Yes, I agree with all said except I use the RIAA eq. I prev used the M1-vynl witch replaced an Audio Research PH-3 Special phono. When I saw the new MX, I had to give it a try. I was, and am blown away by the improvement - bottom to top freq and tonal qualities are superior to M1.
2 responses Add your response
Thanks for the amen! It's reassuring.
As for EQ curve preferences, RIAA vs IEC, it's mostly a matter of taste, and it's a plus that the MX-VYNL gives one the choice. The MX-VYNL's EQ curve is speced as highly accurate to the frequency extremes. On the high end, the result is that there will be no spurious ultrasonic distortion leaking into the audible range, and both the RIAA and IEC curves are identical in nearly all of the audible range. It's in the infrasonic ("subsonic" means "slower than the speed of sound," BTW...) where things get interesting. You can read the technical details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization#IEC_RIAA_curve . While infrasonic frequencies are, by definition, not audible, amplifiers and some speakers will respond to them, and the results can be significant IM (intermodulation) distortion in the audible range and possibly other problems as well. The IEC curve is a very gentle 1st order roll-off below about 20 Hz, which *may* help reduce some spurious and subtle infrasonic distortions in the entire system.
I don't know. As I said, it's a matter of taste, and very likely one's system. My setup, being a pro mastering system, is extremely revealing and essentially flat down to 30 Hz, and the differences are subtle. I generally preferred the RIAA curve with the M1-ViNL, but so far, I prefer the IEC curve with the MX-VYNL. Quite reasonably, YMMV.