+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Some pictures of my oldies...

  1. #11
    Join Date: Apr 2012

    Location: N E Kent

    Posts: 51,624
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    I don't bugger about with cables, nor do I use filters or anything other than RIAA equalisation.
    More or less the same here. I like good quality cables, but don't get obssessed over them. No filters. I don't even bother experimenting with cartridge loading and never get poor results.
    It is impossible for anything digital to sound analogue, because it isn't analogue!

  2. #12
    montesquieu Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    I don't bugger about with cables, nor do I use filters or anything other than RIAA equalisation.
    if you have any mono at all you almost certainly have some records that would sound better with tweaking to the equalisation.

  3. #13
    montesquieu Guest

    Default

    Not mega expensive for a preamp if the last ebay sale is anything to go by ... https://www.ebay.com/itm/Harman-Kard...p2047675.l2557 I might just look out for one to play with.

  4. #14
    Join Date: Jan 2009

    Location: Essex

    Posts: 31,856
    I'm openingabottleofwine.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by montesquieu View Post
    if you have any mono at all you almost certainly have some records that would sound better with tweaking to the equalisation.
    Why, if they were recorded using RIAA?
    Barry

  5. #15
    montesquieu Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    Why, if they were recorded using RIAA?
    The problem is that RIAA wasn't consistently applied across the board till well into the stereo era. I had a mono record from 1964 on yesterday that clearly responded to tweaking.

  6. #16
    Join Date: Apr 2012

    Location: N E Kent

    Posts: 51,624
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    I wonder how accurately RIAA is/was applied at any time.
    It is impossible for anything digital to sound analogue, because it isn't analogue!

  7. #17
    Join Date: Jan 2009

    Location: Essex

    Posts: 31,856
    I'm openingabottleofwine.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by montesquieu View Post
    The problem is that RIAA wasn't consistently applied across the board till well into the stereo era. I had a mono record from 1964 on yesterday that clearly responded to tweaking.
    Well I've got some 1954 mono recordings of EMI Angel by Furtwangler on EMI-Angel that might qualify. But most of my mono recordings are from 1963 or later, recorded by either EMI or Decca, and all were available in stereo.
    Barry

  8. #18
    montesquieu Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    Well I've got some 1954 mono recordings of EMI Angel by Furtwangler on EMI-Angel that might qualify. But most of my mono recordings are from 1963 or later, recorded by either EMI or Decca, and all were available in stereo.
    Those are the least likely to need it, if there was a stereo version. (Though as Geoff says RIAA can often be a bit variable even into the stereo era, I find DG recordings sometimes spectacularly so).

    For sure I regularly find that it's not just early 50s microgroove that benefits from tweaking, stuff right into the 60s, cut and pressed on later stereo kit, can still be badly equalised. Often a recording you think is just a bad recording, flat or dull or edgy can come to life with a few subtle changes.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •