ). Every body knows who is Steve Hoffman because own several LPs mastered by him. So, as you he must know " something " on the RIAA pre-emphasis subject. We can read in the next link ( his first post in that thread. ) that coincide of what almost all of us knew about but ramtubes. So, I insist to @ramtubes and you : facts that can prove for sure what both of you ( SH said the same that you. ) posted in this thread because that one of you said/use each to other: wrong or false words is not helping any one of us and at least me want to know on that RIAA pre-emphasis reality. The only " thing " I'm sure rigth now is that one of you is wrong and I hope you will not that one is wrong. R. |
Dear @lewm : I’m not irritated " against your posts or any one post here. Why should I?
I’m still waiting for the @ramtubes answer to my last post.
Btw, on the RIAA HF regards issue that is similar of what we designed in the volume control in our Essential phonolinepreamp. Where as higher SPLs you have lower noise developed in the system links previous to the Essential and inside the Essential it self.
R. |
Dear @ramtubes: All the following statements but the first one came/quoted from your different posts in your thread """
At no point in the manual is any mention made of the importance of the kind of cartridge used during playback. Its not relevant. Thus the RIAA curve is defined as I laid out in my initial post. This requires a nearly 40 db range over the audio band. Anything else simply isn’t the RIAA curve. """ RAM
"
There is much confusion over what RIAA actually does in a vinyl playback system """
" its a very simple and clever solution to noise and not bass groove size. "
" Below 500 Hz cutting is done at constant amplitude. The rise in the magnetic curve is take care of the low velocity of low frequencies. ie the cartridge doesn't put out much at 20 Hz so it needs help. Again an amplitude cartridge does not need any boost there. ""
"" I wish i could draw here but take some paper draw a flat line from 20 to 500 hz. Then go down at 6 dB per octave for two octaves (12 db) then flatten out again. That is RIAA playback without the magnetic (velocity) compensation. For recording just go up 12 dB instead of down. """
""" RIAA is just 12 dB. RIAA plus magnetic is 40 dB... Big difference. ""
" During recording (encoding is not a good term, there is no code) the bass frequencies are not modified at all. Above 2200 Hz they are again not modified. Between 500 HZ and 2200 HZ the highs are boosted 12 db so they can be cut on playback. There is no squeezing. """
Was I correct about the confusion?"""
"""
That is the curve of RIAA plus a velocity (magnetic) cartridge. For a displacement cartridge the EQ is 12 dB. That is what is cut into the record. """
"I am also not talking about the familiar curve which INCLUDES the compensation for a velocity cartridge. " """
the main RIAA which is a accomplished by an expansion of groove size starting at 500 Hz . This EQ is then reversed on playback ( accuratey we hope) with the benefit of lowering the noise starting at 500 HZ. Over this two octave span the EQ boosts the recording cutter's depth putting more signal on the disc. The 3 db rise is called at 500 Hz as one does in any filter. At 2,200 the curve flattens out again and we cut at constant amplitude just as we did below 500 Hz """ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @ramtubes. What I understand for all those statements is that the " original and only true " RIAA eq. ( displacement. ) is the one you are talking about and is the one cutted in the LP and that for velocity cartridges, as the 99.99% of what we audiophiles use exist a " compensation " eq. to that ( displacement ) original RIAA eq. and from this " fact " appears/appeared the inverse RIAA eq. that we find out in any phono stage and that even displacement cartridges needs eq. on playback in between those two octaves you mentioned if we want evenly frequency response. Out of those two octaves the cutting is made it at constant amplitude. Is that correct or am I totally wrong? I really appreciated to give me an answer or answers of what is my understanding from your whole posts. Thank's in advance. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear @lewm : Any cartridge tiny tiny level " signal that pass through the phono stage inputs pass through the inverse eq. RIAA in that phono stage. That happens in the very first moment that the stylus stip hits the LP with grooves or no grooves down there.
R.
|
@bdp24 : is inherent on those curves and during the playback occurs those high benefits and those bass range disadvantages/higher distortions/noise levels in this range.
R. |
@lewm : I can't understand your post because I posted:
"""
in those old times existed at least 8-10 different eq. pre-enfhasis curves where in all them that " noise reduction " was inherent to all .."""
followed by:
"""
it’s absurd if not stupid that at the middle of the 50's those RIAA members had the meeting to speak about " noise reduction " instead the nigthmare that represented for all of the RIAA members/audiophiles 8-10 different curves: all the industry universe was shouting for a STANDARD eq. curve """
The noise reduction issue in all those 8-10 eq.curves in the 50's is inherent to all of those several eq. curves.
What missed I?
R.
|
Dear @lewm : This was your first posts in the thread:
""" And finally, I don’t think the raison d’etre of RIAA has much to do with noise reduction... """
exactly, we are in agreement there.
There is another fact that proves that what the proponents of the " noise reduction " subject tells is absurd to say the least:
in those old times existed at least 8-10 different eq. pre-enfhasis curves where in all them that " noise reduction " was inherent to all of them.
So, it’s absurd if not stupid that at the middle of the 50's those RIAA members had the meeting to speak about " noise reduction " instead the nigthmare that represented for all of the RIAA members/audiophiles 8-10 different curves: all the industry universe was shouting for a STANDARD eq. curve for all recording manufacturers..
This is my opinion that for whatever reason meets yours and other few gentlemans in this thread.
Mathematics?, no only common sense.
R. |
Yes, but my post was only as an example of the accuracy importance in the inverse eq. RIAA curve. Thank's for your posts.
R. |
Dear @imhififan : In your link we can see how affects a low deviation of 0.11db looking from the 140hz frequency that evenly till 540hz.
The discrete frequencies in between that frequency range been affected as its correspondent developed harmonics..Obviously that the deviations there came just from the begining of that chart but is an example because small deviations puts its signature in what we are listening always.
Yes for many of us that is not to important for other of us is important accuracy down there.
R. |
Dear @almarg : """
I don’t think it matters very much. """
How is that because what we are talking in this thread ( @lewm @bdp24 @atmasphere me and others: ramtubes. ) is precisely that.
No one is talking of the side benefits but what in reallity could motivated the RIAA association members to develops that STANDARD. Something that you and me maybe will know for sure.
I don't care about the facts on the overall recording proccess what I really care is about the de-emphasis RIAA eq. that develops all those noise/distortions in the bass range way before the signal goes in through the phono stage. This is a fact too.
What we analog rig owners care is that from yeras now exist that standard that makes that our day by day listening sessions be not a nigthmare. This is the important and main subject from my point of view.
If what you want is to " win " the dialogue in the thread then be that way: you win.
R. |
Dear @clio09 : Thank’s for that.
That was the last commercial Essential 3160 and at that price even me are tempted to buy it. That unit comes wirth two dual mono totally separated LOMC stages. That’s the way the owner ask for him because normally the Essential came with MM and LOMC separated stages.
The unit I own is similar to the one you listened at San Diego meeting with that high end distributor. Very good times down there and the best was to know people like you, this was the best part.
Btw, even today that Essential 3160 is outperformed by no single one today SS/tube Phonolinepreamp including the CH.
The 3160 for its quality level performance should has at least a 70K+ price today against units that even are above that price.
Physically the today unit I own has the same silver two boxes but internally is even better that the one in that advertasing due to not very easy up-grade/up-date I was doing over time even in 2018.
Not very easy up-dates due that both circuit boards are four layers.
Only 7 ( 3150/3160 ) units exist over the world and are competitive today and a true challenge for any other unit.
R. |
Dear @lewm : """
Until now """, so in this thread you just changed your way of think about, go figure!
I always try not argue something technical contrary to what Al or even you can say because my technical ignorance levels are to high to do it but " mathematics " is not the only way to argue vs any body if you has facts that can prove your believes and till today no one here already proved that the RIAA association main target was because noise reduction that for me still is a side benefit in one " coin " side only.
R. |
Dear @erik_squires : I can’t get it your point that accuracy is not so important in the eq. RIAA curve.
Why is not important to you is out of my mind. Let me explain me on the subject of accuracy:
which is the reason/target main target the inverse/de-emphasis eq. RIAA curve existence? ONE AND ONLY ONE reason: that M I M I C the pre-emphasis eq. RIAA curve to achieve FLAT frequency response and to MIMIC that accurazy/zero tolerance is the target and a must to have.
Obviously we can’t achieve zero tolerance but as nearer that MIMIC the best no matters what.
I don’t care what happened about the pre-emphasis eq. RIAA on each single LP recording overall sessions. What I have and must care is what must have to happen in playback. Think on this: even if we could have a de-emphasis inverse eq. RIAA curve with zero tolerance/deviation we can’t MIMIC the pre-emphasis part.
Of course that I think in a way different from you because my room/system main target is way different than yours. Maybe I’m more demanding overall.
The RIAA eq. is a curve and if exist a deviation at any single discrete frequency this affects at leats 2 octaves, additional to that each discrete frequency develops harmonics that affects over/above 2 octaves. How can’t be not important but critical?
About noise I don’t know if you are talking of the " noise " in this thread subject or the one developed by at the phonolinepreamp that if it’s in the last is important too and I don’t know your unit but the one I own with its attenuator/volume fully open position using a LOMC cartgridge of 0.12 mv. of output and through my 95db efficiency speakers you hear nothing coming from the tweeters at 5cm. from it.
That same unit has matched response channels. Btw, it's a fully SS active high gain design.
But ACCURACY is the name of the game in the subject.
ramtubes in that shoo-out used the word " spot-on " for the phono stages that were " accurated ". The point there is: how much accurated? which was or is his goal about: 0.1db or 0.05db in the RIAA deviation, which one is his target? certainly not 0.01 because I know no one of those phono stages meet that mark.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Dear @almarg @erik_squires @almarg : I’m with my first posts and with @bdp24 where his explanation is on some of the links posted in the thread before. Now and I will " accept " by " good " the assumption that the main target for the members in the RIAA association when created the RIAA eq. Standard was about " reduction of noise ": as everything in the life nothing is for " free " always exist trade-offs and if it’s true that exist ( on playback. ) a reduction of vinyl noises/artifacts in the same manner at the other end of the frequency range all the audio system developed " distortion/noise " generated not only by the TT rumble, cartridge tracking bass range " noises " and even the resonance frequency between cartridge and tonearm and inside the cartridge/suspension off-center LPs, micro/macro waves in the LP surface, etc, goes higher " thank’s " that the de-emphasis in the RIAA eq. through the phono stage increment the overall bass range at 20+ db to recovery the 20- db applied during the RIAA pre-enfasis, what @bdp24 confirmed in his post. That noise reduction is not true in this frequency range. Every coin has two sides. Now, if we put in a balance in both frequency ranges to decide which one is more important this could be a very hard call because both frequency ranges are the frame of the MUSIC/sound. For me could be more important the bass frequency range and that’s why I always posted here and in other internet forums that at the end ( everything is important. ) what defines the quality levels in any room/system is how good /rigth is achieved the bass range how good is the " management " of that frequency range . With out the rigth/spot on bass range we ( at least me. ) can’t speak of true high quality system levels performance. The bass range is not only the more critical issue in a room/system and it is not only very dificult for we audiophiles but even for speaker manufacturers to stay " spot on " in that range and in passive speakers the only way to stay " nearer " to that target is adding to the room/system at least two self powered true subwoofers integrated in true stereo fashion to the sattelite main pasive speakers. At the first part of the 50’s that was when was created the RIAA eq. maybe the association members don’t took in count the importance of the bass overall range even in those times subwoofers where used some times as bass reinforcement as a main target when that is not the main target in subwoofers for a stereo room/system. JBL knew that, many years ago made it a scientific studies about where they found out that the " ideal " number of subwoofers in an stereo system could be 4 units but six are better and we need at least 2 ( no matters what. ) , any one can find out the JBL wite papers on that subject. Before I knew that information I learned by my self and even I started a thread where I discovered the critical importance and paramount differences that subwoofers make in any system, here a highlight of that old thread: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/do-you-think-you-need-a-subwoofer/post?postid=310058#310058Trade-offs, trade-offs and more trade-offs. The @ramtubes title thread has to do with that trade-off, nothing is " perfect " never. R. |
Dear @lewm @almarg : Yes and No. I agree with both of you because what posted Al two times about " noise reduction " is a clear fact and no doubt about.
Your position is still the same as mine and that’s why from my posts I stated that the only gentlemans that could have the true answer are the ones that participated in the RIAA proposal inside that Association.
I know for sure that the RIAA eq. exist because the " urgent " necessity for a STANDARD for the LP manufacturers along we owners and listeners of LPs because in those old times exist a caos in the recording industry and that " caos " came per sé to each one of us because almost no one of us had phono stages with 10 or more equalization curves that were need it to listen at its best the LPs. Curves that were different in between depending of the LP manufacturer.
@lewm I think you " imagine " who could be that not so " mysterious " phono stage, if I were you I don't put my fingers
I’m still waiting the ramtubes answer about the Al link.
R. |
Dear @ramtubes : Very good experiences you had in that San Francisco audio meeting. J.Curl is a legend since his Levinson JC2 and his Vendetta still today is a reference for any phonolinepreamp, no doubt about. That the humble Parasound was accurated too in the RIAA deviation is no surprise becauzse de design comes from J.Curl. The CH for that price must be accurated, its new integrated unit works in the digital domain: must be extremely accurated: I don’t know for sure. Overall accuracy in audio means lower noise/distortions levels and in the RIAA inverse eq. is a must to have but not only accuracy but that both channels be accurated, that each one be a mirror of the other. Specs by phono stage manufacturers not always even live measurements as the ones made it by Stereophile or other sources. Even through the time the owners of phono stages in reality don’t know if after say 2 years their phonolinepreamps are still " spot on " in both channels and not easy for us owners of those items to be aware about. This is the one I own: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPJLuDhIxhHGsjv2ZABr3TIpxMewVor1Pz33vhLoiISsURJmmnxUQB9cuwNnpog...that stays at lower than 0.012db. Fully analog design, non-feedback with passive eq. Btw, I remember to well the reviews with measurements that that magazyne did it. Mf. " falls in love " with the Dartzeel that showed not only the interchannel hig db asymetry but showed +1.8db at 20hz and + 2.5db at 20khz go figure ! and MF was in love with. The Halcro DM10 was other example with -1.4db at 20hz. and many more big and expensive names units. Vitus between them. and almost all tube designs as Lamm. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear @atmasphere @almarg : """
What I said in the paragraph just above this one appears to me to be the only way in which these conflicting viewpoints can be reconciled. """
seems to me that you " not die " for your statement or you are not absolutely sure with and @ramtubes did not yet makes an additional comment on your post.
In the other side and as you stated there and @atmasphere posted:
""
is any mention made of the importance of the kind of cartridge used during playback. Its not relevant. Thus the RIAA curve is defined as I laid out in my initial post. This requires a nearly 40 db range over the audio band. Anything else simply isn’t the RIAA curve. "
I'm with him but I was not a RIAA association member when they decided about.
I posted to @ramtubes this: " seems to me you already know all answers " and he said: " yes ".
So I would like to know from him if the link you/Al posted is true. At this time for me is the more critical subject in the whole thread.
Al, your link is really " slim "/not wide enough to explain the overall subject to understand clearly that cartridge " role ". I would like too to have at least a direct RIAA association member or cartridge designer/manufacturer that can confirm your link information.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
Dear @ramtubes : Just a few seconds I " really " read the title of your thread. I read it before but was not " aware " of it, I gone directly to read the thread with out any care in the title.
I always posted and say that in our room/audio system we have to put all kind of distortions ( everywhere. ) at minimum and you are totally rigth when you said:
"""
It has everything to do with noise reduction. Is there something else? ""
Noise/distorion reduction means more music information.
R.
|
Dear @almarg @erik_squires : I think that @lewm is rigth about the main subjects that made to appeared the RIAA standarization. Before 1954 the LP system playback was a nightmare for to many eq. curves in the recording industry where almost no one were similar to the other. In wikipedia we can read this: """
from 1940, each record company applied its own equalization; there were over 100 combinations of turnover and rolloff frequencies in use, the main ones being Columbia-78, Decca-U.S., European (various), Victor-78 (various), Associated, BBC, NAB, Orthacoustic, World, Columbia LP, FFRR-78 and microgroove, and AES. The obvious consequence was that different reproduction results were obtained if the recording and playback filtering were not matched. """ I think that that and what lewm posted were the very first targets for the RIAA eq. . It has other benefits/necessities?, of course you already named. I think the Association main target was because that " noise ", this is a " side line " benefit of the RIAA eq.. The only gentlemans that know exactly the main targets were the ones that participated for that eq. curve been the standard one for all recording industry that belongs to the RIAA. Al, that gentleman in your link was one active member of the ones that participated to achieve the RIAA standard been the OFFICIAL and only eq. curve for the recordings starting around 1954? R. |
Dear @clio09 : Thank’s to know he was @ramtubes. Even that my questions to him are still with out answers.
R. |
Dear @atmasphere : Agree and this is one of very few times that we are in agreement of " something ".
Did you know whom used that IEC curve, well nothing less than Vitus that set you back: over 60K++ price.
The first Vitus reviewed was measured by J.Atkinson who told the great Phono Stage the Vitus was ( was named Class A in the ST recomended products. ) and in this same forum I ask him for the " terrible " problem in the Vitus bass impact and he never posted here again. Yes, you know me and I made my critic to him about in unit that along the needs for a line stage ( Vitus ) makes the combo price gone to more KKKK dollrs. Go figure !
R. |
Dear @ramtubes: What are you looking for, can you post a wider explanation?
The ones like me that own LP's are interested in the MM/MI/LOMC cartridges that tracks the LP groove modulations and that are " velocity " transducer items against other kind of cartridges that are " displacement " items and that understand what the RIAA means for those velocity transducers.
What's your " history " because I think you know the answers.
Btw, why the RIAA did not took in count from the began the Neumann pole. It's not " official " ? when exist a real problem in the cutting heads ( burn-in. ) when approaching 40khz-50khz and in DMM at around 60khz-70khz.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
