• 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!

Classic Audio MC Pro Phonostage Review

Rate this phono stage:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 7 3.2%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 6 2.8%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 54 24.8%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 151 69.3%

  • Total voters
    218
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: 17
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom