• Welcome to ASR. 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!

Classic Audio MC Pro Phonostage Review

Rate this phono stage:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 7 2.9%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 8 3.4%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 56 23.5%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 167 70.2%

  • Total voters
    238
One small comment if I may - if you go the milled-from-solid kind of presentation, I suspect you'll push the prices of these boxes through the roof into an increasingly fickle and, dare I suggest it, ignorant market where looks and often falsely perceived 'sound quality' rules still over proper design.....

Okay, I admit it, I'm a closet fan of Schiit's case offerings. They've gone through a few evolutions of their simple casework and I'd suggest it works a treat visually and simplicity. Could a variant of that idea be used here in the UK, or have we totally lost the plot here now.

I simply don't have the funds to even consider lavish looking boxes (many out there are sadly, swanky trinkets sold for a lot of money each box), so a simple utilitarian presentation suits me fine (the main gear hides away in a cabinet anyway :D ). Maybe your customers *want* something more 'eye-catchingly stylish and fair-do's if they do (E.A.R did this to advantage but hang the UK selling prices).

In all honesty, I'm looking forward to simplicity. I'm happy to hand back the saving from automation in production and testing of the boards into the enclosure. I suspect the real price will not need to change, and could even be reduced - it's quite possible to do this if I get the quantity of components I'm looking at using. The milled boxes will most likely be smaller than the current extruded ones as the SMT boards require less area. I'm aiming at less than 1 litre of volume for the new PRO designs and less than 600ml for the SPARTAN types. All well under 3kg blocks to start with, and even less once milled out.

At the moment I'm thinking of just running out all my current stock and packing up with just the new prototypes and drawings to go somewhere aluminium is cheap (perhaps 5th largest producer) and there are plenty of CNC shops.

The Schiit enclosures (and the company in general) are truly great. A fantastic implementation of the two-piece construction and simplicity itself - plus they've even managed to turn it into a distinctive style! I don't think I can compete with them at their price level and steel build style, so I will try and take position in the points in between them and the lower end of 'high-end'.

I still feel somewhat that that a weighty, sturdy, rock-solid enclosure with good finish quality contributes to the subjective listening experience. If you're wiring something like that into your setup and feeling the quality as you do, you're definitely more disposed to hear better things when it's switched on!

Something I get very often post-sale is 'if you make a higher-end version, can I go on a waiting list?'. It's clear a lot of people want to spend more and are even put off by the lower comparative prices of the PRO types. There should still be equal-or-better replacements for what's currently on offer at the present prices, then something more luxurious (maybe even with wooden sides) for those with higher budgets. I don't think I should try and make a line-amplifier for under 1k, though... Too much competition and too many similar devices. Now, a big full-size thing with VU meters, plenty of inputs and outputs, defeatable tone knobs + some expensive electronics inside to do the volume control sans-potentiometer or relay, that's a more exciting proposition!
 
The lf filter described seems to be left over from the high-compliance pickup era, where arm-cartridge resonances were too low in frequency (often well below 12Hz). Pickups do tend to response-lift below 22Hz or so (judging by the numerous charts I've seen - I haven't checked yet, but all my old HiFi Choices seem to be on the worldradiohistory site - thanks @restorer-john, I have several winters' reading set up now :D )

Here's a typical test on a once extremely popular chealie (2M Red is the replacement I believe) - the OM20. See how the response in a medium mass arm starts to rise at 30Hz... There's a big introduction describing the tests, what discs and loadings were used and the tonearm (LVX) which wasn't really able enoigh really for the better pickups tested, although entirely suitable for most if not all of the MMs tested.


Below the universal 'UK Flat-Earth' reference from the mid 80s before the Troika arrived - Linn Karma. Note the severe LF lift before the plotter or test disc cuts off in addition to the hf fall-off, so different to the ruler-flat digital response which caused consternation back then -


Anyway, further reading will show how necessary a carefully designed low filter actually is, as amps and current-trend small speakers simply don't want or need those frequencies (cone-flap and so on)...
I do not detect an issue (Also, I have a choice in filters or not to filter)
Ok: My turntables & cartridges (neither are modern):
Main one: TECHNICS SL-M3 (made 1984-88)
SL-M3

  • Technics SL-M3​

  • ¥ 99,800 (around 1986)
Type: fully automatic

Drive method: direct drive

Motor: brushless DC motor

Drive control method: quartz phase locked control

Platter: 325mm, 2.5kg, aluminium die-cast

Pitch control: +-6% range

Speeds: 33 and 45rpm

Wow and flutter: 0.022% WRMS

Rumble: -82dB

Tonearm: dynamically-balanced linear tracking

Effective length: 238mm

Effective mass: 13g (including cartridge)

Cartridge: moving magnet

Dimensions: 526 x 205 x 425mm

Weight: 15kg
I use a SHURE ULTRA 300 cartridge.

Secondary TT: DUAL 1229 (made: 1972-74)
1229

Description​

With the 1229, Dual has achieved what many audio experts have called the no-compromise automatic.

The most dramatic example of this is the mode selector that shifts the entire tonearm base - down for single play, up for multiple play.

Thus the stylus tracks at precisely the correct angle in both modes of play.

The 8 3/4 inch tonearm, the longest of any automatic, tracks flawlessly at as low as 0.25 gram.

Other 1229 features include 12 inch a dynamically balanced 7lb platter, powerful continuous pole / synchronous motor, built in illuminated strobe with adjustable viewing angle and a calibrated tracking pressure dial.

The unit has 3 speeds with one semitone pitch variation on all three speeds and the torsionally rigid, extra-long all-metal tonearm features four-point Gimbal type bearing.

Specifications​

Drive: synchronous continuous-pole motor with radial elastic suspension

Platter: non-magnetic, dynamically balanced, weighing 3,1kg

Speeds: 33.33, 45 and 78rpm

Pitch control variation: 6%

Speed accuracy deviation: +-0.06%

Signal to noise ratio: -63dB weighted

Tonearm: extra-long, torsionally rigid metal arm, in 4-point gimbal suspension, with skeletal head design

Cartridge holder: removable, accepts all 1/2" cartridges from 1 to 12g

Dimensions: 376 x 308mm

Weight: 7.
Here:
I use a SHURE V15 type IV cartridge.
 

Attachments

  • 1726689990584.png
    1726689990584.png
    87.2 KB · Views: 74
My 1977 APT/Holman Preamp Phono section has this that measures like this:
Phono Preamplifier measurements top

measured the PHONO 1 preamp at the TAPE 1 output. set the phono preamp to 47 kΩ and 50 pF, and drove it from the 5Ω source impedance of the R&S UPL.

Gain at 1 kHz is 35.64 dB left, and 36.03 dB right channel, an average numerical gain of 61.91x. (sample 91: 35.65/35.83 dB.)

A-weighted noise, with inputs terminated by the 5Ω source impedance of the R&S UPL, measures -86.36 dBV left, -90.30 dBV right. (Unterminated, noise measures about -80 dBV. Sample 91 measures -91.6/91.8 dBV A.)

Maximum input level at 1 kHz: 140 mV RMS at 0.1% THD, which leads to an 8.7V RMS output.

View attachment 393063
And a filter that does this:

15 Hz filter (only) response.

The low-frequency response is the same with the tone controls either defeated or engaged, for all inputs and all outputs.

The 15 Hz filter is selected with a rear-panel switch.

It's -1/2 dB at 20 Hz, -1 dB at 17.5 Hz, -2 dB at 15 Hz, -3 dB at 14 Hz, - 5 dB at 12 Hz and -10 dB at 10 Hz.

So: NOT WISHFUL THINKING>
I appreciate this perspective, but strongly feel that getting the response down -20dB at 10Hz is worth sacrificing 0.7dB at 30Hz for. Apologies in advance for this unfalsifiable/wishy-washy statement, but based on transfers I've done in the past -10dB at 50Hz still leaves visible 'wiggles' on the waveform that will probably upset a fair few speakers.

Maybe I should give a 24/12Hz option for a more elaborate future higher-end design? Or maybe have something like the 12Hz filter sitting 'under' a defeatable 24Hz one?
 
I appreciate this perspective, but strongly feel that getting the response down -20dB at 10Hz is worth sacrificing 0.7dB at 30Hz for. Apologies in advance for this unfalsifiable/wishy-washy statement, but based on transfers I've done in the past -10dB at 50Hz still leaves visible 'wiggles' on the waveform that will probably upset a fair few speakers.

Maybe I should give a 24/12Hz option for a more elaborate future higher-end design? Or maybe have something like the 12Hz filter sitting 'under' a defeatable 24Hz one?
I mainly threw this out there because of a statement about "wishful thinking" as I have certainly measured some musical notes (such as an 88 key piano) in the 20-30 HZ range).
I think that I like your second option better: 12Hz always on, 24Hz can be on or off.
The low note of the piano, I believe, was at 27Hz.
IF a digital parametric EQ were in the "processor loop" (such as my Apt/Holman preamps have) and IF one found it necessary: one could boost a decibel or 3 at 30Hz, the 27HZ fundamental of the piano would be fine & below that: the filter cuts would "have our back" so to speak.
I believe that is a Capital idea!
 
I do not detect an issue (Also, I have a choice in filters or not to filter)
Ok: My turntables & cartridges (neither are modern):
Main one: TECHNICS SL-M3 (made 1984-88)
SL-M3

  • Technics SL-M3​

  • ¥ 99,800 (around 1986)
Type: fully automatic

Drive method: direct drive

Motor: brushless DC motor

Drive control method: quartz phase locked control

Platter: 325mm, 2.5kg, aluminium die-cast

Pitch control: +-6% range

Speeds: 33 and 45rpm

Wow and flutter: 0.022% WRMS

Rumble: -82dB

Tonearm: dynamically-balanced linear tracking

Effective length: 238mm

Effective mass: 13g (including cartridge)

Cartridge: moving magnet

Dimensions: 526 x 205 x 425mm

Weight: 15kg
I use a SHURE ULTRA 300 cartridge.

Secondary TT: DUAL 1229 (made: 1972-74)
1229

Description​

With the 1229, Dual has achieved what many audio experts have called the no-compromise automatic.

The most dramatic example of this is the mode selector that shifts the entire tonearm base - down for single play, up for multiple play.

Thus the stylus tracks at precisely the correct angle in both modes of play.

The 8 3/4 inch tonearm, the longest of any automatic, tracks flawlessly at as low as 0.25 gram.

Other 1229 features include 12 inch a dynamically balanced 7lb platter, powerful continuous pole / synchronous motor, built in illuminated strobe with adjustable viewing angle and a calibrated tracking pressure dial.

The unit has 3 speeds with one semitone pitch variation on all three speeds and the torsionally rigid, extra-long all-metal tonearm features four-point Gimbal type bearing.

Specifications​

Drive: synchronous continuous-pole motor with radial elastic suspension

Platter: non-magnetic, dynamically balanced, weighing 3,1kg

Speeds: 33.33, 45 and 78rpm

Pitch control variation: 6%

Speed accuracy deviation: +-0.06%

Signal to noise ratio: -63dB weighted

Tonearm: extra-long, torsionally rigid metal arm, in 4-point gimbal suspension, with skeletal head design

Cartridge holder: removable, accepts all 1/2" cartridges from 1 to 12g

Dimensions: 376 x 308mm

Weight: 7.
Here:
I use a SHURE V15 type IV cartridge.
I knew the 1229 intimately and miss mine terribly (I lent it to someone, never to be seen again). I replaced it with my 701 and the family has expanded in recent years. Background drive noise is mainly a motor harmonic (reduced with motor servicing and careful wiring loom 'loop' dressing) and an almost inaudible 'whine' in the midrange (all but buried in the surface noise - heavy-platter Lencos are similar).

I still prefer not to have the bass cones flapping all over the place and a good sub 20Hz filter if a good one, does no harm these days.
 
Last edited:
One small comment if I may - if you go the milled-from-solid kind of presentation, I suspect you'll push the prices of these boxes through the roof into an increasingly fickle and, dare I suggest it, ignorant market where looks and often falsely perceived 'sound quality' rules still over proper design.....

I agree.

Milled from solid is the antithesis of energy, material and tooling efficiencies to me. Sure, you can collect and recycle the spoil material, but I can't see how anyone can spin that type of manufacture as being good for home HiFi gear.

Machined and finished castings, sure.
 
I agree.

Milled from solid is the antithesis of energy, material and tooling efficiencies to me. Sure, you can collect and recycle the spoil material, but I can't see how anyone can spin that type of manufacture as being good for home HiFi gear.

Machined and finished castings, sure.
You've hit upon an important point there. If you look ahead into the future, you can start with milling for the first 20-50 pieces and then move to die-casting and milling for the rest of the run once the product has proved itself and paid for the moulds.
 
Does anyone knows if the Spartan 20 will be available in the US, for someone looking for an MM/MC phono stage this looks very good. Don't know if Mr Fiddler does a Black Friday sale on the Pro MC, based on the demand and sell price close to cost probably not.
Great product for vinyl lovers.
 
Does anyone knows if the Spartan 20 will be available in the US, for someone looking for an MM/MC phono stage this looks very good. Don't know if Mr Fiddler does a Black Friday sale on the Pro MC, based on the demand and sell price close to cost probably not.
Great product for vinyl lovers.

It is a great product.
Talk to @Michael Fidler . He may be able to ship internationally.
 
It is a great product.
Talk to @Michael Fidler . He may be able to ship internationally.
MC PRO - nearly gone, at least for a few months!

S20 - I can be persuaded to ship this to the USA.
 
I knew the 1229 intimately and miss mine terribly (I lent it to someone, never to be seen again). I replaced it with my 701 and the family has expanded in recent years. Background drive noise is mainly a motor harmonic (reduced with motor servicing and careful wiring loom 'loop' dressing) and an almost inaudible 'whine' in the midrange (all but buried in the surface noise - heavy-platter Lencos are similar).

I still prefer not to have the bass cones flapping all over the place and a good sub 20Hz filter if a good one, does no harm these days.
A bit OT, but I believe the name "Dual" came from the early ones being powered by electric motors or clockwork. Do you happen to know when they last did that?
 
Don't you think companies prepare those "test" devices before they are sent to you? Such tests cannot be trusted - my point of view.
Me, I don't think so. If a company could 'prepare' a device for a test, why wouldn't they use the very same preparation to improve said device in the first place? Even if they cherry picked, the specs are based on design, components and build quality. If there are any significant variations, this would indicate a production issue, not a design one.
 
Me, I don't think so. If a company could 'prepare' a device for a test, why wouldn't they use the very same preparation to improve said device in the first place? Even if they cherry picked, the specs are based on design, components and build quality. If there are any significant variations, this would indicate a production issue, not a design one.
+1 the way modern electronics are designed it would be hard to do , so much of the performance is the circuit design and feedback design .
Negative feedback swats all kinds of component variations and makes every production board very similar .
If the design is suspectable to component tweaking i would say its broken anyway ?
 
Me, I don't think so. If a company could 'prepare' a device for a test, why wouldn't they use the very same preparation to improve said device in the first place? Even if they cherry picked, the specs are based on design, components and build quality. If there are any significant variations, this would indicate a production issue, not a design one.
Dunno. It costs *something* to check every product, not just the occasional one.
 
Dunno. It costs *something* to check every product, not just the occasional one.
It costs far more not to check and send out that 5% that will end up destroying the reputation of the business. My test failure rate is about 3%, mainly due to resistors misplaced and those polystyrene EQ caps failing short circuit after solder heat. I test all of these for...

  • RIAA compliance from 100-10kHz (will be compliant outside of this region if test points are OK)
  • Channel matching in low and high gain mode
  • LFC accuracy, mono cancellation to at least -40dB
  • Table rock/shake' test for dry/bad joints in mono cancellation mode and stereo mode
  • Subsonic filter cutoff point and attenuation at 10Hz
  • THD at subsonic frequencies (to check for cap distortion)
  • THD at all RIAA test points at maximum output
  • Visual waveform inspection of clipping behaviour (checks output amplifiers and supply rail behaviour)
  • Noise from 220Hz up measured with 10 ohm input load
  • Noise from 22Hz up to make sure flicker noise isn't excessive
  • Input supply current...
Takes about 15-20 minutes per unit, but well worth doing. I don't make that many because I don't have to due to my overheads being in my spare room + relatively modest lifestyle requirements.


If you're interested, here are my test procedure notes + auxiliary notes that I wrote up a couple of years ago when I started testing and finalising the first production units

Test fixture measurements...

Test box -20db attenuator measures -20.03dB through dScope
With 56 ohm attenuator leads we get -33.93dB through dScope

Therefore Zout is 221.45 ohms

With a 118.4 ohm load from the MC pro we get an extra load of 38.02 ohms with the 56 ohm leads

Therefore insertion loss from the dScope is -16.68dB which translates to roughly -36.7dB through the attenuator box, assuming the reference level.

RIAA test points relative to 1kHz at 0dB are

100Hz 13.08dB
1kHz 0dB
10kHz 13.73dB

MC Pro 1kHz gain is 63.17dB no load, 63.16dB into the dScope, 26.46dB with attenuator on input

Therefore RIAA test points will be

100Hz 39.54dB 45.56dB XLR
1kHz 26.46dB 32.48dB XLR
10kHz 12.73dB 18.75dB XLR

+9.92dB for the gain switch so...

1kHz 36.38dB 42.4dB XLR


Noise measurements

The easiest way to do this will be to start the test with the 10 ohm shorting plugs and measure the noise output from 220Hz to 22kHz using the 10 ohm shorting plugs. Doing so in the real world gives roughly 68.5dBV of noise on the output.

At full gain and referenced to a 500uV source amplified by 73.08dB + 6.02dB for the balanced output (including dScope insertion loss) yields 4.51VRMS or 13.08 dBV. Therefore SNR is 81.58dB. Derate to 81dB for the spec.

This translates to an output noise not exceeding -68dBV of noise with the 10 ohm shorting plugs connected on high gain through a balanced connection.


THD testing

The best way to do this is at the low gain setting at the three test points. THD should measure below 5ppm at each point.

100Hz 110mV from gen
1kHz 500mV from gen
10kHz 2.4V from gen

These will give roughly 21V RMS on the output as per the spec.


Crosstalk tests

Crosstalk hits about 72dB at 20kHz - pretty much the same as the MM PRO. Rate this in the spec.

Test -76dB crosstalk both channels at 10kHz, or 72dB at 20kHz


LFC tests

100Hz phase inverted on one channel

65Hz <44dB gain
120Hz <42dB gain


Test procedure

POWER UP TESTS

Use 10 ohm shorting plugs, connect using XLR leads, bandwidth is 220Hz to 22kHz

Powers on within 5-7 seconds

Restart unit, 73dB gain mode, noise measures below 68dBV


LOW FREQUENCY TESTS

Set distortion analyser to 100mV at 20Hz, DC block, low gain mode

Gain less than 48dB?

Decrease frequency to 10Hz.

17dB attenuation from previous value?

Increase frequency to 100Hz and flip the phase on one channel

LFC centred - gain between 41-2dB?

LFC ACW - gain between 43 and 44.5dB?

LFC CW - gain between 29.5-30.5dB?

Mono switch gives less than 6dB residual gain?


RIAA AND LINEARITY TESTS

FFT measures both channels THD (to remain below 5ppm at all times)

Increase level to 110mv, 100Hz generator tied, low gain

45.46-45.66dB both channels?

Increase frequency to 1kHz, high gain mode (THD should show around 7ppm - ignore)

42.3-42.5dB both channels?

Low gain mode, 500mV RMS

32.38-32.58dB?

Flip the phase of one channel

Less than -8dB gain?

Increase the frequency to 10kHz, level to 2.4V RMS

18.65-18.85dB?


CROSSTALK TEST

Split the generator and switch each channel off in turn

Off channel less than -56dB?

PASS!

68.


79dBV A-weighted
78dBV 220Hz
76dBV 100Hz
73dBV 22Hz

So A-weighted SNR should be 82dB
220Hz SNR 81dB
100Hz SNR 79dB
22Hz SNR 76dB


Noise measurements (400Hz - 22kHz at 73dB gain)

BC327 Old RS 330uV double
360uV single

And new!

BC32740BU 380uV single
FN 2453777 340uV double

BC327BU 430uV single
FN 2822524 370uV double

BC32725BU 430uV single
FN 2822523 370uV double

2N4403TFR 440uV single
FN 2453756 380uV double
 
It costs far more not to check and send out that 5% that will end up destroying the reputation of the business. My test failure rate is about 3%, mainly due to resistors misplaced and those polystyrene EQ caps failing short circuit after solder heat. I test all of these for...

  • RIAA compliance from 100-10kHz (will be compliant outside of this region if test points are OK)
  • Channel matching in low and high gain mode
  • LFC accuracy, mono cancellation to at least -40dB
  • Table rock/shake' test for dry/bad joints in mono cancellation mode and stereo mode
  • Subsonic filter cutoff point and attenuation at 10Hz
  • THD at subsonic frequencies (to check for cap distortion)
  • THD at all RIAA test points at maximum output
  • Visual waveform inspection of clipping behaviour (checks output amplifiers and supply rail behaviour)
  • Noise from 220Hz up measured with 10 ohm input load
  • Noise from 22Hz up to make sure flicker noise isn't excessive
  • Input supply current...
Takes about 15-20 minutes per unit, but well worth doing. I don't make that many because I don't have to due to my overheads being in my spare room + relatively modest lifestyle requirements.


If you're interested, here are my test procedure notes + auxiliary notes that I wrote up a couple of years ago when I started testing and finalising the first production units

Test fixture measurements...

Test box -20db attenuator measures -20.03dB through dScope
With 56 ohm attenuator leads we get -33.93dB through dScope

Therefore Zout is 221.45 ohms

With a 118.4 ohm load from the MC pro we get an extra load of 38.02 ohms with the 56 ohm leads

Therefore insertion loss from the dScope is -16.68dB which translates to roughly -36.7dB through the attenuator box, assuming the reference level.

RIAA test points relative to 1kHz at 0dB are

100Hz 13.08dB
1kHz 0dB
10kHz 13.73dB

MC Pro 1kHz gain is 63.17dB no load, 63.16dB into the dScope, 26.46dB with attenuator on input

Therefore RIAA test points will be

100Hz 39.54dB 45.56dB XLR
1kHz 26.46dB 32.48dB XLR
10kHz 12.73dB 18.75dB XLR

+9.92dB for the gain switch so...

1kHz 36.38dB 42.4dB XLR


Noise measurements

The easiest way to do this will be to start the test with the 10 ohm shorting plugs and measure the noise output from 220Hz to 22kHz using the 10 ohm shorting plugs. Doing so in the real world gives roughly 68.5dBV of noise on the output.

At full gain and referenced to a 500uV source amplified by 73.08dB + 6.02dB for the balanced output (including dScope insertion loss) yields 4.51VRMS or 13.08 dBV. Therefore SNR is 81.58dB. Derate to 81dB for the spec.

This translates to an output noise not exceeding -68dBV of noise with the 10 ohm shorting plugs connected on high gain through a balanced connection.


THD testing

The best way to do this is at the low gain setting at the three test points. THD should measure below 5ppm at each point.

100Hz 110mV from gen
1kHz 500mV from gen
10kHz 2.4V from gen

These will give roughly 21V RMS on the output as per the spec.


Crosstalk tests

Crosstalk hits about 72dB at 20kHz - pretty much the same as the MM PRO. Rate this in the spec.

Test -76dB crosstalk both channels at 10kHz, or 72dB at 20kHz


LFC tests

100Hz phase inverted on one channel

65Hz <44dB gain
120Hz <42dB gain


Test procedure

POWER UP TESTS

Use 10 ohm shorting plugs, connect using XLR leads, bandwidth is 220Hz to 22kHz

Powers on within 5-7 seconds

Restart unit, 73dB gain mode, noise measures below 68dBV


LOW FREQUENCY TESTS

Set distortion analyser to 100mV at 20Hz, DC block, low gain mode

Gain less than 48dB?

Decrease frequency to 10Hz.

17dB attenuation from previous value?

Increase frequency to 100Hz and flip the phase on one channel

LFC centred - gain between 41-2dB?

LFC ACW - gain between 43 and 44.5dB?

LFC CW - gain between 29.5-30.5dB?

Mono switch gives less than 6dB residual gain?


RIAA AND LINEARITY TESTS

FFT measures both channels THD (to remain below 5ppm at all times)

Increase level to 110mv, 100Hz generator tied, low gain

45.46-45.66dB both channels?

Increase frequency to 1kHz, high gain mode (THD should show around 7ppm - ignore)

42.3-42.5dB both channels?

Low gain mode, 500mV RMS

32.38-32.58dB?

Flip the phase of one channel

Less than -8dB gain?

Increase the frequency to 10kHz, level to 2.4V RMS

18.65-18.85dB?


CROSSTALK TEST

Split the generator and switch each channel off in turn

Off channel less than -56dB?

PASS!

68.


79dBV A-weighted
78dBV 220Hz
76dBV 100Hz
73dBV 22Hz

So A-weighted SNR should be 82dB
220Hz SNR 81dB
100Hz SNR 79dB
22Hz SNR 76dB


Noise measurements (400Hz - 22kHz at 73dB gain)

BC327 Old RS 330uV double
360uV single

And new!

BC32740BU 380uV single
FN 2453777 340uV double

BC327BU 430uV single
FN 2822524 370uV double

BC32725BU 430uV single
FN 2822523 370uV double

2N4403TFR 440uV single
FN 2453756 380uV double
Thanks for putting me straight, and for the detailed description. What a standard you work to, although it shouldn't be any surprise! :)
 
Thanks for putting me straight, and for the detailed description. What a standard you work to, although it shouldn't be any surprise! :)
Thanks! When you start a business on your own, time is all you have. I'm hoping not only to automate all these tests in the future, but also to have the individual test results printed directly into the manual of each unit (or at least included in a separate document). At the moment, I keep notes on all the serial numbers since ASR, so if any failure mode manifests itself in the future I could correlate it with certain deviations from the median (but still within specification).

When I worked somewhere that could be described by the phrase 'Bureaucrats As Engineers', just a few miles from my current base of operations, a lot of stuff was outsourced as the real engineers were replaced/managed by administrators and real quality control was almost non-existent outside of almighty piles of arbitrary and practically ineffective procedures that were simultaneously mandatory reading and extremely conovulted/difficult in their accessibility. There were more recalls, flops, and scares in a period of a few months than I ever saw in all my time working at small companies - some very amusing stories. I'm hopefully making up for the lost time with this venture!
 
Last edited:
A bit OT, but I believe the name "Dual" came from the early ones being powered by electric motors or clockwork. Do you happen to know when they last did that?
It's all on the net somewhere. Apologies, but my knowledge of the brand doesn't go back that far (although I've read the history in the past), apart from the PE range of changers being kind-of distantly related (families split for a good while before the brands amalgamated together again in the 70s).

Here ya go - bless 'em... The number of drives they made in the very early days beggars belief I think. I wonder how many 'changers Garrard made in their heyday?


Back to topic - sort of - I've found a really good phono stage with loads of clean headroom and a decent well aligned stylus fitted to a carefully sited turntable system, tends not to magnify record noises and subjectively, can make a good record quiet enough to suspend disbelief. many of the 'stages tested here simply aren't good enough frankly I feel, when overload margins deteriorate so much at higher frequencies.
 
Last edited:
Bearing in mind low stock levels, and recent developments in the market, I have increased the price slightly...
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-12-10 at 01-34-45 PRO Series Products - Michael Fidler Classic Audio Ltd.png
    Screenshot 2024-12-10 at 01-34-45 PRO Series Products - Michael Fidler Classic Audio Ltd.png
    459.3 KB · Views: 132
Back
Top Bottom