Schmitz77
Yes, that phono selector switch was rare but there were still many people who owned pre-RIAA records before the RIAA was adopted as "standard". So I see it as a good decision. Especially with a simple key and resistance.
I remember that it used to bring me some confusion whether to use RIAA or FFRR ...... everyone explained to me: "leave it in RIAA" but nobody knew what the other option was. So I leave you with this painting, although I don't think anyone will decide to put together this classic today.
As always, the biggest difficulty, and as you say, are the transformers. Especially the one for the PSU, I suppose a couple of OPTs for PP 6BQ5 are still available, or is it the other way around ? Many people will want to eliminate the diode bridge and go for a rectifier tube .....
Because at that time rectifier diodes were just beginning to be used to replace tubes, (1960s) but there are those who claim that the sound changes, perhaps with a bridge of
" schookty " ?
PS: At the beginning of the link you can choose the language, English, Spanish, or German for you ! 😉
5.3.6 Replay Equalisation | International Association of Sound and Audiovisual Archives
Yes, that phono selector switch was rare but there were still many people who owned pre-RIAA records before the RIAA was adopted as "standard". So I see it as a good decision. Especially with a simple key and resistance.
I remember that it used to bring me some confusion whether to use RIAA or FFRR ...... everyone explained to me: "leave it in RIAA" but nobody knew what the other option was. So I leave you with this painting, although I don't think anyone will decide to put together this classic today.
As always, the biggest difficulty, and as you say, are the transformers. Especially the one for the PSU, I suppose a couple of OPTs for PP 6BQ5 are still available, or is it the other way around ? Many people will want to eliminate the diode bridge and go for a rectifier tube .....
Because at that time rectifier diodes were just beginning to be used to replace tubes, (1960s) but there are those who claim that the sound changes, perhaps with a bridge of
" schookty " ?
PS: At the beginning of the link you can choose the language, English, Spanish, or German for you ! 😉
5.3.6 Replay Equalisation | International Association of Sound and Audiovisual Archives
Last edited:
A few back I bought Prima Luna mono blocks. They cost alot and suck alot.....sold them. Prima Luna products are all hype.
Academia50, many thanks for the link to the EQ curves. I can use them right now as I'm engineering a new preamp.
7 vs 1
What is "today's standard"? Some people still want yesterday's standard! High fidelity mean the reproduction being faithful to something. Is it faith to live music? Is it faithful to the source feeding it? Since audio is electronic so the latter is the most common, that is, fidelity to the source. But the source of the source is the recording itself which we have no control over. We are stuck with can music, unless you're willing to listen to only excruciatingly boring audiophile recordings with second rate performers.
My personal belief and goal is to use whatever objecting means to achieve subjective end. I like coloration and euphony in hope of not adding objective noise. If I have to use tone controls, equalizer, compressors, whatever gadgets to get the sound I want, I will do it. And hopefully it does so without adding noise and audibly distracting distortion, like clipping, grain, peaks, brightness, and whatever artifacts resulted from gross intolerable distortion. Let's face it, the more things in the signal path the less transparent or immediate the sound. Again, it's about finding a sweet spot between euphony and transparency/immediacy. Other than that, I am happy to accept what sounds "good" to me. I don't see the totally unnecessary schism of objective camp and subjective camp. The real problem is that the subjective camp is unwilling to accept there's distortion in what they're hearing, hence the incessant waxing of flowery pornographic prose on the sound and the overuse of the word "truth" (you read them once, you read them all) and the objective camp is unwilling to let them off the hook. For me, I am totally comfortable to admit I like pleasurable distortion but at the same time I totally see the usefulness of accuracy. But do I need to sit through fatiguing sound just because it's objectively more accurate? Switching back and forth to find the sweet spot is the approach I take.
I have a Marantz 7 that I haven't used in a long time. In fact it was my first exposure to tube electronics decades ago that led me into the diy path so I am grateful for its existence. It has decent dynamic range for its era and a nice midrange and an uncanny ability to flesh out string music like acoustic guitar and it definitely has its appeal. But in the realm of vintage world, if given a choice between the model 7 and its older sibling the model 1 preamp, most connoisseurs would prefer the model 1. I know I do. In comparison the model 7 sounds too dry, lacking the liquidity of model 1. It also fetch more money than the 7 in the vintage market. The model 1 has a line section with multiple gain stages with no global feedback, hence the different sound (schematic below). Non-feedback designs tend to be more sensitive to passive component selections, at the expense of noise.
Is the Marantz 7 overpriced for what they offer sonically? Yes, but... Bear in mind, half or more than half its value is its collectability in the vintage market. But it has a unique sound and if you can't find it elsewhere then you either have to pay or build your own, preferably deviate not too far from the original circuit and parts selections. And who am I to critique how someone wants to spend his or her money? Audio is like food to me, if you have the best fresh ingredient (source material that's well recorded), you don't have to do much and try to preserve its inherent flavor (like minimalist purist designs), kinda like sushi. But if you don't have the best ingredients (recordings), you do whatever you can to flavor or season it (not so purist designs), kinda like gumbo. All this fight between objective and subjective camps is nauseating and I simply don't see it's necessary. It's a hobby, let's have fun!
What is "today's standard"? Some people still want yesterday's standard! High fidelity mean the reproduction being faithful to something. Is it faith to live music? Is it faithful to the source feeding it? Since audio is electronic so the latter is the most common, that is, fidelity to the source. But the source of the source is the recording itself which we have no control over. We are stuck with can music, unless you're willing to listen to only excruciatingly boring audiophile recordings with second rate performers.
My personal belief and goal is to use whatever objecting means to achieve subjective end. I like coloration and euphony in hope of not adding objective noise. If I have to use tone controls, equalizer, compressors, whatever gadgets to get the sound I want, I will do it. And hopefully it does so without adding noise and audibly distracting distortion, like clipping, grain, peaks, brightness, and whatever artifacts resulted from gross intolerable distortion. Let's face it, the more things in the signal path the less transparent or immediate the sound. Again, it's about finding a sweet spot between euphony and transparency/immediacy. Other than that, I am happy to accept what sounds "good" to me. I don't see the totally unnecessary schism of objective camp and subjective camp. The real problem is that the subjective camp is unwilling to accept there's distortion in what they're hearing, hence the incessant waxing of flowery pornographic prose on the sound and the overuse of the word "truth" (you read them once, you read them all) and the objective camp is unwilling to let them off the hook. For me, I am totally comfortable to admit I like pleasurable distortion but at the same time I totally see the usefulness of accuracy. But do I need to sit through fatiguing sound just because it's objectively more accurate? Switching back and forth to find the sweet spot is the approach I take.
I have a Marantz 7 that I haven't used in a long time. In fact it was my first exposure to tube electronics decades ago that led me into the diy path so I am grateful for its existence. It has decent dynamic range for its era and a nice midrange and an uncanny ability to flesh out string music like acoustic guitar and it definitely has its appeal. But in the realm of vintage world, if given a choice between the model 7 and its older sibling the model 1 preamp, most connoisseurs would prefer the model 1. I know I do. In comparison the model 7 sounds too dry, lacking the liquidity of model 1. It also fetch more money than the 7 in the vintage market. The model 1 has a line section with multiple gain stages with no global feedback, hence the different sound (schematic below). Non-feedback designs tend to be more sensitive to passive component selections, at the expense of noise.
Is the Marantz 7 overpriced for what they offer sonically? Yes, but... Bear in mind, half or more than half its value is its collectability in the vintage market. But it has a unique sound and if you can't find it elsewhere then you either have to pay or build your own, preferably deviate not too far from the original circuit and parts selections. And who am I to critique how someone wants to spend his or her money? Audio is like food to me, if you have the best fresh ingredient (source material that's well recorded), you don't have to do much and try to preserve its inherent flavor (like minimalist purist designs), kinda like sushi. But if you don't have the best ingredients (recordings), you do whatever you can to flavor or season it (not so purist designs), kinda like gumbo. All this fight between objective and subjective camps is nauseating and I simply don't see it's necessary. It's a hobby, let's have fun!
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Was / is there an issue with the CCDA being an inverting amplifier?
And perhaps more generally, would you prefer a two stage inverting line stage over a three stage non-inverting line stage ?? And does it even matter if using fdbk?
i never know the difference.....the CCDA sounded very analog to my ears, phase inverting? did not matter to me..
two plates with lots of gain and then negative feedback to lower the gain to line levels, it is just a matter of taste...