Ugraditus is calling....again. Phono stage?
Uberwaltz, the Chinook has particularly low output impedance (50 ohms nominal according to its manual; 91 ohms and a recommended minimum load of 2.5K according to its website description), so it won’t have any problem driving the 2170. Or most other preamps or integrated amps, for that matter. Best regards, -- Al |
Uberwaltz, a possibility that comes to mind, which could account for the symptoms you’ve noted with both the phono stage and the Oppo, is that the balanced cables are miswired such that their ground pin (pin 1) is interchanged with one of the two signal pins (pin 2 or pin 3) at one end. Thereby causing one of the two signals, as provided by the source component, to be connected to ground in the 2170. Which would adversely affect the performance (and eventually perhaps even the health) of the output stage of the source component. If you have or can obtain a multimeter, check that each of the three pins at one end of each cable is connected to the corresponding pin at the other end. And also check that each of the three pins is not connected to either of the other two pins. In doing so, it would be best to use a magnifying glass to view the pin numbers that are marked next to each of the pins, as their symmetrical layout makes it easy to confuse pins 1 and 2 with each other when comparing the two ends. And for that matter, perhaps the assembler became confused for exactly that reason :-) Best regards, -- Al |
P.S: Although I doubt it would happen, it’s possible that running your Shelter cartridge with the PH-10’s gain set to 71 db might result in distortion on musical peaks, due to an overload condition in either its circuitry or in the circuitry in the 2170 that precedes its volume control mechanism. If that were to happen, though, the resulting distortion should be pretty obvious, and would be present even at relatively low settings of the volume control. As I said I doubt that would occur, but if it does you could perform the experiment just with the 65 and/or 68 db settings instead. Best regards, -- Al |
Hi Uberwaltz, By just about all accounts that I've seen the ART7, like the ART9, is an excellent cartridge. However, its very low output will definitely be a problem for many phono stages, in terms of noise. Specifically, its rated output of 0.12 mv is about 10.5 db less than the 0.4 mv rated output of your Shelter cartridge. I don't know how the volume control on your 2170 is calibrated, but presuming it adjusts volume in discrete steps, and if you can determine how many db each step corresponds to (perhaps by contacting Lyngdorf) I would suggest the following experiment: Set the gain on the PH-10 to max (65 + 6 = 71 db). Listen to some music, preferably something that has wide dynamic range, and turn up the volume control to the loudest setting you would normally use. Then stop playing the record, increase that volume setting by about 11 db, and see if the hiss level becomes bothersome. It might also be worthwhile to perform the same experiment at 65 and/or 68 db settings of the overall gain. Also, the following post by Pani dated 2-27-2015 in one of the major ART9 threads will be of interest: Dgarretson, I have not heard the ART7 so I cannot comment on its sound per se. Its heartening to know that it can be amplified without SUT. Here is an email that was sent to a friend of mine by Audio Technica:Best regards, -- Al |
I also have an SME series 3 but that maybe too light?@analogluvr, on paper a reasonable case could be made both for and against that combination, IMO, so it may very well be worth trying the ART9 in the SME III. A case that could be made for it would be that if the ART9’s compliance at 10 Hz is in fact in the rough vicinity of 30 the 5 gram effective mass of the SME III (according to its listing at vinylengine.com), together with the 8.5 gram weight of the cartridge, would result in a resonant frequency of about 7.9 Hz. While an arm having higher effective mass would result in a resonant frequency somewhat lower than that, and therefore further from the 8 to 12 Hz region that is generally considered to be optimal. A case that could be made against it would be that many people have reported great results with the ART9 when used in medium mass arms. In any event, best of luck if you decide to purchase one. Best regards, -- Al |
@analogluvr & @uberwaltz, Like many others here I’ve been delighted with the ART9. Among its many excellent qualities I would say that the one which stands out the most is simply its neutrality, meaning that it doesn’t seem to overemphasize or underemphasize any part of the spectrum. Dynamics and resolution of detail are also excellent. To provide context, for the better part of the previous 30+ years I was using various incarnations of the Grace F-9E and F-9E Ruby. Most recently an F-9 with Soundsmith’s $350 "Ruby Cantilever / Nude Contact Line Diamond" stylus/cantilever assembly. Which is a very nice cartridge, but I found it to be not quite as accurate or dynamic as the ART9. My tonearm is a 1980’s Magnepan Unitrac I, which has a relatively low effective mass of 8 grams. The ART9 has a highish compliance, specified as 18 × 10-6 cm/dyne at 100Hz, which I suspect probably means something like 30 x 10-6 cm/dyne at the 10 Hz frequency that compliance specs provided by non-Japanese cartridge manufacturers are usually based on. I see that the Lyra Helikon is spec’d at 12 x 10-6 cm/dyne at 100Hz, and has a weight that is very similar to the ART9. Given that as well as the fact that several members here have reported excellent results using the ART9 in medium mass arms I doubt that there would be any compatibility issues using the ART9 in an arm that is suitable for use with the Helikon. I’m uncertain about compatibility in Uberwaltz’s case, though, as I’m not familiar with his arm and the compliance of his Shelter cartridge appears to be somewhat lower, at 9 x 10-6 cm/dyne, presumably at 100 Hz since it is made in Japan. Although it’s weight is again very similar to the weight of the ART9. Best regards, -- Al |
Hi Uberwaltz, Atmasphere (Ralph) has explained in some past threads that for a low output moving coil cartridge optimal loading is mainly dependent on the phono stage, and not on the cartridge. And in particular it is mainly dependent on effects on audible frequencies that may occur in the phono stage as a result of sensitivity it may have to RF frequencies. RF frequencies will be present at the input of the phono stage as a consequence of the high frequency resonance that results from the interaction of cartridge inductance and load capacitance. So for example Keith Herron recommends that when an LOMC is used with the VTPH-2 users may often find that no loading whatsoever (meaning a nearly infinite number of ohms, in the case of the VTPH-2) is often optimal. And I and some others here have found that to be true with the combination of an Audio Technica ART9 and the VTPH-2. So I would feel free to disregard the 100 ohm load recommendation the manufacturer provides for your cartridge. Enjoy! Best regards, -- Al |
Now one thing I do not know is what occurs if that ratio is sky high, say 500 to 1 or so?No problemo, Uberwaltz :-) It would be extremely rare for a problem to result from having too high a ratio, and in fact if that were occur it would most likely be the result of a design flaw in one of the components. The only situation I can recall ever being reported in which a problem occurred from having too high a ratio was the one Ralph (Atmasphere) described in his posts dated 8-3-2012 in this thread. And that situation resulted from an unusual combination of circumstances involving a preamp and a power amp, and a marginally stable power supply in the preamp. Barring a design flaw in a component, I wouldn't worry even if the ratio was 10,000 to 1. Best regards, -- Al |
Isn’t the Gold Note output impedance very similar to the Herron’s?First, as I mentioned earlier, while the manual for the Gold Note states 500 ohms, two other references provided at its website indicate 50 ohms. But in any event, and assuming the Gold Note is purchased without the optional tube-based output stage, even if its nominal output impedance is 500 ohms it probably doesn’t vary greatly from that value over the frequency range, given that it is a solid state design. But like most tube-based phono stages and preamps the Herron almost certainly uses a coupling capacitor at its output, which most likely causes its output impedance to rise to considerably higher values at deep bass frequencies than the nominal value that is spec’d (which in turn is most likely based on a mid-range frequency such as 1 kHz). I’ll say also that I’m not at all surprised at the sincerity and excellence of the response Keith provided. As I know many others here would agree, one couldn’t hope to find an audio designer/manufacturer more wonderful to deal with. Best regards, -- Al |
John (Jmcgrogan2), thanks very much for the nice words. Regarding the Gold Note PH-10, as you mentioned it isn’t clear if the specified output impedance pertains to the balanced outputs or the unbalanced outputs or both. In addition, the website description and the brochure it links to state that the output impedance is 50 ohms, while the manual says 500 ohms. The manual also indicates that an optional tube-based output stage is available, as well as an optional external tube-based output stage. Perhaps the 500 ohm figure pertains to those options. But even if the output impedance of the solid state output stage that is apparently standard is 500 ohms, chances are it does not have the substantial rise in output impedance (to perhaps several thousand ohms) that would result in the deep bass region from the coupling capacitor that is often used with tube-based output stages. Given that, the specified nominal impedance probably isn’t greatly different than the maximum output impedance within the audible frequency range, and therefore I suspect that a 10x ratio applied to that figure would provide results that are reasonably good if perhaps a bit marginal. Also, given the ambiguity in the specifications it seems quite possible that the balanced output impedance may be 1K, resulting in the same 10x ratio when connected to the 10K input impedance of the 2170’s balanced inputs. And of course Robelvick reported fine results with that configuration, although we don’t know for sure if the nominal output impedance involved is 50 ohms, 100 ohms, 500 ohms, or 1000 ohms. The bottom line, IMO: The PH-10 in its standard configuration (i.e., without either of the tube-based output stage options) would most likely be a reasonable choice in terms of impedance compatibility, whether connected balanced or unbalanced. Best regards, -- Al |
Hi Uberwaltz, On page 13 (pdf page 8) of the manual for the VTPH-2A, near the upper right-hand corner, the following statement appears: We recommend that the VTPH-2A be used with a line stage having an input impedance of 50,000 ohms or higher for optimum performance.If as I suspect the input impedance of the 2170’s unbalanced analog inputs is in the area of 5K to 10K, or even if it is somewhat higher, it will not be a good match for the majority of tube-based phono stages. There are some exceptions, of course, including the Chinook for which the website description recommends a minimum load of 2.5K, and specifies a nominal output impedance of 91 ohms (which is much lower than is typical for a tube-based phono stage). More generally, you’ve probably seen a rule of thumb guideline stated that to assure impedance compatibility of a line-level interface the input impedance of the destination component should be 10x or more greater than the output impedance of the component providing the signal. What is often not stated, unfortunately, is that the 10x ratio should be applied at the frequency for which the output impedance of the component providing the signal is highest. Most output impedance specs are based on a mid-range frequency such as 1 kHz. It is very common for the line-level outputs of tube-based components to have output impedances at deep bass frequencies that are much higher than that specified value, often 2K or 3K or even 4K ohms. That rise at low frequencies results from the output coupling capacitor that is used in the majority of tube-based source components and preamps (and also in some solid state preamps). The impedance of a capacitor increases as frequency decreases. So in the case of a line-level output supplied by a tube-based component the highest output impedance within the audible frequency range often occurs at 20 Hz. If Stereophile has reviewed the component the measurements section of the review will usually indicate that output impedance. If that impedance is not known, and is not indicated in published measurements, then to be safe a considerably higher ratio than 10x should be applied to the specified nominal output impedance, IMO something like 50x or 75x. Also, to clarify a common misconception I should add that failing to meet that guideline does not always mean that there will be an impedance compatibility problem. It depends on how much **variation** there is in the output impedance over the frequency range. But meeting that guideline (at all audible frequencies) assures that there won’t be an impedance compatibility problem. In this case, though, as I said earlier the majority of tube-based phono stages will almost certainly have problems dealing with a load impedance of 10K or less, and in many cases dealing with even higher load impedances such as 20K or 30K. Finally, it might be a good idea to contact Lyngdorf and ask them what the unspecified input impedance of the 2170’s unbalanced analog inputs is. Chances are it is very low, since as I mentioned the balanced input impedance is very low, but if that is not the case you would have a much greater number of suitable phono stages to choose among. Best regards, -- Al |
Hi Uberwaltz, John (Jmcgrogan2) has listed three outstanding phono stages. However while I have been delighted with my Herron VTPH-2, which like several other members here I use in conjunction with an ~$1K Audio Technica AT-ART9 cartridge, I’m highly doubtful that it (or its similar successor the VTPH-2a) would be a suitable match for your Lyngdorf 2170 in terms of impedance compatibility. The Herron phono stages provide only unbalanced outputs. The unbalanced input impedance of your 2170 does not appear to be specified, and I couldn’t find any published measurements for it. However the balanced input impedance of the 2170 is spec’d at a very low 10K, which suggests that the unbalanced input impedance may be even lower, very possibly 5K. The manuals for the VTPH-2 and VTPH-2a recommend that optimal loading of their outputs is 50K or more, although by various accounts values as low as 25K or 30K may also be acceptable for most systems and most listeners. A likely consequence of that kind of impedance mismatch, btw, would be mushy bass, as was attributed in the post just above to tube-based phono stages generally. But I and I’m pretty certain all of the numerous other members here who use the Herron phono stage would absolutely not characterize it as having mushy bass, **provided** that it is used to drive a preamp or integrated amp having suitably high input impedance. The Allnic’s output impedance is spec’d as being a fairly high 1.2K, which I would feel pretty certain would also not be a suitable match for the 2170 if the design has capacitively coupled outputs. The Allnic might have transformer coupled outputs, though (I’m not sure about that), in which case a 5K input impedance **might** be acceptable, although again I’d be doubtful. Based on its specs, the Chinook should have no problem in terms of impedance compatibility, however. I have no personal experience with the Chinook, though, and so I can’t comment on its sonics beyond my awareness that it has an excellent reputation. Best of luck as you proceed. -- Al |
