New to the forum and just reading through some old threads. This one caught my attention as I am thinking along similar lines since I am currently preamp-less.
However it is not just the digital output I am interested in. I believe with all the advances in DSP over the last few years, performing RIAA equalisation in the digital domain is both more cost effective and, quite possibly capable of producing higher quality than analog circuits. I had in mind that one of the summit-fi brands (like Goldmund) produced a digital phono stage (or was it a turntable with a built in ditto?) a few years ago, although I canât remember for the life of me which it was and canât find any trace of it online.
I should confess that the thought of processing phono signals digitally would have been a complete anathema to me only a few years ago! Maybe times really do change or maybe I am jut mellowing with age. Or both.
Anyway, in my investigations into digital phono stages I found two that merit attention:
The M2Tech Joplin. Now unfortunately discontinued and last available in Mk.III form at around âŹ2500. A businesslike looking unit and one of which I have read favourable reviews online.
The Parks Audio Puffin. Recently discontinued and replaced by the Waxwing which will cost $499 in the US. I have a couple of friends with Puffins and they rave about them claiming it is a real giant killer. Reviewed by Amir on ASR here.
The approach of using an analog phono stage combined with an ADC as described above is of course completely valid and capable of yielding excellent results. But while it will appeal to hobbyists this is an area which I think invites, maybe even demands consumer-grade solutions, and where such are starting to appear, albeit slowly.
I am likely going in one of these two directions. Anybody here with any experience of either?
Indeed they do, and the phono is extremely high quality. I had a Devialet Premier (upgraded to Expert 250 to 250 Core Infinity) at the heart of my system for about ten years so I can say this from personal experience.
Wonderful sound, fantastic (hardware) engineering innovations, stunning industrial design. I just grew frustrated with their ineptitude on the software engineering side of things. Release cycles so long they are almost geological (the current firmware release for the Expert for instance is now over two years old), and bugs that take ages to or never get fixed. The communications and customer support also sucked. Badly.
If they made the phono stage available separately and with normal wired outputs I would almost certainly buy one. Unfortunately they only released it as Arch, an accessory to their âlifestyleâ Phantom range and only with wireless output.
But for people just wanting a great sounding one-box solution with a sky high WAF and not too worried about keeping pace with technology developments I would give it a strong endorsement. The Expert is not just a pretty face.
Although the idea of digital conversion is attractive it is usual to match both sensitivity and input impedance to the phono cartridge in use. With both of the products cited they seem (from my reading) to be limited to 47k Ohms which could limit the choice(s) of cartridge particularly if you use MC.
BTW what is the turntable pictured by you in your earlier posts and is there a story behind what appears to be a BPI silver or platinum disc ?
I think that aside from my point above what you are thinking of could be successful. However I have approached the question from another angle. Accuracy per se might be desirable but vinyl records are not âaccurateâ. No cutting engineer who wants to continue employment makes âaccurateâ records. They want to make a great sounding disc and to this end employ all sorts of EQ and other tricks. Moreover they are doing this in the light of what they expect to be typical replay conditions to be like.
So having a disc collection that dates back to the early 1950s I decided to more or less go for a replay system that takes account of the type of replay that had been anticipated for the discs albeit to current day standards.
So I have MC cartridge/transformer step up/ tube phonostage. Good enough to reveal new dimensions of records I have had for 50 years or more. Mind you I have a mono cart too for suitable discs but this is MM.
This in no way a recommendation but am mentioning all of this as you seem to enjoy tube amplification and I wonder if you might want to give it some further thought ?
IMHO digitizing an LP only makes sense, if you need the signal in digital form for backup or to use it with an electronic room correction.
The best digital SQ will be achieved by a worldclass phono preamp (e.g. Accuphase C-47) combined with a top class professional ADC (e.g. from RME, or built into the Accuphase electronic room correction DG-68).
Good point Pete, and definitely one to be borne in mind by people going this route. The nice thing about the aforementioned Devialet stage was that both inductive and capacitative loading were software configurable which I kinda assumed (incorrectly it seems) was the case with the Puffin.
Nice that you noticed. Itâs a Nordic Concept Artist designed and manufactured by Robert Grubstad, owner of a local hifi dealer here in Stockholm, and sadly long out of production. Itâs a fascinating piece of engineering from multiple perspectives, with an innovative use of materials and lots of novel solutions to all the usual engineering challenges. Robert posted a thread about its inception, some of the design thinking and its construction in a Swedish audio forum. Unfortunately itâs all in Swedish although the pictures (now unfortunately sunk without trace) were in English! Google around however and you will find plenty of pics and a couple of reviews. Any pics of an Artist sporting a Beuer 8c are of mine which I think is one of only one or two with a Zebrawood plinth!
The platinum disc is Steve McQueen by Prefab Sprout and the story is one of a formative gig during my first week of University, a life-long fandom, a glass of wine too many and some poor impulse control. The only way I could explain it to my wife was that it is one of my Horcruxes. Part of my soul is locked inside it!
I think your approach makes sense, and will be the right way to go for some. Although as I said, for my money DSP is the way to go for RIAA equalisation as well as the parametric recreation of period âreplay conditionsâ.
Iâm now using a RME BabyFace Pro between my phono stage and Bartok and it works just fine. The Babyface works as a standalone audio interface that allows one to adjust the input and output gain to avoid analogue clipping on the input and digital clipping on the output.
Everyoneâs entitled to their opinion but I donât hold this as an axiom as you seem to. I believe we will reach a point, and may well have already , where a digital phono stage will outperform the best analog units (my own favourite is the Soulution), both subjectively and objectively. Probably not one of the models I mention above, but the rate of evolution of digital electronics comfortably exceeds that of analog.
Why do you see room correction as a legitimate use of DSP but not RIAA correction?
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 timeâŠ
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 âroad to Damascusâ experience. YMMV.
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, Iâm 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.
BartĂłk 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 didnât 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 ÂŁ100.
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 donât think that there is necessarily a fixed rule.