Scott, no, i do not think that most sources are better then 1% and even that is optimistic.
The old guys made a major efford though. A RIAA encoder in a tube Neumann cutter is huge. I just make my RIAAs as good as i can.
Joao, in that case i use a lineamp-buffer i have designed and that i like.
I do not claim that it is better then anything else BUT i like it. It makes most CD output stages even work better especialy if a demanding load or a long cable has to be driven.
Send me your e-mail adress and i can send you the basic schematic. Horror of Horrors, it has even an Opamp as the voltage amplification device.
Concerning resolution we need i heard that the ear has aproximately 21.5 Bit and 96kHz sampling. To make a system from recording to speaker that preserves that rate is Utopia at the moment. Maybe Foglets wil be able to do that.
The old guys made a major efford though. A RIAA encoder in a tube Neumann cutter is huge. I just make my RIAAs as good as i can.
Joao, in that case i use a lineamp-buffer i have designed and that i like.
I do not claim that it is better then anything else BUT i like it. It makes most CD output stages even work better especialy if a demanding load or a long cable has to be driven.
Send me your e-mail adress and i can send you the basic schematic. Horror of Horrors, it has even an Opamp as the voltage amplification device.
Concerning resolution we need i heard that the ear has aproximately 21.5 Bit and 96kHz sampling. To make a system from recording to speaker that preserves that rate is Utopia at the moment. Maybe Foglets wil be able to do that.
Joachim, I note that you have come to realize how difficult it is to make audio 'UTOPIA'. Experience is the key to this kind of understanding.
I agree that it is almost impossible to use ANY preamp without effecting the sound quality. I started with the Levinson JC-2, thinking that that was all there was to do. Then 10 years later, the Dennison JC-80, where I got 'preamp of the year' in Japan, then 10 years after that, back to a passive line stage with a 10 turn wirewound pot, and finally the CTC Blowtorch that is in my system, now. No, I am not like you, Joachim. I am LAZY and would rather do something else than design another preamp, but it was necessary, as I lived with each, and found flaws, even measurable ones, with each design, until the present. (and I'm sure the CTC Blowtorch can be improved on too)
I agree that it is almost impossible to use ANY preamp without effecting the sound quality. I started with the Levinson JC-2, thinking that that was all there was to do. Then 10 years later, the Dennison JC-80, where I got 'preamp of the year' in Japan, then 10 years after that, back to a passive line stage with a 10 turn wirewound pot, and finally the CTC Blowtorch that is in my system, now. No, I am not like you, Joachim. I am LAZY and would rather do something else than design another preamp, but it was necessary, as I lived with each, and found flaws, even measurable ones, with each design, until the present. (and I'm sure the CTC Blowtorch can be improved on too)
Last edited:
John, i use the Lipshitz lagacy network too with two little modifications. One is that i designed it for 20dB less output for MC duty and the other is that it works exact when loaded by my standart 300 Ohm input impedance. It does not make a big difference though how you load it because the total impedance is somewhat less then 1MOhm and the contibution of the input impedance of the phonstgae is small over a certain range.
Joao, adjusting channel balance is a pain in my system because i have monoblock tube amp that have a potmeter each. When i do really critical listening work i even adjust the volume and channel balance for EACH piece of music. Volume and balance make a huge difference for the perceived sound quality and unfortunately not many recordings have a good balance spread or a normalised level. I do not know why but on many recordings, at least in my room and my system i hear the stage slightly shifted to the left so i have to make the right channel just a bit louder to have a symmetrical impression. I tryed EVERYTHING to get that effect away, but it must be a recording artifact because some recordings are dead center and i do not have to adjust. That is true for CD and LP in my system.
Joao, adjusting channel balance is a pain in my system because i have monoblock tube amp that have a potmeter each. When i do really critical listening work i even adjust the volume and channel balance for EACH piece of music. Volume and balance make a huge difference for the perceived sound quality and unfortunately not many recordings have a good balance spread or a normalised level. I do not know why but on many recordings, at least in my room and my system i hear the stage slightly shifted to the left so i have to make the right channel just a bit louder to have a symmetrical impression. I tryed EVERYTHING to get that effect away, but it must be a recording artifact because some recordings are dead center and i do not have to adjust. That is true for CD and LP in my system.
No, the room is not symmetrical acoustically ( i tyed of cause to make it as symmetrical as i could with room tunig devices and setup ) and i hear improvement when i listen in the extreme nearfield what i often do. That makes the probem not disapear totally though.
I tryed it with transistors amps but i found the same issue. The tubes in my amp are matched well and i measured the amps basically but this idea to swop the channels is good. I will try it. When the sound now comes more from the rught i have a problem. I love the over all sound this amps make and when there is a diffence, especially in the transformer i may not be able to fix it.
I tryed it with transistors amps but i found the same issue. The tubes in my amp are matched well and i measured the amps basically but this idea to swop the channels is good. I will try it. When the sound now comes more from the rught i have a problem. I love the over all sound this amps make and when there is a diffence, especially in the transformer i may not be able to fix it.
If by line sources you mean CD or other digital players, then the 2V are referring the maximum (RMS ?) output level. For cartridges the RMS output level is referred to an arbitrary cutting speed of usually 5cm (actually 5.7 as the SQRT of 8cm peak level for a sinusoidal signal). Van den Hul quotes an absolute maximum peak level of 40cm or 5 times this referenced level, see his Q&A session. So while there might on average still be a level difference between sources it is usually much lower than your figures suggest.
My 2 cents.
It really depends on the sensitivity of both the tube amp and the loudspeaker. I have 62 dB gain in my phono preamp and I used a passive volume control, until I got the CTC Blowtorch installed. The power amps had a gain of about 25 and the speakers had a rated sensitivity of better than 90dB with a subwoofer. The old X10 gain that preamps had over the decades, is now reduced to 10-14 dB in many modern designs, such as the Blowtorch. However, even with the SAME circuitry as I have with both phono and CTC preamp, I have a customer in Singapore who wants even MORE gain. This month, I suggested an added high quality transformer, rather than major alterations to the Blowtorch. I have no idea why this customer needs more gain.
Yes, i found that out too that some people in the far east like a lot of gain. Maybe it is the subjective feeling that there is more "juice". From the standpoint of noise and distortion, the minimum gain that gives you the volume that you need without clipping is more ideal i think. It does not matter if it is an open loop circuit or a feeback structure but less gain with the same circuit gives you less distortion and a wider bandwidth plus better signal noise usually. It could also be that this customer has one of the exotic ultra low output cartridges that are in fashion in some circles. Anyway, a good quality transformer is a way to go without adding more gain stages or screwing up a well designed circuit.
There is another possibility for this preference. In Japan many people live in extremely lightly constructed buildings and the sound pressure levels may be attenuated by the easy passage of the music out and away from the room. My room on the otherhand has 28" thick walls of natural stone, a stand off, with a plaster board finish and 6" thermal insulation; the floor is solid concrete with a floating deck of modern flooring material. (It used to be a strong farm building, built 200 years ago) Very little sound "escapes" and although the room is some 4,800 Cu Ft comparatively low volume levels give a very "big" sound pressure indeed.
Last edited:
In Germany we are somewhere in the middle. Our standart listening rooms are 20 to 30qm and the walls are usually made from brick or foamed concrete. There is of cause a huge variety of other builds including solid concrete walls but our rooms are more solid then the ones i have seen in the far east or even the US. US rooms are bigger usually though.
Everything seems to be bigger there but i have seen rather small spaces in more rural areas like New York, Manhatten, where living space is expensive i think.
Everything seems to be bigger there but i have seen rather small spaces in more rural areas like New York, Manhatten, where living space is expensive i think.
If done right, it can allow for a two stage power amp instead of a triple, And eliminate an active preamp. All good in my book. IMO and IME.
The closer you get to perfection, or lessening of active components between you and the signal, the greater the percentage value of effect on the signal for each component/gain/buffer stage. When simplified, the removal of even one component or gain stage begins to take the shape of a huge leap in fidelity Ie, up at that point, maybe 20%-25% per 'removal'.
Of course, it's never that simple. We can dream.
The closer you get to perfection, or lessening of active components between you and the signal, the greater the percentage value of effect on the signal for each component/gain/buffer stage. When simplified, the removal of even one component or gain stage begins to take the shape of a huge leap in fidelity Ie, up at that point, maybe 20%-25% per 'removal'.
Of course, it's never that simple. We can dream.
Last edited:
If the balance varies with different recordings it is most probably frequency related. If the left and right speakers measure the same than it is probably acoustics related, but it would have to be acoustically highly unsymmetrical to significantly influence balance even when listening extremly nearfield.
Thanks Martin for your reply. Indeed it looks like the 2Vrms is the max. signal voltage. But some digital sources have up to 6Vrms according to the manufctures data. But if you're correct this remains only the absolute max. output voltage.
John I agree and well stated. Whats the input sensitivity of your line stage designs, and for example of the Constallation Altair, another point I have is the input sensitivity of power amps for the given output power.
Next question: is it a good idea to place the volume pot on the output of a line stage to attenuate the noise fllor of the gain stages?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.