Phono Preamps with "balls" ?
| Post removed |
“" Any Naim phono stage would get you solid sound with great PRAT and rhythm. ..' I just ordered one of those cheap Naim replicas that are in ebay. Wish me luck.“ you’re going to need it, the real ones don’t come with a power supply so presumably the knockoffs don’t either. The Stageline N works very well with a Decca by the way, except for RF pickup, that can be a problem if your luck is out but that’s more to do with the Decca. |
"
A CD with a top DAC ( 32bits/384 khz.) and good overall design outperforms any phono stage it does not matters the phono stage price/pedigree ( including yours. ) in the bass " management " and this is not because your unit or other units are not good designs because I know your design is a good one but it’s because the differences between a digital and LP recording technics." Makes me smile. The most shocking lifelike dynamics I`ve ever heard from any system came from a vinyl setup using a "slightly modified" Jadis JP-80MC. |
This is a long thread with a lot of technical info added in for fun; but my take on phono preamps is based on a shoot out I had with a grouping of mid range priced units. The price range was $1500 to $4K with some $2.5K stuff in the middle and one lower priced straggler at $700 for fun. Hands down, as in no competition, The Whest Three Signature blew the others out of the water. It had huge dynamic range, very powerful low end which was crisp and wonderful smooth mids to upper range. It just did it all and very well. I brought in a Whest 2019 PS.30 RDT SE to compare against the Whest Three Signature, keep in mind this is much more expensive and it was customized by James for a 19 pf input capacitance with a special gain setting at 48 db to work seamlessly with an Audio Technica AT20ss vintage cartridge with a NOS original stylus on a Beryllium cantilever. There is a definite similarity between the Three and the PS.30 RDT SE; you know that they were built by the same team. However the PS.30 RDT SE takes things up a notch in the detail it pulls from the recording. I'd say the Three is 95% of the 30; but it takes a lot more money to pick up another 5%. And to go up higher from the 30 to say the 40 series or even the Titan Pro will take a doubling of expenditure. I'd say from what I have experienced, the Whest Phono stages are the top of the line. |
I get a perfect match with my AT-120eb and my Audio Research SP8, very dynamic and natural sounding. Next up is a Denon DL-103 with my SUT. All this great sound on a restored Pioneer Pl-41D belt drive. Sounds very musical. I love that ARC SP8, it's the best addition I ever made to my system. Billwojo |
It could be a good alternative in your designs instead the out of production devices you were using.We don't use any out of production devices. We have an internal design rule called the 20-year rule that prevents us from doing something like that. The MAT12 is an excellent device; the gain and noise aspects are attractive. The distortion is not; we get lower distortion using a 12AT7. |
Dear @jcarr : I was talking of perfect matched bipolar devices not about FETS. Clicks/pops: that’s a LP problem and not because that pole. In the other side there is nothing perfect in audio. Your Lyra cartridges are not but this is not the issue. You only have an opinion on that pole and in the phono stage that you have in your site is not implemented ( obviously. ) and I ask if in that unit you listened the Neumann constant to have that first hand experience through that phono stage design. Btw, I’m not wrong about. That phono stage is the one you have in your site not the other. That old design has its own history and any one can find out in several forums like DIY. I’m talking of that unit that’s is not balanced and needs an external line stage with additional connectors, solder joints and cable where all these makes a degradation. So you don’t like the Neumann pole but you did not implemented yet in any of those two phono stages ! ? ! ?. What do you want to say? because you don’t showed here nothing that could confirm everything I posted is wrong because my very high ignorance level but you are not perfect either. If you are asking why bipolars it’s because you have not the answer but my unit is not the only down there with bipolar approach even vintage Levinson items used the MATs at the input and for very good reasons. The real subject belongs in the design skills of each single designer. You are talking of something that you never implemented in those designs. The Neumann pole has its own side problems that only through the design skills can be avoided or at least left at minimum. Dartzeel implemented it and those side problems are very clear to listen it, this Neumann implementation was not made it in the rigth way but you know something: each designer has his own " rigth way ". Obviously you did not. Now, you are a manufacturer and I'm not and you are talking of two subjects ( Neumann/bipolars. ) that you never implemented in your items. Makes no sense to me coming from you. As I said the phonolinepreamp I own comes with both characteristics so at least I have a frame to talk about and the experiences when I made some evaluations against top units outside. It’s useless to follows on this dialogue. As I said enough and I mean it this time. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
>There is a real bipolar " problem " against FETs and is that you need perfect matched devices< As I wrote earlier, the JFET matching issue can easily be addressed by measuring and sorting. This requires extra work and organization on the part of the manufacturer, but it is completely doable, and the countermeasures will not bring any disadvantageous side-effects (unlike the base current and internal diode issues of a bipolar transistor front-end). >the Neumann constant/pole makes that come back the " spark " in the high frequencies that is totally losted with out it and this is what that panel tell us in a different kind of tests.< What implementing the Neumann constant will unequivocally do is force the phono EQ amplifier response to rise at HF, which will boost the high-frequency energy in the pops and clicks on your LPs, making them noisier. The issue with DMM is a bit similar - the cutter operates with a high-frequency bias signal (of around 70kHz) to make it easier to cut the amorphous copper blank. This bias signal is sufficiently large enough that you may be able to discern it as a distinctive pattern if you look at a DMM LP with a microscope. Implementing the Neumann constant in a phono stage again will give extra amplification to the 70kHz bias signal. This doesn't stand out as being the most optimal approach. >You are a LOMC designer so I don't need to enligth you why bipolars are better electrical match than FETs.< Your arguments haven't been very convincing so far. >This is not about wiisdom.< At least we can agree on one thing! >That phono stage originally was designed by P-mares and a contribution from you latter on. Is not even balanced and used Jfets at the input with an AD829m overall topology and I was thinking was your own design an a unique one but it's not.< @rauliruegas, wrong again. My present phono equalizer circuit can be loosely regarded as sharing a similar conceptual approach as the HPS 5.1, shown at the following page, but done with completely discrete devices. http://www.synaesthesia.ca/LNschematics.html In any case, I hope that you will become able to technically substantiate your opinions. kind regards, jonathan |
@jcarr : Now I understand your questioning. That phono stage originally was designed by P-mares and a contribution from you latter on. Is not even balanced and used Jfets at the input with an AD829 overall topology design and I was thinking was your own design an a unique one but it’s not. ! ! You never listened the Neumann constant in your unit because P.Mares never designed it that way. I ask if you did it in your unit and you gave me a wrong or false answer. ? ! ? ! Enough. R. |
@jcarr : DMM: well it uses Neumann cutter head/stylus that goes not burning due that metal does not burns as normal laquer recordings. Bwefore I owned my today unit I never really like it the Teldec DMM recordings not even the few digital Telarc recordings and was till I listened the Scottfish recordings that I really appreciated the advantage of DMM . I have to say that I don't remember I tested those recordings with and with out the Neumann constant so I can't tell you in this precise moment but certainly I will do some time in the short future and share my experience about. You are a LOMC designer so I don't need to enligth you why bipolars are better electrical match than FETs. This is not about wiisdom . It's about design and as you that does not disclose your Lyra new generation " unique " design keys don't ask for it. Please ! R. |
@jcarr : There is a real bipolar " problem " against FETs and is that you need perfect matched devices and other problem is to make a precise way for polarization. Designs front end with bipolars is not an easy task and needs more work than with FETS but the rewards makes worth to do it. The unit I'm using is a current fully difirential and totally dual mono design where exist in reality 3 separate circuits: one for MC ( with only two bipolars gain stages. ), one for MM ( this one use MOSFETS not bipolars ) and one line stage. In design each designer has its own and almost " unique " skills and as a cartridge designer you know very well that and can understand why the Colibri performs diferent from the Etna or the Ana. All are very good carrtridge designs but are each one " unique " in its diferent quality level performance. I like all ones but the Colibri makes something than no other cartridge I experienced ( including yours. ) can't do it at the same level and is the precise and clear definition of the very high frequencies. All those 3 designs are different and VDH, you and Ortofon shares the same knowledge levels but different " skills " or the other way around ( I can't find out how to explain those differences. ). If knowledge and skills levels in designers were evenly then almost all sill sounds the " same " and no one phonopreamp or amps or cartridge or speakers sounds the same. In cartridges is more complex because the designer must have to do the cartridge voicing and certainly VDH, you and Ortofon uses diifferent system and techniics to do it and with different targets. Neumann constant: for many years Ortofon used a " golden ears panel " to make several tests to improve its cartridge designs. From many many tests through that " golden ears " panel they concluded that its cartridges must have a peack over 20khz instead totally flat. It was tghrough this high frequency deviation where that panel agree it was achieved the top quality level performance. Of course that the pannel never knew the frequency response of the different cartridge Ortofon samples they were listening. Well , the Neumann constant/pole makes that come back the " spark " in the high frequencies that is totally losted with out it and this is what that pannel tell us in a different kind of tests. I know that you read everything on audio an especially analog and I read too what you posted about the half-speed recording tool.The gentlemans as you that do not like to use the Neumann constant normally never listened and that's why I ask if you did it in your phonopreamp. @atmasphere : """ I'm not interested in getting it sound like a good stereo. It has to sound like real music. """ me neither. A good SS stereo design always will performs as " real " music, it can't be in other way. R. |
Hi @rauliruegas : bipolars are better for LOMCs... how? Please substantiate why. I specified two key areas in which a JFET front-end is superior to bipolar transistors for use with LOMCs, and also spelled out two areas in which JFETs are weaker (but described the countermeasures). If you want others to accept your claim that bipolars are better for LOMCs, surely you are capable of describing the issues at a sufficient level of detail for EEs such as Ralph and myself to either concede to your superior wisdom, or refute it. Regarding the extra Neumann constant, yes I have tried it, and have listened to various other phono stages that incorporated it. While it does change the sound, I don't recall ever feeling that it improved the sound. Let us keep in mind that not all LPs were cut with Neumann cutting heads; Westrex, Ortofon, Haeco are some well-known alternatives. By the way, what do you feel of the interaction between the Neumann playback constant and DMM-cut LPs? kind regards, jonathan |
Dear @jcarr : I respect your opinion but bipolars electrically are a better LOMC cartridge. I'm not saying than bipolars are perfect devices ( nothing is. ) but better match. About the Neumann pole exist an advantage and I don't have to explain it to you. The main issue is to have the knowledge level and skills to implement it in the rigth way with out side problems. That Neumann constant must exist in any phono design and has to be the owner who decides if used or not. The cutterheads impedes that the RIAA eq. goes beyond 50khz because burning it self. There is no doubt exist an advantage to listen with than with out it, the issue is how that constant is implemented/designed. You are not the only one ( @atmasphere here. ) that shares that kind opinion but other designers think the other way around and implemented with good results. Btw, did you try it in your phono stage? Half-speed?, there are so many " myths " around that kind of recording tool. @atmasphere , yes you are pickier than me, fine with that. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
@jcarr I agree that jfets are the way to go- although I like some of the aspects of the MAT-12s (which are bipolar, but a popular goto for phono front ends), getting them to actually sound right has been a problem so far. The jfets I want to use though aren't made anymore, and even then we had to sort through a pile of them just to find a pair that not only matched (since our circuits are fully differential) but were also quiet. <snark> maybe you can't or don't know how to do it.</snark> @rauliruegas Or maybe I'm just pickier than you. I'm not interested in getting it sound like a good stereo. It has to sound like real music. |
Ralph, although I completely agree with you regarding the overriding importance of designing sufficient overload margin and circuit stability into phono stages, while rectification of RF energy (and subsequent intermodulation) is indeed an issue with bipolar transistors due to the base-emitter connection functioning as a diode, JFETs are free of this effect. A phono stage with JFET front-end devices can therefore be run with input resistors in the megohm range without problem. The RF rectification issue of bipolar transistors can be reduced if local feedback (emitter resistors) are added, but doing so will worsen the noise, which is the main reason for using a bipolar transistor front end in the first place. A further problem with a bipolar transistor front-end is the base current, which will go through the cartridge coils (gradually magnetizing the coil former, which is definitely undesirable). And if the input resistor is of high value, the base currents will cause DC offsets, unless the input is capacitor-coupled (a band-aid that wouldn't be necessary with a JFET front-end). The main difficulties with JFETs are their comparatively low maximum voltage rating, and significant device-to-device variation. Unlike the situation with bipolar transistor front-ends, both JFET issues are solvable cleanly; the voltage rating with cascoding, and the device variation by measuring and sorting prior to assembly (although this does mean extra work). kind regards, jonathan PS. Nor do I accept that there is a need to insert the extra Neumann constant, as listening tests (LP vs. master tape) have not necessarily shown it to be an improvement. And with half-speed LPs, the target frequency will be an octave wrong. |
first that the phono-preamp has enough gain for the cartridge output level and be by preference a SS ( bipolars. ) design with no single tube inside, second that be an active high gain designFWIW, it is a lot harder to build a solid state phono section that does not have RFI issues than it is to do the same thing with tubes. This is because semiconductors can act like diodes and thus rectify RF noise, thus making it audible. I would add that phono stability (which includes but is not limited to RFI susceptibility) and overload margin are pretty important too, as such will mean that special loading considerations for LOMC cartridges are not needed (IOW, no loading resistors). The lack of loading resistors will allow the cartridge cantilever to track high frequencies better and with less distortion. A nice side benefit is far less ticks and pops as well as they are often a symptom of a phono section with poor overload margins and stability issues. |
Dear @avanti1960 : Power is ( for me ) the main characteristic of live MUSIC that obviously an audio system just can’t match it. Other main live MUSIC characteristic is it the transiente response " velocity " on each single note and harmonics these and other characteristics gives that outstandingn dynamics. Analog can’t match digital and both are away from live MUSIC . On any analog system ( a decent one. ) almost everything depends on: cartridge tracking habilities and accurate and well matched TT/tonearm/cartridge set up. With out that we will more away of the " target " . What to look for a phono pream?, first that the phono-preamp has enough gain for the cartridge output level and be by preference a SS ( bipolars. ) design with no single tube inside, second that be an active high gain design or if need it a SUT that this device comes internally as part of the phono design and try to avoid external SUT that degrades always the cartridge signal due to the additional connectors, solder joints, frequency extremes limitations response and cable to connect it, third that the phono-preamp be designed with gain stages at minimum ( 2 gain stages is better than 4. Only an example. ), that the phono stage not only comes with a low RIAA eq. deviation as could be 0.1 db or lower but that that deviation looking through a chart of it does not happens at both frequency extremes, that comes with the Neumann RIAA pole, that the phono-preamp comes with not only a flat response in both channels ( matched ) but widely from 0 to at least 500 khz or even better 1 Mhz ( if any of us have a dude on why that so wider frequency range please email to Proffesor Johnson of Spectral/Reference Recordings designer. ) that the output impedance of that phono unit stay really lower at both frequency extremes ( we have to ask for. ) and that both phono.preamp channels shows the same: gain, output impedance, IMD, THD, RIAA response etc. levels If we take care about ( obviously a decent amp/speaker/room. ) we can have that power you are looking for. Well not exactly that power because it’s imposible to achieve it not even by the digital alternative that’s the one that its approaching is nearest to than analog but analog sounds good too. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
I own both a Manley Steelhead and the Atma-sphere MP1. They both have "balls", but the MP1 has the bigger cojones, IMO. As Ralph suggests, I am not only able to load my LOMCs at 47K into the MP1, but they really do sound best that way or certainly with a load R no lower than 1000 ohms. Below that value, and there's a drop off in dynamics and open-ness of the sound and a slight increase in noise. Sadly, the Steelhead does not permit running LOMCs at 47K load, unless you connect the LOMC through the MM input. Since the MM inputs can develop up to 65db gain, that's actually feasible. Don't get me wrong; I do like the Steelhead very much. |
"balls" in this case means gusto, drive, dynamics and power. these are definitely qualites that can be associated with phono preamps. having owned many that were somewhat weak or anemic sounding I wanted to put a list together of some that are the contrary.With many phono sections the trick is to **not** use a cartridge that is at the lower limits of the phono section's gain limitations. Then almost any phono section will have what you are looking for. Bonus: if the phono section is stable and has good overload margin, you will hear a significant reduction of ticks and pops, as many of those are caused by oscillation and RF overload caused by the inductance of the cartridge and the capacitance of the cable acting as a tuned RF circuit. A way to tell that the phono section has stability problems is if you have to load your LOMC cartridge to get it to sound right (IOW the stock 47Kohms should be fine). The loading detunes the RF circuit and prevents it from injecting RFI into the preamp. But this comes at a price- the cantilever is stiffer, meaning that it will not track as easily. So a stable preamp is important! |
Not you again ! ! ! and in this regards: wrong again because I'm not talking of " bass " but the meaning of " balls " in a phono preamp due that if exist that " balls " characteristic " ( other than bass. ) that belongs to the whole home room/audio system. @atmasphere , your post makes no sense especially when you have not the rigth audio system to listen the huge differences in digital vs analog and when you did not yet all the tests I suggested in this thread. Btw, a " phono preamp with balls " is something as any audio item in a system: cartridge with balls, cables with balls, room with balls, amps with balls speakers with... or ..... R. |
Avanti1960: I have an Aesthetix Calypso I love. I did have it upgraded to a Signature, but looking back, I think I would have just done the tube upgrade. It sounds much better, having been upgraded-just sayin. This preamp is very versatile. I run all balanced cables which I think helps in just about any application. Pull up the reviews. |
@chakster yes I've been really impressed with the Zyx CPP-1. It's my understanding that the increase in gain in the second version was actually driven mainly by customers. So the first version may be closer to Mr nakatsuka's original vision. Also I seem to recall that the input impedance on mine is 100ohm (not 125) so perhaps he lowered it when he increased the gain? |
Dear @atmasphere : Forgeret all what you write in your last post, it does not helps in anyway to prove that analog bass is better than digital because it's not. Again do it a favor and listen the CD and the LP of those scores I posted to you and please listen it not in your system that can't honor those scores ( no matters what. ) but in a good home audio system with bipolar electronics and subs. Till you do that is useless all your in good intention words. Don't waste your time till you listen it. """ imposes audible distortion (caused by aliasing ... """ don't try to figth against digital and don't try to win that figth because before you started that figth you already losted it: http://www.mstarlabs.com/dsp/digital-anti-alias-filters.html https://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/9205/can-we-have-a-digital-anti-aliasing-filter How many google pages do you need to understand that aliasing is not any more a digital problem as you said? Btw, do you know that in a home audio system the MUSIC belongs to the bass range? Dear audiophiles as better your home audio system bass management as better the overall quality performance of your audio system. According with a scientific studies made it by Harman group the ideal number of subs in a home system is of 4 self powered ones where in " automatic " way the bass range will be smooth and with out bass room nodes and the like. We have to worry on nothing in that bass range and ovbiously that the benefits comes not only on that bass range but at the same time a better mid and high frequency ranges ! ! We need as minimum 2 subs. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
@jollytinker If you're considering an SUT in conjunction with a MM phono stage, then you might also consider the Zyx Cryo Pre-preamp. It is definitely ballsy. The latest update (v.2) increased the gain over the previous version. It's a marvelous step up device in my opinion and doesn't have some of the drawbacks of transformers (less fussy about cables for instance). Not cheap again, but compared to a good SUT I think it's actually fairly reasonable. Even the first version, which i am using now, the ZYX CPP-1 Cryo (input impedance 125 Ohm, Step up ration 26db) is very interesting device to have. Arthur Salvatore swear it's better that any top quality SUTs out there. |
Sheesh. do you still think that R2R is the best analog reproduction medium?No, I've never said that. LP is superior since it is lower distortion, lower noise and wider bandwidth. This is why LPs are used to release albums recorded on tape and not the other way 'round. Raul, you are embarrassing yourself. The problem seems to be that you know nothing about how the industry makes recordings, and even less about the technologies involved. You should try running a recording/mastering operation sometime. When I first started cutting LPs, a good number of things I thought I 'knew' about the medium were dashed. One was how quiet lathe cuts are- they easily rival digital. The surface noise comes in during the pressing process (Acoustic Sounds with their pressing plant QRP has done a lot to solve that problem and now make the quietest pressings in the world). Another is how much dynamic range the medium has, and how low its distortion actually is (the cutter amps usually have about 10 times the power needed to completely toast the cutter head; the LP mastering system has the highest overhead of any audio process; it can't be overloaded like other processes can be). Additional noise and distortion can be caused by the pickup and equalizer (the latter can add ticks and pops that you might think are on the LP surface). But those problems are correctable. I suspect that you are making a common mistake of construing them with the media itself. Here is my major objection to digital audio: I've gone to many concerts and also played in orchestra and bands. In those situations, if there is background noise like air conditioning, glasses clinking or people coughing, you can listen past them because they are not the music. Similarly, the artifacts of analog (hiss, ticks and pops) can be easily ignored by the brain as well, because those things sit in the speaker while the music is in 3 dimensions. Digital OTOH imposes audible distortion (caused by aliasing and other problems, interpreted as brightness by the brain, which is why CDs still sound bright even if you have tone controls and turn the treble down all the way) that cannot be distinguished from the music. Again, if digital is so much better, why are Best Buy and Target continuing to sell LPs while they are dumping CDs? Why are LP sales eclipsing digital downloads? One reason is digital streaming, but the other is that people that don't know anything about the technical bits still want LPs because they 'sound better'. Until you can solve that dilemma, the analog/digital floggings will continue. |
@atmasphere : do you still think that R2R is the best analog reproduction medium? because it's not due to all those problems I posted and you as any one can check directly D2D recordings made it by Shefield Labs whom in the same recording sessions they made the great D2D LPs and recorded on R2R too. Well the D2D sample outperforms easily the one original master cut LPs. The latest digital technology/mediums outperforms any single R2R recordings no matters what and outperforms all over the frequency range not only in the bass range. @atmasphere: do you know or are aware that we all are living in April 2018? Today it's analog no contest and never will be again ! ! ! Got it? R. |
Dear @atmasphere : Tubes can’t honor MUSIC with the accuracy need it for. I know that you are very good designer of tube electronics and this is not under question because it’s not the subject. Tubes can’t do it. Your speakers goes to 20hz? wel mines goes to 16hz by design and even that the subwoofers is a must to have. Period. Of course that I know " what you have " in your listening room and in your last post confirmed it. Please before you come back here to post about my " falsehoods/outrigth errors " do it your self a favor and try to find out a true audiophile with a home audio system using bipolars electronics ( with no single tube down there. ) and integrated pair of subwoofers and listen to at least two of those CD/LP recordings I posted. Again, with out those subs you can’t know nothing at all. No single passive speakers can do it the rigth way. Please read this: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/do-you-think-you-need-a-subwoofer/post?postid=310058#310058 Regrads and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
