listening test verdict part I : phonoclone 4
I'm splitting this into two parts to keep me honest. I'll do the phonoclone first reviewed as a reference in and of itself, then look at the Emerald in part II in a comparative test against the Phonoclone.
System:
Denon DP-2000, DA-307, DL-103 (0.3 mV / 40 ohms)
[phonoclone/emerald]
Sapphire 4 headphone amplifier (26 dB)
Sennheiser HD-600 (300 ohms, 97 dB/mW)
Phonoclone details:
4.3s (as 4.5 but with old mounting holes)
OP27 IC1 and IC2
R1=47.5 ohms, R2=475 ohms (55 dB gain with DL-103)
V+,V- ~9V
op amp notes: I prefer OP27 to NE5534A. OP27 is smoother and quieter.
gain notes: I reduced R2 from 1k to 475 ohm to lower the gain 6 dB to 55 dB. This matches with my Emerald build. 55 dB with either my headphone amp or the Sapphire Preamp set at 6 dB is very comfortable for low/moderate listening levels. It could stand to be a couple of dB higher, but from a personal preference I'm happy with it at 55 dB.
test notes: I gave up trying to make digital recordings. Just too much information is lost to be able to effectively make any kind of judgement. Direct headphone connection is the most revealing method. The reproducibility of my analog front end is always suspect however. If the sound doesn't seem quite 100%, chances are some dust got into the armature well of the cartridge, or some groove gunk got stuck to the side of the stylus. The tests are therefore made on a "best effort" basic only.
**
The phonoclone has been my reference for a long while and the phonoclone 4 with the S-Reg is the best version by a significant measure. It has what I'd call "coherent tonality". Everything sounds right, everything sounds musical, everything sounds good. It is somewhat midrange-centric, and slightly warm and defocused. The music is presented as an interwoven, organic entity. The phonoclone doesn't obscure individual details, but it doesn't highlight them either. Completely non-fatiguing and completely satisfying, I could listen to it forever.
Some people might want a level of pinsharp resolution this phono stage does not deliver, or at least a bigger and more expansive stereo image. This is not a phono stage that sounds "cranked", and I can totally see how some might have an alternate set of preferences on that score. In terms of listening enjoyment though, for me the phonoclone brings it home.
**
ok, now I need to go switch in the Emerald and see if I will end up regretting writing the above...
I'm splitting this into two parts to keep me honest. I'll do the phonoclone first reviewed as a reference in and of itself, then look at the Emerald in part II in a comparative test against the Phonoclone.
System:
Denon DP-2000, DA-307, DL-103 (0.3 mV / 40 ohms)
[phonoclone/emerald]
Sapphire 4 headphone amplifier (26 dB)
Sennheiser HD-600 (300 ohms, 97 dB/mW)
Phonoclone details:
4.3s (as 4.5 but with old mounting holes)
OP27 IC1 and IC2
R1=47.5 ohms, R2=475 ohms (55 dB gain with DL-103)
V+,V- ~9V
op amp notes: I prefer OP27 to NE5534A. OP27 is smoother and quieter.
gain notes: I reduced R2 from 1k to 475 ohm to lower the gain 6 dB to 55 dB. This matches with my Emerald build. 55 dB with either my headphone amp or the Sapphire Preamp set at 6 dB is very comfortable for low/moderate listening levels. It could stand to be a couple of dB higher, but from a personal preference I'm happy with it at 55 dB.
test notes: I gave up trying to make digital recordings. Just too much information is lost to be able to effectively make any kind of judgement. Direct headphone connection is the most revealing method. The reproducibility of my analog front end is always suspect however. If the sound doesn't seem quite 100%, chances are some dust got into the armature well of the cartridge, or some groove gunk got stuck to the side of the stylus. The tests are therefore made on a "best effort" basic only.
**
The phonoclone has been my reference for a long while and the phonoclone 4 with the S-Reg is the best version by a significant measure. It has what I'd call "coherent tonality". Everything sounds right, everything sounds musical, everything sounds good. It is somewhat midrange-centric, and slightly warm and defocused. The music is presented as an interwoven, organic entity. The phonoclone doesn't obscure individual details, but it doesn't highlight them either. Completely non-fatiguing and completely satisfying, I could listen to it forever.
Some people might want a level of pinsharp resolution this phono stage does not deliver, or at least a bigger and more expansive stereo image. This is not a phono stage that sounds "cranked", and I can totally see how some might have an alternate set of preferences on that score. In terms of listening enjoyment though, for me the phonoclone brings it home.
**
ok, now I need to go switch in the Emerald and see if I will end up regretting writing the above...
listening test verdict part II : Emerald 10c
Emerald details:
10c
OP27 IC1 and IC2
J1-1,2 closed
R1=47.5k, R2,3=100 ohms R4=2.21k, R5=1.5k (55 dB gain)
V+,V- ~9V
test note: The coupling capacitor is slightly different between phonoclone and emerald. Phonoclone is Multicap PPFXS 2uF film/foil, Emerald PPMFX 3uF metallized film. It is expected that the film/foil should sound better, but I've not tried to compare.
The circuits have different RIAA errors. The expected difference in frequency response is shown in the attached plot. The Emerald has a much flatter response, the Phonoclone something of a midrange and bass bump.
Nothing of the above would be expected to make a huge difference, but then again no huge difference was heard so anything and everything remains on the table.
**
With OPA27s in both circuits, the Emerald and Phonoclone sound the same, tonally speaking. The Emerald is more open, clean, and detailed - but it has a sightly harder edge than the Phonoclone, which sounds warmer and slightly fuzzy in comparison. The Emerald is objectively better, the Phonoclone is subjectively more enjoyable to listen to. The sum total of the differences are small and of a level that indeed could be explained by minute differences in the frequency response, or in the quality of the coupling capacitors.
I will look at changing coupling caps shortly, but essentially the point rests: for all practical intent the two circuits are equals.
**
I found that the OPA27 performs better than the NE5534A in both the Phonoclone and Emerald builds. The NE5534A brings a grittiness to the phonoclone, and overemphasizes the hardness in the Emerald. OPA27 is quieter and smoother in both, and more pleasant. Emerald BOMs have been updated to list OPA27 as the default for both IC1 and IC2. I did not try "mix and match" i.e. using different types for IC1 and IC2. It's possible the NE5534A is still a good choice for IC2. You are welcome to experiment.
Emerald details:
10c
OP27 IC1 and IC2
J1-1,2 closed
R1=47.5k, R2,3=100 ohms R4=2.21k, R5=1.5k (55 dB gain)
V+,V- ~9V
test note: The coupling capacitor is slightly different between phonoclone and emerald. Phonoclone is Multicap PPFXS 2uF film/foil, Emerald PPMFX 3uF metallized film. It is expected that the film/foil should sound better, but I've not tried to compare.
The circuits have different RIAA errors. The expected difference in frequency response is shown in the attached plot. The Emerald has a much flatter response, the Phonoclone something of a midrange and bass bump.
Nothing of the above would be expected to make a huge difference, but then again no huge difference was heard so anything and everything remains on the table.
**
With OPA27s in both circuits, the Emerald and Phonoclone sound the same, tonally speaking. The Emerald is more open, clean, and detailed - but it has a sightly harder edge than the Phonoclone, which sounds warmer and slightly fuzzy in comparison. The Emerald is objectively better, the Phonoclone is subjectively more enjoyable to listen to. The sum total of the differences are small and of a level that indeed could be explained by minute differences in the frequency response, or in the quality of the coupling capacitors.
I will look at changing coupling caps shortly, but essentially the point rests: for all practical intent the two circuits are equals.
**
I found that the OPA27 performs better than the NE5534A in both the Phonoclone and Emerald builds. The NE5534A brings a grittiness to the phonoclone, and overemphasizes the hardness in the Emerald. OPA27 is quieter and smoother in both, and more pleasant. Emerald BOMs have been updated to list OPA27 as the default for both IC1 and IC2. I did not try "mix and match" i.e. using different types for IC1 and IC2. It's possible the NE5534A is still a good choice for IC2. You are welcome to experiment.
Attachments
Last edited:
Richard, very good review of both preamps.
As for the graph, what inverse RIAA circle do you use for the simulation in LTSpice ?.
As for the graph, what inverse RIAA circle do you use for the simulation in LTSpice ?.
Hello again. I came up with this scheme with two relays to compare two stages of phono with the same turntable and the same amplifier.
Is it feasible ?.
The diagram has an error in the relay driver transistor
Is it feasible ?.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The diagram has an error in the relay driver transistor
Last edited:
I don't use an inverse RIAA, I compare the simulation output directly to the reference response.
The relay idea looks fine to me. It's a fair bit of work to do up though, and you'll have to be careful about noise pickup routing the phono cartridge signal.
Attachments
Endgame now. I know what the circuits sound like, so it's now down to the components.
I moved the Multicap 2 uF PPFXS over to the Emerald. The hardness I had noted earlier evaporated, while the clear, open top end remained. This combination is very potent.
I put Mundorf M-Cap Supreme 2.2 uF in the Phonoclone. The darker, warmer presentation remained but with additional plumminess from the cap which I did not care for.
At configured now, I prefer the emerald. With the PPFXS in both it's too close to call. I can appreciate the remaining differences, but couldn't say one is better than the other.
I moved the Multicap 2 uF PPFXS over to the Emerald. The hardness I had noted earlier evaporated, while the clear, open top end remained. This combination is very potent.
I put Mundorf M-Cap Supreme 2.2 uF in the Phonoclone. The darker, warmer presentation remained but with additional plumminess from the cap which I did not care for.
At configured now, I prefer the emerald. With the PPFXS in both it's too close to call. I can appreciate the remaining differences, but couldn't say one is better than the other.
--photos of boards--
Emerald preorders will ship today.
[Yes, I managed to miss the "phonoc stage" typo on the Phonoclone boards in proof. Laugh it up, fuzzball.]
Emerald preorders will ship today.
[Yes, I managed to miss the "phonoc stage" typo on the Phonoclone boards in proof. Laugh it up, fuzzball.]
Attachments
Last edited:
LOL!
I already fixed it the Eagle files I've uploaded to my website, so if you get the typo you'll know you have the genuine article! 🙂
I already fixed it the Eagle files I've uploaded to my website, so if you get the typo you'll know you have the genuine article! 🙂
Hi, I think it's an excellent phono preamp. It's a pity that I've already purchased the VSPS400. But I'm still happy.
It is an obsession that I have with this preamplifier. I am preparing the list of materials to buy by mail (U $ S 199). Exaggerate a bit with the components, right?
Anyway I would have liked to join Esmerald, but it's too late, I have the VSPS400 boards
Greetings.
It is an obsession that I have with this preamplifier. I am preparing the list of materials to buy by mail (U $ S 199). Exaggerate a bit with the components, right?
Anyway I would have liked to join Esmerald, but it's too late, I have the VSPS400 boards
Greetings.
Don't feel bad - the main difference the Emerald can switch between MM and MC phono gain while the VSPS400 is MM only.
There are a couple of other improvements - but they are comparatively minor. I discontinued the VSPS400 in favor of the Emerald because the similar BOM cost leaves no good reason not to build an Emerald - it's like getting an MC phono stage for free.
There are a couple of other improvements - but they are comparatively minor. I discontinued the VSPS400 in favor of the Emerald because the similar BOM cost leaves no good reason not to build an Emerald - it's like getting an MC phono stage for free.
latest phonoclone BOM
I fixed a small error in the gain calculator that was introduced in the recent "fix". More importantly I cleaned up the explanatory notes which now read as follows,
I fixed a small error in the gain calculator that was introduced in the recent "fix". More importantly I cleaned up the explanatory notes which now read as follows,
I grabbed all the available cartridge data on the vinylengine database and had a look in excel to see what the statistics looked like.
The answer I got surprised me: the Denon DL-103 is NOT a typical MC cartridge. If you rank them by current output, the DL103 and many other Denon models are outliers, with about 4x less current than is typical.
The median voltage sensitivity is 0.4 V, with the median DC resistance of 11 ohms. The median current output is 33 microamps, compared with just 7 microamps for the DL103. Current output directly determines the size of the phonoclone R2 value.
In terms of the optimal value of R2 then, as the histogram shows most cartridges fall between 100 and 300 ohms, with about an equal number above and below that range. The most typical value of R2 would therefore be about 221 ohms.
You would typically want to operate the phonoclone with a value of R2 less than a factor of two from the ideal value for the cartridge used.
The answer I got surprised me: the Denon DL-103 is NOT a typical MC cartridge. If you rank them by current output, the DL103 and many other Denon models are outliers, with about 4x less current than is typical.
The median voltage sensitivity is 0.4 V, with the median DC resistance of 11 ohms. The median current output is 33 microamps, compared with just 7 microamps for the DL103. Current output directly determines the size of the phonoclone R2 value.
In terms of the optimal value of R2 then, as the histogram shows most cartridges fall between 100 and 300 ohms, with about an equal number above and below that range. The most typical value of R2 would therefore be about 221 ohms.
You would typically want to operate the phonoclone with a value of R2 less than a factor of two from the ideal value for the cartridge used.
Attachments
Last edited:
Photo of my Emerald 1.0s personal build. The S-Reg runs independently of the phono stage, so even without the opamps, coupling cap, and input resistors installed the board can be powered up, run in, and tested.
The 1000/25 Muse KZ caps are pretty big, with 10 mm standoffs the total height runs to about 48 mm. If this ends up too big for your case, you can always go with the 1000/25 FG which are about 10 mm shorter - or the KW/FW series of course.
The 1000/25 Muse KZ caps are pretty big, with 10 mm standoffs the total height runs to about 48 mm. If this ends up too big for your case, you can always go with the 1000/25 FG which are about 10 mm shorter - or the KW/FW series of course.
Attachments
Last edited:
Presumably 12-0-12 center tap. (red-black-red)
This will be fine. The rectifier connection is a bit different than the default dual bridge, you will use a single bridge, with the black wire connecting to COM. Consult the datasheet or just Google image search "center tap bridge rectifier circuit".
This will be fine. The rectifier connection is a bit different than the default dual bridge, you will use a single bridge, with the black wire connecting to COM. Consult the datasheet or just Google image search "center tap bridge rectifier circuit".
I was expecting a "part II" ...
( I guess I got a head start as the case was already made! )
[Build details: as per the 10s9 BOM with Nichicon Muse KZ, Takman REY for R1-5, and Multicap PPFXS 2.0 uF 100 V for C3. RCA are Oyaide RJ-127HRh a relatively inexpensive rhodium plated part.]
Attachments
Last edited: