• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Amazon Phono Preamp

Y

yewneek

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
86
Likes
60
Location
Hundred of Wantage
I purchased this Fasizi Record Player MM Phono Pre-amplifier and what I got was this

20230713_193528.jpg


My wishes were to have a preamp powered by USB so that I didn't have to use a 12V mains adapter, and I didn't particularly want anything superfluous like a headphone output etc.

Wasn't the cheapest as I was fearful of just gertting utter junk, so this seemed a good balance. Noting that the name brands are often just rebadged generic with the same circuits and op-amps, I'm going to be a realist, just get something that's not bottom rung.

Of course, I had to pop it open, and to be fair, it's not of a bad appearance. It has socketed DIP8 opamps, with Texas Instruments NE5532P, which I am likely to roll as I have some others in the attic from back when I tweaked a Philips CD650 a few years ago. I've got two of the CD650 and a couple CDM4 transports, because I do like Philips swing-arm and the TDA1541, but that's for another day.

20230713_121756.jpg


Opinions welcome on what I should try out, I'm going to be using a MM AudioTechnica VM95E. I have a Shure test record from the 60's or 70's but not one of the proper test records that have recently been brought to my attention by Amir in his Pro-Ject phono preamp review. My main turntable is a highly tuned Rega Planar 3 which has specs to match the Planar 6, with lots of custom shielding and damping (based on real science, and empirical nonsense, oddly)

Frankly, I don't feel technically adept enough to provide analysis of the preamp at this point, and the freebie Pioneer PL460 turntable I got this week is just going to get cleaned, tested out and flipped.

I do like the availability of the preamps and DACs in the last few years, and frankly, this site has done more for my faith in the lower-end Chinesium that any numer of other subjective review sites around.
Photos for reference.
20230713_195315.jpg
20230713_195237.jpg
20230713_195251.jpg


C&C welcome. Don't flame me, I'm not a BK whopper.

GB
 
If you are not hearing excess hum or hiss you are probably fine. Lower noise op-amps might give you less hiss but otherwise I wouldn't expect different op-amps to affect "sound quality". If you hear a high-pitch "whine" that's usually from USB power and power from a computer is likely to be worse than a separate power supply/charger.

Usually the weak link is the record itself, next the cartridge, and then the phono amp. If the RIAA equalization is off you can tweak that with EQ (or bass/treble controls) and in my experience (only with older records) the "frequency balance" on records varies a lot and it makes a bigger difference than the cartridge or the RIAA equalization.
 
Fair points to note, thanks!

I've found in the past that different USB 5V sources can give varying results of noise, likely on the ground rail. It tends to be, when present, digital noise aka 'birdies'. Google Chromecast PSU tends to be pretty clean. As you say, PC-based USB rails do tend to pick up and transmit noise excessively.

I've got a Hantek DSO so if I get time I'll put the preamp on it to try to produce a FFT of the noise floor without signal, connected to MM, etc.

Also in the pipeline is an ultrasonic cleaner for the records, but that's in train, when I can afford the motor mechanism. Using manual techniques for now.
 
yewneek said:
Fair points to note, thanks!

I've found in the past that different USB 5V sources can give varying results of noise, likely on the ground rail. It tends to be, when present, digital noise aka 'birdies'. Google Chromecast PSU tends to be pretty clean. As you say, PC-based USB rails do tend to pick up and transmit noise excessively.

I've got a Hantek DSO so if I get time I'll put the preamp on it to try to produce a FFT of the noise floor without signal, connected to MM, etc.

Also in the pipeline is an ultrasonic cleaner for the records, but that's in train, when I can afford the motor mechanism. Using manual techniques for now.
Click to expand...
I've heard that Apple's actual PSU's are quite clean as well - the problem being that counterfeits are plentiful.

As long as you're waiting for the pipeline, if you haven't already found it, read: The Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records (There's also a link to downloadable PDF).

It's a rather lengthy and technical read, but worthwhile, I think.

It's made quite a difference on some 50+ year old vinyl I've been asked to recover (by my mother in law).
 
BDWoody said:
Agreed on that document. I have an ultrasonic cleaner but am happier with the results I get from that process. The guy clearly knows his subject.
Click to expand...

I've been obsessing over how to clean records for a few years now. My results are good, the PACVR guide is essential reading. But I have this nagging curiosity about ultrasonic cleaning, people rave about it and companies charge thousands for them.

Have you ever had a record that only the ultrasonic could clean vs traditional techniques?
 
WDeranged said:
Have you ever had a record that only the ultrasonic could clean vs traditional techniques?
Click to expand...

No, and I'd actually say the 'hands on' process is better on the worst records. I put that big uglysonic pain in the ass away, and haven't used it since I got myself set up with exactly what's recommended in that doc.

Once I've cleaned a record, it goes in it's sleeve or on the table, and from then on I might have a little surface dust a normal brush can take care of but they won't need another deep cleaning in my experience so far.
 
I have a lot of demanding enthusiasts around me, who after having tried a lot of things on the "liquid machine" side.. seems to be joining the fairly recent WINYL PRO CLEAN-6...(and seem not to expensive in use)
;-)
 
BDWoody said:
No, and I'd actually say the 'hands on' process is better on the worst records. I put that big uglysonic pain in the ass away, and haven't used it since I got myself set up with exactly what's recommended in that doc.

Once I've cleaned a record, it goes in it's sleeve or on the table, and from then on I might have a little surface dust a normal brush can take care of but they won't need another deep cleaning in my experience so far.
Click to expand...

That's good to know. Puts my mind at ease a bit. There is a guy on ebay offering a degritter cleaning service. I do wonder about sending him a couple of my worst records just to see...
 
Still reading th PDF about cleaning, it's pretty detailed!

So far, my takeaway is that what I'm generally doing is pretty robust:
Surface dust off with a microfibre or brush wipe. Will likely get a Karcher WindowVac
Windowlene/Windex, and a concentric wipe, rinse if needed with (filtered+boiled) water
99.9% IPA soaking with a pump mister, wipe that off as above.
Inspect with UV when dry.
Play the damned record!

Testing the Windowlene followed by IPA on an window actually reveals any residue very effectively.

A Karcher WindowVac /knockoff seems a damned good investment in general. Going to get one for sure.

The ultrasonic project is just that, long term and likely to be one of the mechanisms from AliExpress which have popped up over the last couple of years.

Heve got the parts to construct my own, but sod it, easier to just fork out a hundred quid to get one pre-made.

Not being snobbish about this, I want to be able to use readily available, cheap, dependable substances and good solid science.

The WINYL PRO CLEAN-6 looks interesting, but I dont' know what's in it, and it seems expensive if I'm on a budget and dont' know if it's superior to making my own water/IPA/surfactant mix when I do actually get the ultrasonic thing working.

I've emailed WINYL PRO CLEAN-6 makers for the SDS as there's nothing on their website.
 
Last edited:
yewneek said:
Still reading th PDF about cleaning, it's pretty detailed!

So far, my takeaway is that what I'm generally doing is pretty robust:
Surface dust off with a microfibre or brush wipe. Will likely get a Karcher WindowVac
Windowlene/Windex, and a concentric wipe, rinse if needed with (filtered+boiled) water
99.9% IPA soaking with a pump mister, wipe that off as above.
Inspect with UV when dry.
Play the damned record!

Testing the Windowlene followed by IPA on an window actually reveals any residue very effectively.

A Karcher WindowVac /knockoff seems a damned good investment in general. Going to get one for sure.

The ultrasonic project is just that, long term and likely to be one of the mechanisms from AliExpress which have popped up over the last couple of years.

Heve got the parts to construct my own, but sod it, easier to just fork out a hundred quid to get one pre-made.

Not being snobbish about this, I want to be able to use readily available, cheap, dependable substances and good solid science.

The WINYL PRO CLEAN-6 looks interesting, but I dont' know what's in it, and it seems expensive if I'm on a budget and dont' know if it's superior to making my own water/IPA/surfactant mix when I do actually get the ultrasonic thing working.

I've emailed WINYL PRO CLEAN-6 makers for the SDS as there's nothing on their website.
Click to expand...

The Windex will probably work ok but it will certainly contain lots of chemicals that aren't necessary for the cleaning of vinyl and will probably leave residue. Still, as long as you're rinsing it will be fine, Windex isn't going to melt your records. I'd recommend going with a 50/50 mix of purified water and isopropyl for the rinse. Maybe even less isopropyl than that.

Alcohol is a great solvent for some substances but in some cases water is better, plus it's cheaper and lets you dowse the record with more fluid. You could look into getting a goathair brush to help push the solutions into the groove. Surface tension of the liquids is an issue and physical agitation helps greatly.

PACVR recommends adding a surfactant (to reduce surface tension) to the first rinse before doing a second pure rinse. Worth thinking about.

One last thought. Don't be afraid to do a pre-rinse under the tap, as long as you do a final rinse with purified water you'll remove any solids the tap water might contain.
 
Last edited:
Cheers.

Here's the SDS of Windowlene and it looks like BUTOXYPROPANOL is the main active ingredient.

The point of the cleaning is to get rid of 95% and not worrying about the remaining stuff we just won't hear at 50+ years old anyway.

Going into the massive intricacies of the solvents, cleaning, mechanisms, and the massive amount of info we have is a nightmare. We just won't end up achieving what we set out, to listen to relavively clean records with a minimum of fuss or overcomplication.

If we're on this website, we're generally not stupid and generally, pretty savvy I'd reason.

If I want pure sounds, i'll just download the FLAC. Torrents are preferred, but 320k mp3 is acceptable too. If I've got the vinyl album, the license has been purchased so I'm ethically clear on getting a digital copy.

If I want to faff around for a bit of fun with some vinyl, I will. I'm not archiving the long-lost discs. I'm pretty much going to put a bunch of dirty ones to the side, clean them, listen to them, and keep them to one side knowing I've given them a pretty solid wipe, confirmed by a good clean sound. We can hear it when it's shit.

My main system is an old JVC R-S7(probably needs main filter caps replacing), a highly tuned Rega Planar 2/3 hybrid from 1982 that my mum got with an inheritance, some Technics SB-R3 that need butyl surround repair on the squawkers, and a Philips CD650 I've modded with improved DIP8 opamps (but I have two of them).

Currrent reserve system is some JBL 104BT monitors that are actually quite nice, and whatever I have plugged into them, laptop, desktop, record player or whatever.

And the preamp above, and a freebie Pioneer PL-640 from freecycle that's going to get tested, calibrated, cleaned, and flipped on FB marketplace.
 
yewneek said:
Cheers.

Here's the SDS of Windowlene and it looks like BUTOXYPROPANOL is the main active ingredient.

The point of the cleaning is to get rid of 95% and not worrying about the remaining stuff we just won't hear at 50+ years old anyway.

Going into the massive intricacies of the solvents, cleaning, mechanisms, and the massive amount of info we have is a nightmare. We just won't end up achieving what we set out, to listen to relavively clean records with a minimum of fuss or overcomplication.

If we're on this website, we're generally not stupid and generally, pretty savvy I'd reason.

If I want pure sounds, i'll just download the FLAC. Torrents are preferred, but 320k mp3 is acceptable too. If I've got the vinyl album, the license has been purchased so I'm ethically clear on getting a digital copy.

If I want to faff around for a bit of fun with some vinyl, I will. I'm not archiving the long-lost discs. I'm pretty much going to put a bunch of dirty ones to the side, clean them, listen to them, and keep them to one side knowing I've given them a pretty solid wipe, confirmed by a good clean sound. We can hear it when it's shit.

My main system is an old JVC R-S7(probably needs main filter caps replacing), a highly tuned Rega Planar 2/3 hybrid from 1982 that my mum got with an inheritance, some Technics SB-R3 that need butyl surround repair on the squawkers, and a Philips CD650 I've modded with improved DIP8 opamps (but I have two of them).

Currrent reserve system is some JBL 104BT monitors that are actually quite nice, and whatever I have plugged into them, laptop, desktop, record player or whatever.

And the preamp above, and a freebie Pioneer PL-640 from freecycle that's going to get tested, calibrated, cleaned, and flipped on FB marketplace.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you've got your shit together. I tend to get a bit obsessive about things I enjoy, restoring old records feels good. Love my digital sources too, I've got a fairly decent production setup which is where digital really shines. But my living room equipment sounds better with vinyl.
 
WDeranged said:
Sounds like you've got your shit together. I tend to get a bit obsessive about things I enjoy, restoring old records feels good. Love my digital sources too, I've got a fairly decent production setup which is where digital really shines. But my living room equipment sounds better with vinyl.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't go as far as to say got it together, I'm still on the bottom rung of understanding but I like to tweak. It's reasonably easy to get old stuff sounding good, and to meet specifications of when it was designed with modern analytical gear, new components without QC problems of the past, and most importantly of all, the ability to share experience and learn and impart from and to others.

With a modicum of academic or scholastic science logic or knowledge, one can approach a perceived hifi issue and diagnose it, correct and implement that issue, and share and gain. In terms of gear available and a proliferation of redundant hifi not really appreciated by younger generations, we're in a realm of where we want to be.

People are literally tossing away hifi, you just have to simply put up adverts on the freebie websites that oldies use, and it's there to collect. Set up alerts to keywords, and act fast when it pings, and you've got gear to overhaul and keep, or flip.

Once in a while something falls into your lap that's unreal, a lot of the rest of the time it's average quality from back then but shits on new reproductions, aka 'retro'. The old stuff is what people want but many lack the basic ken of how to seek, even beyond the basic FB marketplace.

With a little effort, some minor techie stuff and yoi've got something singing again. A little decent writing to convey the refurbishment in the advert and you've got a sale. People actually respond to even the most basic assistance. and dcent obvious honesty in an advert. A private advert!

Some kids do want to get into it, but they just don't know how, so many are compartmentalised by their own peer groups that anything beyond an advert is actually often lost on them, this is my personal experience.

My last tape-player sale was a kid who travelled about 250km to buy a walkman! I don't do remote sales and get plenty of fakes trying the advance-fee fraud aka 419.

I've got one last Walkman left, a WM-DD33 then I'm done with tape. It's been tweaked before but a little remedial soldering to a hair-like wire is needed. I also have a couple of TDK MA90's left, still shrinkwrapped, but people don't seem very interested in buying, so I'll just hang on until they do!
 
After connecting to a Rega Planar 3 hybrid to a JVC R-S7 with an AudioTechnica VM-95E using the internal phono stage of the 1979 reeiver, and A/B with the Cadisi preamp, it immediatley became apparent that the external phono preamp was just awful.

Thin and gutless sound
1690640246332.png


Not recommended at all. And yes, you were all likely too polite to say anything.

Next level up for me...budget is going to be increased to probably £100.
 
I see this phono preamp is made out of ceramic capacitors in the riaa deemphasis part.
This is absolutely wrong, they distorts a lot if used with signal across.
Normal polyester or polystyrene caps will do a far better job.
 
yewneek said:
Cheers.

Here's the SDS of Windowlene and it looks like BUTOXYPROPANOL is the main active ingredient.
Click to expand...
If what you are looking at is section 3 of the SDS, this does not mean that butoxypropanol is the active ingredient. Section 3, in mixtures, lists the ingredients that are hazardous AND are above a threshold that depends on the hazards.
In this case, butoxypropanol is only 0.995% of the mixture. It could well be that there is something else (probably a surfactant) that is in much higher concentration but not being hazardous, does not need to me declared in section 3.
Actually, section 2.2 declares "<5% anionic surfactant, non-ionic surfactant and dye"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom