I used a Systron-Donner wave analyzer and a B&K 1" microphone, for my measurements. Little FM, almost no 'horn distortion' and LOTS OF LOW FREQUENCY OUTPUT. Not super deep, but DEEP ENOUGH FOR ROCK AND ROLL.
Please do not try to compete in magnitude, Wavebourn.
Please do not try to compete in magnitude, Wavebourn.
And now you need measurements for Stereophillie?
No way, I have no appropriate insurance. 😀
Well it has no IC's.
From another (not Parasound) preamp description ....
"The ground is many orders of magnitude more stable than any other phono preamp in the market, no matter how big the power supply!"
Awhile back, I mentioned that I might give some input on analog tape recorder design. I used to do it for a living, so here goes:
Today, analog tape seems to be having a comeback. While this might surprise many here, people who have ACTUALLY lived with analog master tapes and early generation copies, know that: Except for pristine direct disc vinyl reproduction, analog tape can be as good or better sounding and more 'natural', than any other source.
Digital is not 'perfect sound, forever', not yet, anyway.
In any case, let's take up analog tape reproduction, and how it differs from analog vinyl reproduction.
In some ways, analog phono and tape are similar. They both use a coil source, in the tape case, usually 10mH-1H. They both need to be equalized, and integrated, so that the output with frequency is flat. However, the EQ for tape is different than that for vinyl, in that it effectively BOOSTS the high frequencies, above a few thousand cycles, rather than let's them drop, making tape recording more prone to 'hiss' than a pristine vinyl direct-to-disc record. On the other hand, the absence of ticks and pops, is a real plus for analog tape recording, and higher speed and wider track operation, can remove the 'hiss' to a very low level, as well. It is unfortunately, VERY EXPENSIVE, to do so. (more later)
Today, analog tape seems to be having a comeback. While this might surprise many here, people who have ACTUALLY lived with analog master tapes and early generation copies, know that: Except for pristine direct disc vinyl reproduction, analog tape can be as good or better sounding and more 'natural', than any other source.
Digital is not 'perfect sound, forever', not yet, anyway.
In any case, let's take up analog tape reproduction, and how it differs from analog vinyl reproduction.
In some ways, analog phono and tape are similar. They both use a coil source, in the tape case, usually 10mH-1H. They both need to be equalized, and integrated, so that the output with frequency is flat. However, the EQ for tape is different than that for vinyl, in that it effectively BOOSTS the high frequencies, above a few thousand cycles, rather than let's them drop, making tape recording more prone to 'hiss' than a pristine vinyl direct-to-disc record. On the other hand, the absence of ticks and pops, is a real plus for analog tape recording, and higher speed and wider track operation, can remove the 'hiss' to a very low level, as well. It is unfortunately, VERY EXPENSIVE, to do so. (more later)
Last edited:
That is the key, the tiny group of those that will spend anything to have something that others can't will buy a tiny number of hand crafted systems. I even remember a well maintained Nakamichi cassette player made some pretty decent recordings, I don't know who is trying to kid who that reel to reel will make a comeback.
There's always a comeback. Mini skirts, Marlon Brando and.... The concept of eternal recurrence is well documented.
Well Scott, either read the magazines, go to the hi fi shows, like the most recent one at Newport Beach, or whatever it takes, to find that pre-recorded tapes are making a comeback.
Part 2, analog tape reproduction.
I, of course, am not talking about reviving the lowest common denominator of analog tape playback, such as cheap pre-recorded cassettes, 8 track, or even necessarily, pre-recorded commercial tapes of many years ago, especially ANYTHING below 7 1/2 inches per second. It would be better just to get a CD equivalent or perhaps something even cheaper.
However, 1/2 track 7 1/2 ips, 15 ips, or full track 30ips, might 'knock you out' in bringing back the realism of a live performance.
Also, extra exceptional performance with cassette tapes is quite sophisticated, and not an amateur's best project. However, reel to reel, 7 1/2-15 ips is coming back for collectors, and other serious audiophiles.
In any case, it is a useful exercise in understanding how best it works.
I, of course, am not talking about reviving the lowest common denominator of analog tape playback, such as cheap pre-recorded cassettes, 8 track, or even necessarily, pre-recorded commercial tapes of many years ago, especially ANYTHING below 7 1/2 inches per second. It would be better just to get a CD equivalent or perhaps something even cheaper.
However, 1/2 track 7 1/2 ips, 15 ips, or full track 30ips, might 'knock you out' in bringing back the realism of a live performance.
Also, extra exceptional performance with cassette tapes is quite sophisticated, and not an amateur's best project. However, reel to reel, 7 1/2-15 ips is coming back for collectors, and other serious audiophiles.
In any case, it is a useful exercise in understanding how best it works.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.