Cable is part of loading as cable has R, L, C and screening. No companding just simple first order basic electrical properties.
Gabdx, for these places where I live, good audio components are not available.
You have to order them and take care of import taxes.
Pro Ject is what my finances can reach. I have read some criticisms and it is not so bad.
Of course there are better turntables, but for me unreachable.
On the other hand so that better if later I will use it with Marantz PM6006 and boxes B & W DM602 ?.
The turntable Aiwa is not good, but not bad either. There is no rumble, it has a stable speed, a 32 cm diameter matrix plate, 70 dB signal noise.
Although Project has noise -68dB, the carbon arm and bearings help improve the Aiwa
You have to order them and take care of import taxes.
Pro Ject is what my finances can reach. I have read some criticisms and it is not so bad.
Of course there are better turntables, but for me unreachable.
On the other hand so that better if later I will use it with Marantz PM6006 and boxes B & W DM602 ?.
The turntable Aiwa is not good, but not bad either. There is no rumble, it has a stable speed, a 32 cm diameter matrix plate, 70 dB signal noise.
Although Project has noise -68dB, the carbon arm and bearings help improve the Aiwa
i doubt that the aiwa really was build by aiwa, rather one of those japanese companies that build the blocks for all the others.
And I doubt that it's so bad than the press it gets...
Alpuy, I hope youre getting closer to what you want from your system!
And I doubt that it's so bad than the press it gets...
Alpuy, I hope youre getting closer to what you want from your system!
It is made by CEC and was a good Japanese manufacturer of turntables. In the CEC line itself it was called cec chuo denki st540. But I decided to replace it with Pro Ject Debut Carbon Espirit. I hope not to take a surprise.
Thanks Onvinyl
Thanks Onvinyl
... and dielectric absorbtion, piezo effect, microphony are said to have also some effect. I am not sure about it, but once I tried knocking the outside sheath of my phono cable with a hard tool, and it was loudly audible. So I learned that every component matters, and there is no textbook component.
Talking about sound, I 'believe' there will be an improvement with the carbon. If not maybe you can send it back
I like vinyl, it's my preference. I have also concluded that vinyl playback is hopelessly inaccurate based on my experience with a pretty small number of tonearms, cartridges and turntables.
There are just so many degradations existing in the playback chain; from countless imperfections in cartridges (why is that it that equally suitable cartridges sound so different from each other); geometric and resonance issues in the tonearm as well as bearing friction in both planes; noise and resonances in the turntable drive system, bearing, platter and plinth..
I have two more or less identical tables, at one point with different but comparable arms and cartridges, the results spoke for themselves. Swapping equally suitable cartridges on and off of these arms as well as swapping in other arms resulted in the conclusion that I could not determine what was right or more accurate. I could determine what I liked or if a particular combination was particularly unpleasant.
Measurements can tell at least some of the story. I am not good at doing more than very limited FR response measurements at this point in time. Those informed me that there were a lot of things outside of the electrical domain that I could not easily control. The results are most definitely NOT impressive even with expensive, well regarded transducers [cartridges] made by rational companies like Ortofon that engineer their products.
I continue to strive for what I perceive as better accuracy. Last year with the help of a friend I discovered strain gauge cartridges, I also discovered through measurements and contrary to popular lore that they needed EQ. I designed a pre-amp for them that is covered in another thread as a result.
I've recently changed from pivoted arms, to mechanical LTAs and finally air bearing LTAs. This has perceptibly reduced distortions during playback and most noticeably on the inner grooves.
BUT my point is that while I like the results and believe I am heading in the direction of increasing accuracy I have no frame of reference and no evidence other than what I think certain pieces of music should sound like, and what should be perceptually absent from the reproduced result; resonances, noise and audible distortions.
I think preference can appropriately play a role here, when I design a medical monitoring device at work it is an entirely rational engineering driven exercise, but where technology interfaces with human senses I think that does play a role. If you enjoy what you hear and others are not telling you that you are obviously wrong I think this may be a more rational approach to the reality than sticking doggedly to the quest for a chimera.
I've currently got two essentially identical TD-124s. Got rid of a TD-125, and an SME 20/2.
Arms have included three SME3009 Series II unimproved, an SME 3012 Series II, a clone of the SME 3012, a Schick 12 inch arm, two Souther LTAs (SLA-3 and Tri-Quartz), and one upgraded ET-2 air bearing LTA with another on the way.
I greatly prefer the ET-2 to anything else I have ever owned...
Cartridges are currently Panasonic 451C strain gauges with custom pre-amplification.
In recent years I've owned DL-103D, Zu DL-103, two Ortofon Per Windfelds, an SPU A95, GM E II, Meister Silver GM II, Royal N, Benz Ebony H and some MM/MI types like the Grado Sonata Reference.
Limited selection but enough to make you wonder why I was so unhappy with all of this stuff. The ZU and 451C, Souther LTAs, and the ET2 I would consider audio watershed moments.
I've had lots of audio dreck that I have not bothered to share.
The point I am trying to make is that some of this stuff sounded radically different, and none was broken. I know what I prefer, not necessarily what is correct.
There are just so many degradations existing in the playback chain; from countless imperfections in cartridges (why is that it that equally suitable cartridges sound so different from each other); geometric and resonance issues in the tonearm as well as bearing friction in both planes; noise and resonances in the turntable drive system, bearing, platter and plinth..
I have two more or less identical tables, at one point with different but comparable arms and cartridges, the results spoke for themselves. Swapping equally suitable cartridges on and off of these arms as well as swapping in other arms resulted in the conclusion that I could not determine what was right or more accurate. I could determine what I liked or if a particular combination was particularly unpleasant.
Measurements can tell at least some of the story. I am not good at doing more than very limited FR response measurements at this point in time. Those informed me that there were a lot of things outside of the electrical domain that I could not easily control. The results are most definitely NOT impressive even with expensive, well regarded transducers [cartridges] made by rational companies like Ortofon that engineer their products.
I continue to strive for what I perceive as better accuracy. Last year with the help of a friend I discovered strain gauge cartridges, I also discovered through measurements and contrary to popular lore that they needed EQ. I designed a pre-amp for them that is covered in another thread as a result.
I've recently changed from pivoted arms, to mechanical LTAs and finally air bearing LTAs. This has perceptibly reduced distortions during playback and most noticeably on the inner grooves.
BUT my point is that while I like the results and believe I am heading in the direction of increasing accuracy I have no frame of reference and no evidence other than what I think certain pieces of music should sound like, and what should be perceptually absent from the reproduced result; resonances, noise and audible distortions.
I think preference can appropriately play a role here, when I design a medical monitoring device at work it is an entirely rational engineering driven exercise, but where technology interfaces with human senses I think that does play a role. If you enjoy what you hear and others are not telling you that you are obviously wrong I think this may be a more rational approach to the reality than sticking doggedly to the quest for a chimera.
I've currently got two essentially identical TD-124s. Got rid of a TD-125, and an SME 20/2.
Arms have included three SME3009 Series II unimproved, an SME 3012 Series II, a clone of the SME 3012, a Schick 12 inch arm, two Souther LTAs (SLA-3 and Tri-Quartz), and one upgraded ET-2 air bearing LTA with another on the way.
I greatly prefer the ET-2 to anything else I have ever owned...
Cartridges are currently Panasonic 451C strain gauges with custom pre-amplification.
In recent years I've owned DL-103D, Zu DL-103, two Ortofon Per Windfelds, an SPU A95, GM E II, Meister Silver GM II, Royal N, Benz Ebony H and some MM/MI types like the Grado Sonata Reference.
Limited selection but enough to make you wonder why I was so unhappy with all of this stuff. The ZU and 451C, Souther LTAs, and the ET2 I would consider audio watershed moments.
I've had lots of audio dreck that I have not bothered to share.
The point I am trying to make is that some of this stuff sounded radically different, and none was broken. I know what I prefer, not necessarily what is correct.
Kevin I think hit the nail on the head.
For those of us who have stuck with our vinyl preference, inevitably somewhere along the line you reach the hard truth that it’s a horribly flawed approach which one can mitigate but never fully surmount. Also, as the playback system becomes more and more refined, it becomes difficult to evaluate with much degree of certainty if one is approaching technical precision or personal taste.
For me the issue is source material, which I think is vastly under considered as a rationale for the choices some of us make. Vinyl may be a flawed medium compared with lossless digital, but I simply will not give up the materials I have on wax... end of story. So, I want to make the best of it.
I think those of us who’ve spent a long time working toward a better vinyl listening experience consider it equally an artistic and a technical endeavor.
The idea that vinyl is the absolute apex of fidelity is simply wrong... and I say that with thousands of LPs directly in front of me which you’ll have to pry from my cold, dead hands.
In this way I think DF96’s commentary is correct, albeit hard to swallow and delivered in a way that shows he’s a bit worn down by some of the uninformed magical thinking that can take place here. Nonetheless, his intentions are noble. By the same token I think those who argue in the opposite direction also have many grains of truth wrapped up in their claims.
As with all things, the truth is hidden somewhere in the crevices of all of this.
Alpuy, I hope you have not taken my comments critically. I was joking about the “you mustn’t have been a forum member long”, making a nod to the sometimes incendiary nature of dialogue that can pervade here. Perhaps we have misunderstood one another. I have nothing but good intentions in trying to help unpack this topic for you.
For those of us who have stuck with our vinyl preference, inevitably somewhere along the line you reach the hard truth that it’s a horribly flawed approach which one can mitigate but never fully surmount. Also, as the playback system becomes more and more refined, it becomes difficult to evaluate with much degree of certainty if one is approaching technical precision or personal taste.
For me the issue is source material, which I think is vastly under considered as a rationale for the choices some of us make. Vinyl may be a flawed medium compared with lossless digital, but I simply will not give up the materials I have on wax... end of story. So, I want to make the best of it.
I think those of us who’ve spent a long time working toward a better vinyl listening experience consider it equally an artistic and a technical endeavor.
The idea that vinyl is the absolute apex of fidelity is simply wrong... and I say that with thousands of LPs directly in front of me which you’ll have to pry from my cold, dead hands.
In this way I think DF96’s commentary is correct, albeit hard to swallow and delivered in a way that shows he’s a bit worn down by some of the uninformed magical thinking that can take place here. Nonetheless, his intentions are noble. By the same token I think those who argue in the opposite direction also have many grains of truth wrapped up in their claims.
As with all things, the truth is hidden somewhere in the crevices of all of this.
Alpuy, I hope you have not taken my comments critically. I was joking about the “you mustn’t have been a forum member long”, making a nod to the sometimes incendiary nature of dialogue that can pervade here. Perhaps we have misunderstood one another. I have nothing but good intentions in trying to help unpack this topic for you.
Ahhh poor Kevin! Satisfy yourself with the miracle that is the phonograph.
Pairing the deck with forgiving amplification (triodes🙂 is a good compromise which somewhat removes the focus on the exasperating countless defects of the vinyl medium.
Pairing the deck with forgiving amplification (triodes🙂 is a good compromise which somewhat removes the focus on the exasperating countless defects of the vinyl medium.
My system is all triode, but not at all what I would call forgiving.. This is where I well understand how to apply accuracy criteria and measure it in meaningful ways. I would not want it any other way. 😀
I think it‘s fair to say that vinyl based playback is fundamentally lacking in the sense of perfection. However, vinyl playback prevailed some layers of fidelity that were hidden in the dark ages of the digital realm, say from 1985 - 2005. Nowadays i don‘t buy contemporary music on vinyl, I download files or stream. There are a few exceptions when AAA-Vinyl (anolog recording, mastering, pressing, as opposed to ‚bring the CD to the pressing plant’) is issued (some 4-5 per year that suit my taste).
Apart from that, I have my LP-collection and sometimes go hunting first issues of favourite stuff at the bay or flea markets. It has more to do with the spirit of antiquarities and why this is special.
Apart from that, I have my LP-collection and sometimes go hunting first issues of favourite stuff at the bay or flea markets. It has more to do with the spirit of antiquarities and why this is special.
We left out one big issue with phono stages, the issue of phase.
Correcting the RIAA curve leads (I think) inevitably to phase shifts, especially without feedback, perhaps. I did some simulation of a RC filter phono stage and I could never get a satisfying result, something is always left to be desired in terms of phase shifts.
Correcting the RIAA curve leads (I think) inevitably to phase shifts, especially without feedback, perhaps. I did some simulation of a RC filter phono stage and I could never get a satisfying result, something is always left to be desired in terms of phase shifts.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
The cutting head emphasis also would have had phase shifts, are they simply reversed and 'undone' by the RIAA de-emphasis ?
Hi. I was interested in this topic of the phase. They have never explained it to me.
Could you explain to me what would be the correct curve or the right one ?.
I always simulate the preamplifiers I build (I simulated Rotel pre, Marantz, Grade, VSPS400, Esmerald, Muffsy, P06 Rod Eliot, etc) and I do not give importance to the phase curve.
Does it always have to be above zero? In my simulations, the phase curves are always crossed at some point with the frequency curves (generally around the lower frequencies).
Can you give me some guidance as is right?
Could you explain to me what would be the correct curve or the right one ?.
I always simulate the preamplifiers I build (I simulated Rotel pre, Marantz, Grade, VSPS400, Esmerald, Muffsy, P06 Rod Eliot, etc) and I do not give importance to the phase curve.
Does it always have to be above zero? In my simulations, the phase curves are always crossed at some point with the frequency curves (generally around the lower frequencies).
Can you give me some guidance as is right?
The standard RIAA defines a filter with a pole at 50Hz, a zero at 501Hz and a pole at 2122Hz. The magnitude and phase of this filter are thus defined.
RIAA LP Equalization
RIAA LP Equalization
From what I have read in the article mentioned, it is desirable to insert a sonic filter (36 dB per octave like that of Rod Elliot) so that the subsonic frequencies do not interfere or modulate the audible frequencies. It is still not clear to me what influences the phase curve in an RIAA design.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.