FB RIAA eq design is better in handling pops and clicks than the passive eq design. The gain falls quickly with frequency, so the fast rise edges are reduced both in amplitude and SR. Let's not forget how the square response of the phono preamp looks like. And let's forget C's paper.
Attachments
@PMA
"FB RIAA eq design is better in handling pops and clicks than the passive eq design. The gain falls quickly with frequency, so the fast rise edges are reduced in amplitude. Let's not forget how the square response of the phono preamp looks like. And let's forget C's paper. "
Really?My UNU hybrid valve -BJT preamp measured perfect up to 20khz squarewave while being a passive design.
"FB RIAA eq design is better in handling pops and clicks than the passive eq design. The gain falls quickly with frequency, so the fast rise edges are reduced in amplitude. Let's not forget how the square response of the phono preamp looks like. And let's forget C's paper. "
Really?My UNU hybrid valve -BJT preamp measured perfect up to 20khz squarewave while being a passive design.
Question to anyone who has an opinion about it: should ticks and pops preferably be handled linearly or should they preferably be clipped by a clipping circuit that quickly recovers after clipping and then be filtered by a RIAA correction circuit? Or do you prefer clipping after RIAA correction, and if so, why?
Last edited:
for those who already know that this early 80's phono preamp is my favorite phono preamp of all times ,1S1555 are 1.3pf diodes while 1n4151 is 2pf diode and 1n4148 is a 4pf diode.
here's an old review:
REVIEW: Kenwood L-02A Integrated Amplifier (SS) - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net - Amp/Preamp Asylum
and an extract:
"The sound? How's this.........right up there with my Electrocompaniet separates. And in my humble opinion, that's saying quite a bit. In fact, in some cases it outpeformed them. I can't believe I'm typing this, but in the areas of microdynamics and detail, the Kenwood beat the EC gear hands down. Recording after recording showed a component that can easily reside in many prestigious systems available today. Especially with piano. That instrument reproduced by the Kenwood had a sparkle, reverberance and attack/decay that was very simply breath-taking. Now, with material where the bass is most prominent, it was easy to detect the differences between the Kenny and the EC, the EC easily beating out the Kenny regarding authority and control. Guess that's the difference between the Kenny's 170 WPC Class A/B and the EC's 250 WPC pure Class A. Soundstage width and depth would go narrowily to the EC, but the Kenny was no slouch in this department.
Its phono stage is among the best that I've used, and I've used quite a few. Currently, my phono stage is the Electrocompaniet ECP-1. One of the best in it's retail price category. And again, those same differences listed above were abundantly clear. Both are very quite, with the slight nod going to the EC. Bass again to the EC. But in the area of detail, and exacting sound previously unheard on my beloved recordings, the Kenny was the clear winner.
To rap this up, all I can say is what a joy it is to own this Integrated amp. And considering its age (20+ years), I have to take my hat off and salute the team who built it. From what I understand and read on various Kenwood web-sites, the team who built this and its matching tuner were the best of the best from Japan, and read like a who's who of 1970's/ 1980's Japanese audio history. It's also bittersweet, because the Kenwood of today is but a shadow of its former self.
But back then, they took a backseat to no one."
here's an old review:
REVIEW: Kenwood L-02A Integrated Amplifier (SS) - J-PMatt@Comcast.Net - Amp/Preamp Asylum
and an extract:
"The sound? How's this.........right up there with my Electrocompaniet separates. And in my humble opinion, that's saying quite a bit. In fact, in some cases it outpeformed them. I can't believe I'm typing this, but in the areas of microdynamics and detail, the Kenwood beat the EC gear hands down. Recording after recording showed a component that can easily reside in many prestigious systems available today. Especially with piano. That instrument reproduced by the Kenwood had a sparkle, reverberance and attack/decay that was very simply breath-taking. Now, with material where the bass is most prominent, it was easy to detect the differences between the Kenny and the EC, the EC easily beating out the Kenny regarding authority and control. Guess that's the difference between the Kenny's 170 WPC Class A/B and the EC's 250 WPC pure Class A. Soundstage width and depth would go narrowily to the EC, but the Kenny was no slouch in this department.
Its phono stage is among the best that I've used, and I've used quite a few. Currently, my phono stage is the Electrocompaniet ECP-1. One of the best in it's retail price category. And again, those same differences listed above were abundantly clear. Both are very quite, with the slight nod going to the EC. Bass again to the EC. But in the area of detail, and exacting sound previously unheard on my beloved recordings, the Kenny was the clear winner.
To rap this up, all I can say is what a joy it is to own this Integrated amp. And considering its age (20+ years), I have to take my hat off and salute the team who built it. From what I understand and read on various Kenwood web-sites, the team who built this and its matching tuner were the best of the best from Japan, and read like a who's who of 1970's/ 1980's Japanese audio history. It's also bittersweet, because the Kenwood of today is but a shadow of its former self.
But back then, they took a backseat to no one."
Attachments
Last edited:
Clipped by the clipping circuit at what level? A fast recovery clipping circuit may help with the phono stage output, but still the following gain stages (preamp, power amp) may also not take that easy an input overdrive.
This is to say, linear handled or not, the overall ticks and pops behavior is not only a phono stage potential issue. Which means the phono stage needs a decent headroom (20-30dB) but hunting for absurd values (like I've seen, a low noise transistor cascoded by a tube fed at +150V) doesn't make any sense to me.
Besides, if the phono stage is open loop, the clipping recovery is mostly a local non issue, anyway.
Not a real problem with valve cascodes except PSRR...You have a very wide range of valves that can cascode the transistor, but for mm circuits nobody should replace a tube with a transistor to do the first stage gain for many reasons.
On the other hand the higher impedance of the tube cascode terminated into a passive riaa should make for a very rich harmonic output that might actually be very pleasant.Some guys made a career out of designing cascoded riaa circuits and their clients never complained .
I'd treat tube circuits as a completely separate topic.It's a different world.
On the other hand the higher impedance of the tube cascode terminated into a passive riaa should make for a very rich harmonic output that might actually be very pleasant.Some guys made a career out of designing cascoded riaa circuits and their clients never complained .
I'd treat tube circuits as a completely separate topic.It's a different world.
I could imagine that the ticks are shorter in time and higher in amplitude before than after RIAA correction, because the RIAA correction is essentially a low-pass filter that smears them out in time. In that case, the really loud ticks could maybe be suppressed by having a clipper between the cartridge and the RIAA correction. The headroom between the musical peaks and the clipping threshold would then have to be as small as possible to get the best suppression. A possible implementation of such a clipper would be a flat gain amplifier that has as little headroom as possible and that recovers quickly after clipping.
However, I never tried any of this in real life, so I don't know if it really works the way I imagine it to work.
However, I never tried any of this in real life, so I don't know if it really works the way I imagine it to work.
I don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Please don't attempt to explain.
This might be the most expensive and soft clipping thing: Dynavector DRT XV-1t Cartridge -Audio Revelation | Vinyle, Platine vinyle thorens, Disque vinyle
XX2 | MC Phono Cartridge | Dynavector International Site
I wondered one day why two antiparallel schotky diodes wouldn't work if attached right at the input...at least others tried high speed diodes after the first stage.
XX2 | MC Phono Cartridge | Dynavector International Site
I wondered one day why two antiparallel schotky diodes wouldn't work if attached right at the input...at least others tried high speed diodes after the first stage.
Attachments
I made some studies over this stage approaching your theory here:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ana...sher-cc-3000-mm-phono-mods-2.html#post6063050
starting from here:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/348574-fisher-cc-3000-mm-phono-mods.html#post6056880
but i can't remember everything i tried at the time, except that Mark's topics on quasisaturation exhibit mostly by PNP transistors struck me when looking that most designs of that era had a pnp transistor as a CCS for the first gain stage.
I have an Audient ID22 soundcard that is well known to exhibit soft saturation with mic inputs when crancked and i'll try one day to take the schematic out as it might show a successfull commercial method of achieving this clipping behavior.
Clipping usually means breaking the feedback loop which could lead to most unwanted recovery problems.
However when using opamps, many of them nowadays are well armed against phase reversal and the so called TI soundplus opamps have excellent soft clipping mechanisms for as far I could measure.
So I rather would prefer to do the clipping as soon but as smooth as possible.
And I agree with Pavel that the first stage is the best place to start attenuating the plops and clicks actively instead of using a passive filter behind the first stage.
When simulating you will see an astonishing difference in favour of the active version.
Alternatively the 75u pole loading of the cart to keep the plops and clicks from the first stage will have similar effect in case of using an MM
Hans
- Status
- Not open for further replies.