Fosi Audio Box X5 Phono Preamp Review

[AudioSceptic]

Thanks for your observation, though I am not sure what your purpose was in making it.

It relates to the Box X5 in that someone requested those tests for this product. My reply is to point out why that makes no sense. Specifically for this product. As you rightly point out it also applies for any other.

That's not how I read it: I thought Milosz was asking for a "general vinyl SINAD" measurement to put phono preamp measurements, not just this one, into some perspective.

 

[Mulder]

You best get out of audio market as this is by far the norm, than the exception. PDF? you must be kidding me...

I did some investigations. I looked at websites for Schiit, JDS-Labs, Cambridge Audio and Pro-Ject and searched for PDF:s. All provide downloadable PDF:s with specs and/or instructions. They do of course not provide the same complete measurements data as ASR, so ASR measurement data is still important. But from my small investigation, it is rather the norm that the manufacturer provides PDF:s, not the exception.

 

[AudioSceptic]

I did some investigations. I looked at websites for Schiit, JDS-Labs, Cambridge Audio and Pro-Ject and searched for PDF:s. All provide downloadable PDF:s with specs and/or instructions. They do of course not provide the same complete measurements data as ASR, so ASR measurement data is still important. But from my small investigation, it is rather the norm that the manufacturer provides PDF:s, not the exception.

That is what I've found too. It's hardly a difficult job to provide PDFs when some sort of written spec must already exist. Exhaustive measurements are another story, of course.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Only read the first two pages so far, but I'm still cautious as regards hf overload margine, bearing in mind cheaper pickups tend to have hf peaks still, rather than deep suckouts as in pre-digital days... A 3 or 6dB peak at 10 - 15k isn't uncommon and this may well eat away at hf overload margins - perhaps?

Still, phenominally cheap and with MC input too.

I'd also suggest a mandatory lf filter below 15 - 20Hz though, as this thing will usually be used with cheaper turntables and not necessarily set up or sited properly (so many pictures I see of modern vinyl systems often set up as a shrine to 'audio' make the little remaining career audio-dealer in me cringe I'm afraid...

Not sure about the "cheaper turntables". There is an unavoidable resonance at a subsonic frequency, regardless of the TT/arm/cartridge quality. The exact frequency will vary, of course, depending on mass and compliance, and damping can reduce the peak, but it's always there and it does no good to amplify it, even if it's at the optimum 10-12 Hz.

 

[SIY]

Which generator should be adopted and adapted then?
;-)

Nearly any MM will show the same effect. I picked a common one with a rather normal level of DCR and L.

 

[milosz]

While doing that sounds nice in theory, in practice that opens a "can of worms". What cartridge, which stylus profile, what turntable, which test record, how many times do you play the rest record before tossing it, etc. Significantly changing the test protocols basically invalidates previous results. While the testing routine may not be "perfect", it does provide "value".

So many people claim that vinyl is superior to digital, I am interested to see how they would react to actual data. And yes, various test conditions will affect results, but isn't that true of EVERY audio device test? Testing DAC "A" will produce different results from DAC "XYZ" but we still do the tests and look at the results anyway. I think a representative setup of vinyl playback gear can be selected that folks would agree is supposedly good high-end gear - A VPI table with one of their arms and a Dynavector cartridge, or with an SME arm and an Ortofon OM-20, or a classic Linn Sondek LP12; I don't think even die-hard vinyl advocates would argue that an LP12 with a Sumiko BluePoint is somehow so inferior that it would produce falsely bad results.

I have seen various forum posts claiming "90 dB dynamic range" and "lower distortion than CD" for LP playback, and I want ammunition to dispute such nonsense.
============================================

"I can't go to bed yet - there are still people on the Internet who are wrong."

 

[rank]

No sane person claims that.
The turntables/tonearms/cartridges at no price (we are at the extremes respectively at $500,000/100,000/16,000) bring nothing compared to an AT LP 120.
The cartridge tests are done for example on a TECHNICS 1500.
Because of the detachable Ortofon/SME type headshell which allows a better adjustment.
Concerning the Fosi test, thanks to Amir as always, everyone should have voted GREAT. It is an excellent device regardless of price, whose measured performances far exceed those of the best pressings (200 grams or more on 2 45 rpm records, oyéh!).
Which cost $200.

 

[AudioSceptic]

So many people claim that vinyl is superior to digital, I am interested to see how they would react to actual data. And yes, various test conditions will affect results, but isn't that true of EVERY audio device test? Testing DAC "A" will produce different results from DAC "XYZ" but we still do the tests and look at the results anyway. I think a representative setup of vinyl playback gear can be selected that folks would agree is supposedly good high-end gear - A VPI table with one of their arms and a Dynavector cartridge, or with an SME arm and an Ortofon OM-20, or a classic Linn Sondek LP12; I don't think even die-hard vinyl advocates would argue that an LP12 with a Sumiko BluePoint is somehow so inferior that it would produce falsely bad results.

I have seen various forum posts claiming "90 dB dynamic range" and "lower distortion than CD" for LP playback, and I want ammunition to dispute such nonsense.
============================================

"I can't go to bed yet - there are still people on the Internet who are wrong."

Exactly, and I confess that I was late switching from LP to CD/digital. I thought the latter sounded "thin", "clinical", or even "soul-less", but realised eventually that what I took to be "musicality" or whatever was actually the combination of various distortions. In fact, when you look at a vinyl system objectively, it's a miracle that it can sound as good as it does. IMO it would be good to have 2 or 3 high-end TT combinations measured, of different basic design, including DD and belt-drive suspended (a Linn LP12 would have to be in there somewhere).

This thread has prompted me to reconnect my TTs to remind myself how LPs sound.

 

[Bob from Florida]

So many people claim that vinyl is superior to digital, I am interested to see how they would react to actual data. And yes, various test conditions will affect results, but isn't that true of EVERY audio device test? Testing DAC "A" will produce different results from DAC "XYZ" but we still do the tests and look at the results anyway. I think a representative setup of vinyl playback gear can be selected that folks would agree is supposedly good high-end gear - A VPI table with one of their arms and a Dynavector cartridge, or with an SME arm and an Ortofon OM-20, or a classic Linn Sondek LP12; I don't think even die-hard vinyl advocates would argue that an LP12 with a Sumiko BluePoint is somehow so inferior that it would produce falsely bad results.

I have seen various forum posts claiming "90 dB dynamic range" and "lower distortion than CD" for LP playback, and I want ammunition to dispute such nonsense.
============================================

"I can't go to bed yet - there are still people on the Internet who are wrong."

Never heard of 90 db dynamic range for turntables. Would not matter even if true. Recordings seldom exceed 30 db dynamic range and many are under 10 db dynamic range. Max dynamic range for turntables is around 60 db, which makes it more than adequate for playback of compressed recordings. What is concerning is what we can actually perceive. Things like background hum, noise, and deviation in frequency response. This is also affected by age related hearing and overall individual "pickiness" and listening volume (low noise setup requires "cranking the volume to hear the noise"-louder than one would listen to music). Nowadays Digital is easy - basically "plug and play". Vinyl playback has way more variability. Incompatible components along with improper setup equals "bad sound". This does not have to "break the bank" if one is careful with choices. There is work involved, which is required initially, and upkeep(belts for some and cartridges). I don't mind doing it because of the fun factor. If vinyl continues its "comeback" I think we will eventually see some really "good" turnkey setups at reasonable pricing.

 

[rongon]

No sane person claims better specs for vinyl playback compared to digital.
Vinyl playback is electro-mechanical, therefore it includes much larger errors than digital encoding/playback.
But, being an electro-mechanical playback system, it is subject to resonances all through the playback setup.

I mean, think about it: A tiny stone on the end of a tiny metallic tube connected to a tiny magnet inside a tiny electromagnetic coil, attached to a long metal tube with tiny wires running through it (resistance, capacitance, friction), terminating in a pivot, then out through a longer cable (capacitance!) to the electronic frequency corrector/preamplifier. It's amazing it plays anywhere near decently!

Just like with speakers, the constructor needs to balance the inevitable system resonances to end up with a pleasing sounding playback. (Of course the goal is zero resonances, but nobody gets there in a vinyl playback system.)
These resonances are (should be!) entirely absent from a digital playback system.
I'm sure it's the 'sound signature' of the vinyl system's resonances (or relative lack thereof) that account for the differences in sound between tonearms and turntables.

I disagree with the idea that an AT-LP120 sounds exactly the same as bigger, heavier, beefier turntables. I have three good turntables, a stock Technics SL-1200mk2 from 2009 (built like a tank!), a Thorens TD124 (rebuilt motor, upgraded mechanical parts, etc.) with an ATP-12T tonearm and a Fairchild 412 with a Japan Piezo tonearm (even more of a tank!). They all sound good in their own ways, and they all sound noticeably different. I just helped a friend buy a vintage turntable, a 1970s Sony belt-drive in very good playing condition. That sounded different from my Fairchild, and my friend noticed it right away (the Fairchild sounds noticeably better, fuller bass, cleaner stereo imaging, lower perceived noise)... And I haven't gone into the differences in sound between cartridges yet (which are *significant*, and dependent on loading, effective tonearm mass, etc.).

Yet, vinyl playback can sound more 'fun' than good digital. I don't know why. But since I collected something like 3,000 records over the last 50 years or so, I figure I should enjoy them. And so I do...

 

[Mulder]

No sane person claims better specs for vinyl playback compared to digital.
Vinyl playback is electro-mechanical, therefore it includes much larger errors than digital encoding/playback.
But, being an electro-mechanical playback system, it is subject to resonances all through the playback setup.

I mean, think about it: A tiny stone on the end of a tiny metallic tube connected to a tiny magnet inside a tiny electromagnetic coil, attached to a long metal tube with tiny wires running through it (resistance, capacitance, friction), terminating in a pivot, then out through a longer cable (capacitance!) to the electronic frequency corrector/preamplifier. It's amazing it plays anywhere near decently!

Just like with speakers, the constructor needs to balance the inevitable system resonances to end up with a pleasing sounding playback. (Of course the goal is zero resonances, but nobody gets there in a vinyl playback system.)
These resonances are (should be!) entirely absent from a digital playback system.
I'm sure it's the 'sound signature' of the vinyl system's resonances (or relative lack thereof) that account for the differences in sound between tonearms and turntables.

I disagree with the idea that an AT-LP120 sounds exactly the same as bigger, heavier, beefier turntables. I have three good turntables, a stock Technics SL-1200mk2 from 2009 (built like a tank!), a Thorens TD124 (rebuilt motor, upgraded mechanical parts, etc.) with an ATP-12T tonearm and a Fairchild 412 with a Japan Piezo tonearm (even more of a tank!). They all sound good in their own ways, and they all sound noticeably different. I just helped a friend buy a vintage turntable, a 1970s Sony belt-drive in very good playing condition. That sounded different from my Fairchild, and my friend noticed it right away (the Fairchild sounds noticeably better, fuller bass, cleaner stereo imaging, lower perceived noise)... And I haven't gone into the differences in sound between cartridges yet (which are *significant*, and dependent on loading, effective tonearm mass, etc.).

Yet, vinyl playback can sound more 'fun' than good digital. I don't know why. But since I collected something like 3,000 records over the last 50 years or so, I figure I should enjoy them. And so I do...

From an audiophile point of view I think you are leaving out perhaps the most important reason why some people prefer vinyl. The massacre of good sound that has taken place in the loudness war that has raged in the music-industry in recent decades. Vinyl records often sound better because they are simply better mastered. It doesn't matter how fantastic the performance of a HiFi system is, whether it is digital or not, if the music material itself is lousy. For example, there are recordings of classical music that are now 60 years old but still sound fantastic, despite all the limitations of the technology of the time.

 

[GWolfman]

Does Fosi have a parent company?

 

[antcollinet]

This is the review thread for a particular device, the Fosi X5.


Let's take the off topic discussion about the pro/cons of vinyl vs digital to the approprate thread, where it has already been done to death. We don't need to rehash it in every review of a vinyl relevant device.

 

[rongon]

From an audiophile point of view I think you are leaving out perhaps the most important reason why some people prefer vinyl. The massacre of good sound that has taken place in the loudness war that has raged in the music-industry in recent decades. Vinyl records often sound better because they are simply better mastered. It doesn't matter how fantastic the performance of a HiFi system is, whether it is digital or not, if the music material itself is lousy. For example, there are recordings of classical music that are now 60 years old but still sound fantastic, despite all the limitations of the technology of the time.

Good point!

 

[rongon]

This is the review thread for a particular device, the Fosi X5.


Let's take the off topic discussion about the pro/cons of vinyl vs digital to the approprate thread, where it has already been done to death. We don't need to rehash it in every review of a vinyl relevant device.

The discussion is about the relevance of SINAD as *the* figure of merit for an RIAA phono stage.

 

[rank]

No sane person claims better specs for vinyl playback compared to digital.
Vinyl playback is electro-mechanical, therefore it includes much larger errors than digital encoding/playback.
But, being an electro-mechanical playback system, it is subject to resonances all through the playback setup.

I mean, think about it: A tiny stone on the end of a tiny metallic tube connected to a tiny magnet inside a tiny electromagnetic coil, attached to a long metal tube with tiny wires running through it (resistance, capacitance, friction), terminating in a pivot, then out through a longer cable (capacitance!) to the electronic frequency corrector/preamplifier. It's amazing it plays anywhere near decently!

Just like with speakers, the constructor needs to balance the inevitable system resonances to end up with a pleasing sounding playback. (Of course the goal is zero resonances, but nobody gets there in a vinyl playback system.)
These resonances are (should be!) entirely absent from a digital playback system.
I'm sure it's the 'sound signature' of the vinyl system's resonances (or relative lack thereof) that account for the differences in sound between tonearms and turntables.

I disagree with the idea that an AT-LP120 sounds exactly the same as bigger, heavier, beefier turntables. I have three good turntables, a stock Technics SL-1200mk2 from 2009 (built like a tank!), a Thorens TD124 (rebuilt motor, upgraded mechanical parts, etc.) with an ATP-12T tonearm and a Fairchild 412 with a Japan Piezo tonearm (even more of a tank!). They all sound good in their own ways, and they all sound noticeably different. I just helped a friend buy a vintage turntable, a 1970s Sony belt-drive in very good playing condition. That sounded different from my Fairchild, and my friend noticed it right away (the Fairchild sounds noticeably better, fuller bass, cleaner stereo imaging, lower perceived noise)... And I haven't gone into the differences in sound between cartridges yet (which are *significant*, and dependent on loading, effective tonearm mass, etc.).

Yet, vinyl playback can sound more 'fun' than good digital. I don't know why. But since I collected something like 3,000 records over the last 50 years or so, I figure I should enjoy them. And so I do...

I think you are answering questions that no one but you asked. Probably to justify yourself because then you list your gear and the number of your records, which doesn't add up.
I never said that the sound won't be different, but that it won't be better. I have a friend who has 15,000 vinyls, he tried several fairly expensive turntables, without getting much out of them.Then you declare without any proof other than a simple comparison (!) that one sounds better than the other and that the record brings more listening pleasure. An argument that I have only read here.
There are tons of sites or forums here where you can expose this kind of stories.
Here the subject is Fosi.

 

[rongon]

This site wouldn't exist if people did what you are asking. Today, specs are reduced to just physical dimensions on some audio products! Yes, a few still provide detailed specs but even those lack the sweeps and such. So you better not put this at the feet of Fosi much less for such a low cost device. The data you want is provided in the review and if not, you are welcome to get one and produce the rest.

Did you post the input capacitance and impedance for MM and MC inputs? I'm sorry if I missed them.

 

[antcollinet]

The discussion is about the relevance of SINAD as *the* figure of merit for an RIAA phono stage.

That discussion was not what I was referring to. There are plenty of posts upthread just rehashing the old vinyl v digital stuff (eg loudness wars).

 

[Ecaroh]

Great performance at a cheap price.. but as someone already said, the input capacitance, for both MM and MC cartridges, is as much as important as the input resistance... as an example, I replaced the input capacitance (220pF) of my Marantz PM 6007 phono input board with some smaller 47pF because the original 220pF, in addition to another 100pF of the (good) RCA cable, made an annoying magnification of the high frequencies around 12/13kHz (frequency response verified with two different LP test vinyl with frequency sweep and pink noise), now the frequency response is almost flat.

In conclusion: the best "cheap" phono preamps (as the Schiit Mani 2) have the possibility to change the input capacitance to adapt the frequency response to your cartridge output impedance. I would never buy this phono preamp because of missing specs about its input impedance.

Re: the last sentence, Fosi does supply a few specs on this. They're in the manual but not on the Fosi site, and PDFs for the manual don't seem to be posted as yet, unlike those for other Fosi manuals; a matter of great outrage here. Two excerpts from the manual attached here. I will try to scan the whole of it later.

 

[rank]

That discussion was not what I was referring to. There are plenty of posts upthread just rehashing the old vinyl v digital stuff (eg loudness wars).

If you start on this battlefield, then we can delete or close the topic 'can someone explain etc' where 99% of the comments are off topic and some are psychiatric.