Phono stages

[Bourney]

ive been very lucky to drop on a nice project RPM5.1 a few months back and I've been using it into a project phono stage into my AN Soro SE / A/NK.
I know this is probably a bit unbalanced in terms of source/phono stage cost but I'm enjoying it. Will I get genuine increase in quality by spending 2-300 on a second had phono stage? I'm using an ortofon 510 needle.

[Jazid]

If it works don't question it! A result is a result, enjoy the fruits of your endeavours [emoji16]

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

[Haselsh1]

During my vinyl days I got frequently pee'd off chasing the ideal phono stage. I tried all sorts: Dynavector, Pro-Ject, EAR and so many more but I reckon the best advice has already been given in the first response.

[Andy831]

Been chasing this version of Nirvana for a long long time and settled on a Nick Gorham Longdog Audio design.

[Firebottle]

I don't think you will get an increase in quality by spending 2-300, I suggest it needs to be 5-600.

@Andy831. A very nice phono stage designed by someone who knows what he is doing.

[AJSki2fly]

Might be a bit pricey for you if you really want a phono, but this would be a very good one to go for.

https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?70306-Jolida-JD9-phonostage-with-extensive-upgrades

ttps://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/jolida_jd9_e.html (the review is from 2013)

[Pharos]

I think that vinyl has such obvious limitations that it is not worth trying to get the improvement available with a large outlay which will be largely masked.

[Firebottle]

Sorry Dennis but that's tosh.
Have you heard a top flight vinyl setup?

[AJSki2fly]

Sorry Dennis but that's tosh.
Have you heard a top flight vinyl setup?

Completely agree, having been down the CD/Digital file route and returned to vinyl I find vinyl replay gives me a more involving and musical sound and a bigger grin factor. :)

[Macca]

I think that vinyl has such obvious limitations that it is not worth trying to get the improvement available with a large outlay which will be largely masked.

No, despite the 'obvious limitations' the quality of the phono stage does make a significant difference.

[Opti-cal]

For me its the Cindy Crawford 'beauty spot' argument . . . . technically floored yes, but there's just something about it.

I find both mediums great and actually use them to improve the sound of each. Sometimes I'll make a change which elevates the digital ahead of my vinyl setup, then the challenge is on to get the vinyl to overtake the digital again, and so on.

[Opti-cal]

I took a punt on this, replaced the tubes and recapped it. It sounded great before the tinkering but now I would put it up against anything up to 1k . . . .

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000516391407.html?spm=a2g0s.9042311.0.0.10d44c4dU rFi3v

[Haselsh1]

Got to agree with the 'technically flawed' comments but then so many things in life are. How many people drive a technically perfect car and who says it is technically perfect..? The driver no doubt. Vinyl has a beautiful quality in the way that a real photograph has a beautiful quality. Compare a fine art black and white print from a 5X4 or 10X8 negative to any digital dross. Compare a vinyl system costing in excess of ten grand to any CD player. Chalk and cheese..? Yes but then so is the sound. Love it or leave it, I wish you the best with your quest. I gave up in 2018.

Personally I think digital is done in the name of convenience. I think the decision has little to do with much else. Digital photography is the same. 'I can't be doing with all of that chemistry rubbish'. Convenience comes at a price; absolute quality.

[struth]

ive been very lucky to drop on a nice project RPM5.1 a few months back and I've been using it into a project phono stage into my AN Soro SE / A/NK.
I know this is probably a bit unbalanced in terms of source/phono stage cost but I'm enjoying it. Will I get genuine increase in quality by spending 2-300 on a second had phono stage? I'm using an ortofon 510 needle.

project stuff is good. if it sounds good to you then unless you want to spiral up in probably cart and stage, be happy is my advice. not to say a small increase in quality stage wont produce results, as it may well.

[Pharos]

Sorry Dennis but that's tosh.
Have you heard a top flight vinyl setup?

Yes, probably the best there is, and the friend who owned it, who is a tech expert, and who designed his own speakers using Tannoy drivers and his own amplifier, has just sold it all and is using digital.

[Firebottle]

Fair enough Dennis. I still think with a quality cartridge and phono stage vinyl can give greater musical pleasure than digital.

[AJSki2fly]

Yes, probably the best there is, and the friend who owned it, who is a tech expert, and who designed his own speakers using Tannoy drivers and his own amplifier, has just sold it all and is using digital.

Well maybe his hearing has deteriorated or he has just got fed up with the space and effort you have to put into good vinyl replay, so maybe he has crumbled to convenience.

[Pharos]

That must be happening to us all to an extent, more than we realise. One arm was a Theres.

[Opti-cal]

Well maybe his hearing has deteriorated

This thought had occurred to me to be honest but I didn't mention for fear of upsetting any 'elders' haha! By that I mean more experienced of course.

I've lost some top end over the last 5 years and I'm (only!) 33.

Case and point I recently visited a very nice chap when I picked up some bits, I'd guess he was around 55. His system cost more than my car (and my car is pretty nice!) but it nearly took my ears off and not in a good way. The top registers were really over pronounced yet he also had his sub cranked up to the max which was muddying the entire soundstage.

No one on here btw!

[Macca]

Well maybe his hearing has deteriorated or he has just got fed up with the space and effort you have to put into good vinyl replay, so maybe he has crumbled to convenience.

Don't know about that, with a suitable system the faithfulness of digital to the recording is unsurpassed (for those of us interested in achieving that as opposed to getting a sound 'like live music' or some other type of pleasing colouration). I certainly wouldn't go back to vinyl in a million years because I can no longer avoid hearing its flaws. Even in a top-flight system.

[Opti-cal]

Don't know about that, with a suitable system the faithfulness of digital to the recording is unsurpassed (for those of us interested in achieving that as opposed to getting a sound 'like live music' or some other type of pleasing colouration).

Out of interest how do you 'know' that what you are hearing (in a true 'faithful' reproduction system) is exactly what you 'should' be hearing unless you have heard it on the actual studio equipment it was recorded with? I'm sure a top flight system can get most of the way there but surely the only way to accurately reproduce the recording is to use as much of the same equipment it was mixed/mastered on as possible?

I've heard a lot of Pink Floyd's mastering was done using Quad 63's, hence it often sounds very good on them.

Probably a discussion for another thread admittedly. . . .

[Opti-cal]

Don't know about that, with a suitable system the faithfulness of digital to the recording is unsurpassed (for those of us interested in achieving that as opposed to getting a sound 'like live music' or some other type of pleasing colouration). I certainly wouldn't go back to vinyl in a million years because I can no longer avoid hearing its flaws. Even in a top-flight system.

I guess when you mean accuracy its a case of getting equipment with low distortion and linear frequency response in order to give the choice of medium the best chance to recreate the recording. Digital may well be the better format for that as it isn't rolled off and obviously measures significantly better in the distortion stakes among others.

I can't help but be drawn to the sound of vinyl in comparison though, as you have eluded to it might be that we are in search of different things.

Again, apologies for thread drift . . . .

[Macca]

Out of interest how do you 'know' that what you are hearing (in a true 'faithful' reproduction system) is exactly what you 'should' be hearing unless you have heard it on the actual studio equipment it was recorded with? I'm sure a top flight system can get most of the way there but surely the only way to accurately reproduce the recording is to use as much of the same equipment it was mixed/mastered on as possible?

I've heard a lot of Pink Floyd's mastering was done using Quad 63's, hence it often sounds very good on them.

Probably a discussion for another thread admittedly. . . .

I base it on my experience of hearing playback in the studio, there's a clarity to that which you just don't get from vinyl, but which I latterly discovered is possible from digital. Compared to that I now hear that background 'roar' that's always there with vinyl, it's inescapable to me.

Other people prioritise other things than that absolute 'studio' clarity with regards to playback which I completely understand. But I gave up on vinyl when I realised I was trying to get it to sound like digital. It made sense for me just to go all-digital.

[Opti-cal]

I base it on my experience of hearing playback in the studio, there's a clarity to that which you just don't get from vinyl, but which I latterly discovered is possible from digital. Compared to that I now hear that background 'roar' that's always there with vinyl, it's inescapable to me.

Other people prioritise other things than that absolute 'studio' clarity with regards to playback which I completely understand. But I gave up on vinyl when I realised I was trying to get it to sound like digital. It made sense for me just to go all-digital.

Yeah I certainly get that.

Admittedly I have chosen cartridges and phono stages which (maybe subliminally to me) are the 'quietest' along with sounding good too. The roar is almost inescapable in my experience too but often masked by the music I listen to. I can sometimes pick it up, but it only bothers me when it gets to a certain level. I have sensitive speakers and tubes in my system so a lot of amplified gain going on but on a lot of recordings which have had my ultrasonic cleaning treatment it is (as near as makes no difference to me) 'dead' silent. If I was constantly faced with that roar that does occasionally creep in on some pressings, I'd probably pack it in too.

The increase in background silence and 'blackness' is immediately audible (or not) when switching from vinyl back to digital though.

I completely understand your reasoning for making the switch permanent.

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

[StingRay]

I guess when you mean accuracy its a case of getting equipment with low distortion and linear frequency response in order to give the choice of medium the best chance to recreate the recording. Digital may well be the better format for that as it isn't rolled off and obviously measures significantly better in the distortion stakes among others.

I can't help but be drawn to the sound of vinyl in comparison though, as you have eluded to it might be that we are in search of different things.

Again, apologies for thread drift . . . .

Yet most digital produced in the last 20 years is overly compressed to make it louder. Digital often does not sound natural, they often use filters to make sound better, no wonder people still use records.

[Macca]

Yet most digital produced in the last 20 years is overly compressed to make it louder. Digital often does not sound natural, they often use filters to make sound better, no wonder people still use records.

I don't know about 'most' but then I don't buy much music made after about year 2000 . Of hundreds of CDs I only have two that are noticeably poor sounding due to over-use of compression. I generally seek out the original CD as opposed to re-masters, checking the DR database is a handy guide as to which release has the least compression.

I've no idea what you mean with regard to 'filters to make it sound better.'

[StingRay]

I don't know about 'most' but then I don't buy much music made after about year 2000 . Of hundreds of CDs I only have two that are noticeably poor sounding due to over-use of compression. I generally seek out the original CD as opposed to re-masters, checking the DR database is a handy guide as to which release has the least compression.

I've no idea what you mean with regard to 'filters to make it sound better.'

You can read up on what they did to Brothers In Arms to make sound better. If I find the article I will link it here.

[Macca]

You can read up on what they did to Brothers In Arms to make sound better. If I find the article I will link it here.

I think we had this discussion before! I don't care what they did during the recording , that's all part of the artistic process (including adding shedloads of compression when mastering).

I'm only interested in accurate playback of the end result.

[Haselsh1]

Fair enough Dennis. I still think with a quality cartridge and phono stage vinyl can give greater musical pleasure than digital.

:thumbsup:

[Haselsh1]

Yet most digital produced in the last 20 years is overly compressed to make it louder. Digital often does not sound natural, they often use filters to make sound better, no wonder people still use records.

Filters..? Would that be the 'brickwall' filtering that cuts out things above 20k and below 20..? I'm not aware of any other filters for digital reproduction.

Could someone enlighten us maybe..?

[Pharos]

To me digital is obviously technically superior.

But since it is so it is more transparent to the recorded content, and I think that maybe those recording now do not have the extreme passion which was often felt in the period of music I find an affinity with, peaking in about '73'74 probably a bell curve around that point. This correlates with a strong political impetus on the part of writers, which I suspect was felt by those producing and recording the material, and what provides the 'personal resonance'.

Often with remastering for digital the 'ethos' is lost because those doing it do not have the direct connection with the period itself, and they are under pressure to make it more exciting or loud, and I want to have the original mix, but maybe cleaned up a little.

In the period referred to I had Tannoy Gold Lancasters, and these were a little earlier used as reference in Abbey Rd, so it is probable that what I heard was very similar to the mastering, but with the limitations of the vinyl medium.

I bet now that listening to a CD on ATCs would give a very faithful reproduction of the studio sound.

[Barry]

What sort of speakers did you listen to during your time with the BBC Dennis?

I have a lot of sympathy with the ideas you express in the second and third paragraphs.

[StingRay]

Filters..? Would that be the 'brickwall' filtering that cuts out things above 20k and below 20..? I'm not aware of any other filters for digital reproduction.

Could someone enlighten us maybe..?

No they seem to be low pass reconstruction filters plus various other ones, I can't find the interview now but they put it through a load of filters to change the sound. It was also mixed on an analog board. There are loads of filters and software you can use but I'm not a sound engineer.

[AJSki2fly]

Out of interest how do you 'know' that what you are hearing (in a true 'faithful' reproduction system) is exactly what you 'should' be hearing unless you have heard it on the actual studio equipment it was recorded with? I'm sure a top flight system can get most of the way there but surely the only way to accurately reproduce the recording is to use as much of the same equipment it was mixed/mastered on as possible?

I've heard a lot of Pink Floyd's mastering was done using Quad 63's, hence it often sounds very good on them.

Probably a discussion for another thread admittedly. . . .

I didn’t say it was a perfect true replication of what was originally done on studio equipment, to achieve that you would need the original master, the studio and equipment. However my ears tell me I prefer the result through my system to digital, I have done various back to back comparisons of the same music. There was a very long discussion on this topic on another thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Opti-cal]

I didn’t say it was a perfect true replication of what was originally done on studio equipment, to achieve that you would need the original master, the studio and equipment. However my ears tell me I prefer the result through my system to digital, I have done various back to back comparisons of the same music. There was a very long discussion on this topic on another thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed I realise it's kind of unrealistic to expect anything to be 'perfect' for playback, hence as 'faithful' (as possible) seems the logical goal to have.

I was really just wondering what Macca expected from a system constructed to emulate recordings in this way. Which he clarified well for me.

Totally agree that a lot of the music I too have compared back to back, digital Vs vinyl, the latter is the one I enjoy listening to more.

Not always the case though admittedly.

[enrae8]

This thread reminds me of this - can’t think why :eyebrows:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3d55p2G_Ac

[Barry]

This thread reminds me of this - can’t think why :eyebrows:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3d55p2G_Ac

:lol:

[Pharos]

What sort of speakers did you listen to during your time with the BBC Dennis?

In the first half of four years, a single mono paraline using a Lowther PM6 with a Goodmans Trebax tweeter from 10k up. Then I bought the Tannoys. But at work I was using LS10s, good all round but not extremely high resolution, LS 3/4s, wonderful upper mid and good bass for size, (and which later went on to become LS 3/6s, from which the Spendor BC1 was developed), but the real shock was the purity of the LS 5/5, but it could not do high spls. I remember hearing Abraxas's bass on them as being so smooth and pure compared with the Tannoys.

I have a lot of sympathy with the ideas you express in the second and third paragraphs.

It seems to me, and it is a shame if so, that the young, as we did then, also have quite a lot to protest about, but despite my listening to much current stuff, I have little affinity with its structure; melody, harmony, and particularly vocal styles, which seem to be close mic'ed and intensely sung allowing little range of expression. This is overbearingly based on callisthenic ability, (after Mariah Carey), and to me impenetrable verbally, and much seems about venom in personal in relationships.

The only radio heard single I find I have any affinity for is Senorita, which is actually also well recorded, and I despair at Ed Sheeran's creativity.

[AJSki2fly]

This thought had occurred to me to be honest but I didn't mention for fear of upsetting any 'elders' haha! By that I mean more experienced of course.

I've lost some top end over the last 5 years and I'm (only!) 33.

Case and point I recently visited a very nice chap when I picked up some bits, I'd guess he was around 55. His system cost more than my car (and my car is pretty nice!) but it nearly took my ears off and not in a good way. The top registers were really over pronounced yet he also had his sub cranked up to the max which was muddying the entire soundstage.

No one on here btw!

Well I’m 62 and I cannot hear much over 13.5khz, I have a 3-5db drop in my right ear at 1k to 3k which I have been told is nothing to worry about.

I have no idea if the high frequencies put out by my system are screeching or tuneful, but at least no one else has complained. As long as we are happy as individuals with what we hear from our systems that is all that matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Haselsh1]

As long as we are happy as individuals with what we hear from our systems that is all that matters.

So true Adrian, so true. Nothing else should really matter.