because up to date electronic room correction only works in the digital domain,
because an AD / DA procedure does not work without certain losses and is, IMHO, absolutely
needless just for the RIAA correction,
My point is not, what to use DSP for (you can do virtually everything you want); my point is how to setup a reasonable analog playback system right now and not in 10 or 20 years time…
Sorry, but your idea:
MC-cartridge > analog phono preamp without RIAA (there is no such animal on the market !) or step-up transformer > AD > digital RIAA > DA > amp > speakers
seems just absurd to me.
All good, in an ideological argument there at no winners. You have your beliefs based on your experience and I have mine. I am certainly not trying to prove you wrong.
You love your Accuphase. I loved my Boulder, a different sound aesthetic maybe but still arguably somewhere up there aspiring to the SOtA. But when I challenged my own preconceptions and listened I found the Devialet* sounded better, and at a fraction of the price (and real estate) too. This was my “road to Damascus” experience. YMMV.
And sorry, just to be clear, this is ADC, digital phono preamp, impedance and capacitance-matched, with RIAA equalisation executed in the digital domain and then DAC directly prior to amplification. No analog phono preamp, no SUT. The link is just to indicate what I am referring to, unfortunately the linked page is just marketing soufflé liberally seasoned with TLAs and totally unbefitting of the underlying audio engineering!
It has nothing to do with beliefs (that is for the church).
I chose my system by listening to music, and that is what I still do, just listen to music.
What is the brand and model of this phono ADC? Where can I buy it? What does it cost?
BTW, I might be interested in that sort of phono stage, but I know, that a Devialet amp is far from being the right match for my speakers, sorry. And as for the DAC, I’m absolutely happy with my Vivaldi APEX DAC.
I am talking about the phono stage in the Devialet Expert. I believe the phono stage is the same in all models, I had a D 250 PRO CI which replaced my Boulder stack (Phono, DAC, Pre, Power)
Per my posts above, unfortunately it is only available as part of these integrated digital amplifiers. Neither the ADC nor the phono stage are sold separately (except as the Arch which has only wireless outputs). If it had been I would have bought one in a heartbeat.
Bartók driving a Nord Three DM Mk II power amp, no preamp currently. Which leaves my turntable a bit out in the cold - hence my interest in a digital phono.
I described my system and posted some pics in this thread.
I ran my Rega RP10 with Aria phono stage and an Apheta MC cartridge through a PS Audio reference tube pre amp and it didn’t sound as good as running the phono stage directly into my dac (meridian 808v6) which has analogue inputs that are digitised .
Fast forward 18 months and I now use a Technics SL7 linear tracking turntable (with a MM cartridge but has no built in phono stage ) and connect it to a Pro Ject Optical E phono box (phono-stage /ADC ) which in turn is connected via optical to my Rossini Apex. The sound quality is much better than it has any right to be - the little pro Ject box costs less than £100.
There is no reason that can be applied in general. In my case I have a preamp with a superb inbuilt phonostage which happens to be a hybrid FET/tube design. It too uses transformers as is common with tube designs.In practice I use an outboard phonostage for the prosaic reason originally that I have both mono and stereo pickups one MC one MM ( separate arms and carts). The outboard phonostage has inputs configured for both so I can switch between them without needing to fiddle around changing input wiring.
The question of preamp inbuilt v. outboard all depends upon the specific equipment.
However I think that to rephrase your question , what about headamp v. SUT (step up transformer)? Simply a matter of taste IMO. Many people prefer the resulting sound of mating of MCs with SUTs ( me too) but I don’t think that there is necessarily a fixed rule.
Very interesting Martin, thanks! What I can’t figure out from the specs is if it has customisable loading/capacitance. It clearly does the RIAA DSP though…
I think that the “it” in this sentence is the RME. The configuration that @meltemi posted is an SUT coupled to the RME. The RME may have adjustable loading/capacitance but in this example is doesn’t matter as it is preceded by the SUT and it is this that which raises voltage to a level suitable for the RME and provides the loading . However loading an MC via an SUT is not the same as loading in an active headamp partly because the voltage gain and loading are interdependent. Further as a practical consideration the result is sonically less sensitive to loading than with MMs. The link below is a lengthy but good explanation. Of course the comments are made with eventual reference to their products but in general the explanation is universally applicable. BTW MC cartridges are not sensitive to capacitance which is mainly of significance with MM pickups.
As the RME Input spec is similar to that of a standard MM phono input the SUT preceding it should work well. Most modern MC cartridges have an internal impedance of 10 ohms or lower ( yes , there are exceptions). As many SUTs effectively exhibit an input impedance of 100 ohms this will likely suit a wide range of cartridges insofar as it matters.
Yes. I get “that” some favor sut to phono pre. I understand that it is just personal preference. What i dont understand is what about it is preferable. Is the sound more dynamic or softer or smoother or rounder or is the difference just a mental preference. Thx. B
I really find this question difficult to answer. I tend not o listen along those lines - it either sounds “right” or not to me . Further communicating such things seems as if I would be implying that such an experience will result when the different way people hear may mean something else to each individual. For example if I say something sounds smoother ( and I am not), someone else may interpret the sound instead as being “lacking” in some way, say its impulse behaviour. We are all different and do not necessarily react in the same way.
Another issue is that although I happen to use and like transformers I do not consider them as a necessarily superior technique. My choice has been bound by availability and budget and I am sure I could be ecstatic if If as an alternative I could afford the CH phono preamp ( up to 39,500 gbp) . In general SUTs have a reputation of offering lower S/N ratios but at this level I am sure that units with active gain such as this are fully competitive.
I think that I also need to mention that another aspect is the choice of SUT itself. They are not all of equal status.
Sorry this is all inconclusive. So we’ll settle on:
This is very helpful Pete, thanks. I have (as you can maybe tell) no experience with SUTs and hadn’t thought through the implications. Your and Martin’s posts have been a real eye opener.
You probably already deduced this but how i describe is much like you. You say “right” and i personally use more real or believable. I used these other descriptives to see if i could pry those types of descriptives from you. Totally get it. I have a john curl phono stage but still listening for more reality. Thx
If people are interested I will repeat myself from a few weeks back. This ADC has balanced inputs and if it is for digitising vinyl you will need to ensure that your phonostage has balanced out. Further this was a unit designed for the professional studio market and is not plug and play. Please try to familiarise yourself with the user manual to ensure that you are happy that you have the relevant expertise.
Incidentally I attempted to find and post a link to the manual but cannot find the one I looked at earlier. May you have better luck.
. In general SUTs have a reputation of offering lower S/N ratios but at this level I am sure that units with active gain such as this are fully competitive.