Phono Stage - The great analog tragedy
In the world of analog playback, there is an interesting observation. There has been tremendous innovation in the field of
Turntable - Direct, Idler, Belt
Cartridge - MM, MC, MI
Tonearm - Gimbal, Unipivot, Linear Tracking
For all of the above designs we find some of the best reference components designed in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Most of the modern products are inspired from these extraordinary products of the past. But when it comes to phono stage, there is hardly any "reference component" from that era. They just standardized RIAA curve for sanity and left it. Manufacturers made large preamps and amps and allocated a puny 5% space for a small phono circuit even in their reference models, like a necessary evil. They didn’t bother about making it better.
The result? It came down to the modern designers post 2000 after vinyl resurgence to come up with serious phono stages for high end systems. Unfortunately they don’t have any past reference grade designs to copy or get inspired from. Effectively, just like DACs, reference phono stages is also an evolving concept, and we don’t have too many choices when we want a really good one which is high-res and natural sounding. Very few in the world have figured out a proper high end design so far. And most of the decent ones have been designed in the past couple of decades. The best of the breed are probably yet to come.
It is a tragedy that our legendary audio engineers from the golden era didn’t focus on the most sensitive and impactful component, "the phono stage"
@pani I don't see these two statements squaring with each other. I'm not saying someone else might see them saying the same thing. But for me I want the system to sound as real as possible.
|
@atmasphere who wouldn’t want a real (I call it natural) sounding system? But it doesn’t require a live uncompressed unfiltered direct to disc recording to figure if the system sounds natural or not |
@pani Just for the record (if you see what I did there) I was not making that claim. Just my means of reference, so as to avoid the 'fantasy' (as you put it) of live vs recorded. |
There are way too many factors to be included to be able to accept that an individual who has a experience of a Live Performance, be it Acoustic Produced Sound or a Sound from Amplifier and Speaker is able to accurately recollect and compare the experience, when the same Music is to be encountered as a result of it being reproduced as a End Sound from a Medium that has recorded music data embedded. The Timeline between experiencing both types of End Sound, really does bring to the forefront the unique mental condition of the listener. It is impossible to believe they have maintained the same mindset during the period of delay. It is impossible to suggest they are responding to each End Sound Produced with the same interest. Mood is a very strong influencer on how sound is perceived as a stimulation and how Value is awarded to the Sound being encountered. Encounter a Live Event, along with the excitement and anticipation that is usually present, and experience this during the early hours of the evening and stay with the encounter to the later part of the night. If the opportunity was realised to revisit the same Music as a recorded material a few hours later. Conjecture strongly suggests that fatigue and other influences like sobering up or tiredness or any other, will certainly make the extended period of being in ear shot of the Sound a more enduring / challenging experience. In most cases if a Live Recording was to appear of a Event that has been experienced live, it can be months before the Live Recording becomes available to be producing and End Sound in a listening space. Is it fair to suggest the individual now listening to the recorded version of the event, is able to accurately compare the End Sound from both experiences had.
|
