Newer is always better? I don't think so, Tim.
Sometimes the old ways are better.
Enjoyed a vintage Sumo Athena preamp so much, it took months to get around to ab'ing it against a comparatively noisy newish Yaqin mm phono stage, and a solid state Cambridge Audio P551 phonostage.
How the published specs can be so similar, on such different sounding components, is beyond me.
Even my slightly humming old phono stage built in to an old old receiver sounds more like music than the two modern stages.
What measurements are excluded, to result in such a disparity of sound from things deviating only slightly from riaa eqing?
I can't really believe 1970s engineers just guessed to get better sounding results.
Sometimes the old ways are better.
Enjoyed a vintage Sumo Athena preamp so much, it took months to get around to ab'ing it against a comparatively noisy newish Yaqin mm phono stage, and a solid state Cambridge Audio P551 phonostage.
How the published specs can be so similar, on such different sounding components, is beyond me.
Even my slightly humming old phono stage built in to an old old receiver sounds more like music than the two modern stages.
What measurements are excluded, to result in such a disparity of sound from things deviating only slightly from riaa eqing?
I can't really believe 1970s engineers just guessed to get better sounding results.
Two explanations:
(1) Modern spec sheets rarely have all of the parameters required to fully characterize sound quality.
(2) Perceptions of differences are based on sighted evaluations, which are generally more like public opinion surveys than actual sonic evaluations.
There. You have been told. Delusiona / irrational thinking is not tolerated on this forum and will be addressed by the forum literati using confrontation, airs of smug superiority, condescension, group ridicule or any other means deemed appropriate. This behaviour will continue until compliance is achieved.
You missed some of the most important ones, but congratulations on getting more than one demonstrably audible parameter on the list.
Thanks SY, the question i intended to convey was what are some of the pertinent measurements not usually published, since the ones that are, do not account for the audible disparity in sound between phono stage units .
Could some of it be due to the absence of op amps in the older units?
Forget oak: M'pingo wood barrels, oriented along a north-south axis are the cat's miaow. Pricey, but if you can find them worth every cent. I have a pair of audionote silver wired amorphous C core transformers that were aged in M'pingo for 12 years, and their sound is absolutely phenomenal.
Moreover, when you take your gear out of storage they double as a first class acoustic room treatment, far superior to those silly little Shun Nook thingies.
Last edited:
Many of them do. I'm always amazed at how many don't get frequency response right. Channel matching is particularly important for imaging. A few important measurements that were left off the list (there may be more):
1. Distortion vs frequency near full output (this is where the old school tube preamps fall down because of inability to drive the RIAA network from a weedy follower).
2. Input impedance vs frequency and level. This is VERY critical for MM in particular.
3. Overload margin and recovery vs frequency. This is particularly important for op-amp based phono stages, where the rails are limited- and of course, one needs to consider what happens to these signals downstream.
4. Frequency response and distortion with realistic loads- especially adding in reasonable cable and line amp input capacitances.
Thanks. This makes a lot of sense in my case, as I was surprised not to prefer a tubed phono stage, I felt it must be low level noise masking recorded ambience.
I have no real means of measuring channel matching, now that you mentioned it, I played some mono Beatles through the stereo, randomly pressing the mono button off and on on the Sumo preamp. Couldn't hear any difference, so it's as accurate as speakers in a room, at least😐
Input impedance vs frequency and level? Luck of the draw for me, but a newer tt and cartridge combo also sounds more realistic to me through the Sumo built in stage, than through the new phono stages.
Op amps aren't used in the older all discreet phono stages, maybe the newer ones , but I'd be surprised if a reputable company like Cambridge skimped on their rail design.
In all fairness, the Cambridge unit sounds more like a CD than any of the others, so the frequency response is probably very good: it just seems to lack much of the sense of space in a hall, or the full harmonics in stringed instruments.And harpsichord just sounds wrong.
Since the old JVC and Sumo are built in stages, there's one less set of cables to worry about.
I guess if my 25 year old cartridge ever wears out, I should look for one with the same output and loading requirements to suit my preferred preamp!
Thanks for taking the time to explain a little to me.
If you're using an MM cartridge the input capacitance of the phono stage can have a significant influence on HF freq response, creating rolloff if it is too high (and presumably peaking/ringing if it is too low). The rolloff problem can be exacerbated by the use of high capacitance input leads. The impacts to the top end are not subtle and could certainly sway the listener in choosing one pre over another.
It used to be conventional wisdom to calculate the combined capacitances and compare them to the cartridge manufacturers loading recommendations. Adjustment was usually made by changing the input capacitance (in the cars of switchable phono inputs) and or changing/shortening/lengthening input cables. I am not sure whether manufacturers specify capacitance loading requirements for cartridges any more.
It used to be conventional wisdom to calculate the combined capacitances and compare them to the cartridge manufacturers loading recommendations. Adjustment was usually made by changing the input capacitance (in the cars of switchable phono inputs) and or changing/shortening/lengthening input cables. I am not sure whether manufacturers specify capacitance loading requirements for cartridges any more.
Last edited:
Many do- perhaps all? Here's some examples:
AT150MLX Dual Moving Magnet Cartridge || Audio-Technica US
Recommended Load Capacitance: 100 – 200 pF
Stanton 890 FS - DJ Equipment, DJ Gear, Phono Cartridges & Needles, DJ Mixer, DJ Turntables, Headphones, CD Players
Recommended Load: 47k ohms and 275 pF
http://cdn.shure.com/user_guide/upload/1070/us_pro_m97xe_ug.pdf
Optimum Load: 47 kilohms, 200 - 300 picofarads/channel, including tone arm and amplifier input capacitance
6 months ago I bought speakers from a guy that restored older Marantz audio components.
I'm not sure if this guy was serious or not when he showed me these copper cables that looked like they came out of a power generating station. Each copper strand was about 3 mm in diameter and the diameter of the cable including insulation was probably 30 mm. When he said he was going to use that cable for his main speakers I was thinking he must be on dope.
I'm not sure if this guy was serious or not when he showed me these copper cables that looked like they came out of a power generating station. Each copper strand was about 3 mm in diameter and the diameter of the cable including insulation was probably 30 mm. When he said he was going to use that cable for his main speakers I was thinking he must be on dope.
Some MM cartridges are very sensitive to load capacitance with Shure being a prime example. Others are not, with Grado having some examples of that.
In any case the best approach is to get a good test record and adjust the cartridge load for flattest response. Generally, you can use the audio interface in a modern PC hooked to the tape/line output of your preamp and software ranging from Audacity or VA (both freeware) to do the response measurement.
Last time I did this a few years back I used the High Fidelity News test LP.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.