Pretty good argument here for using a SUT instead of the MC gain stage.
Is what I use and what subjectively brings me a tiny difference in favour of MC.
With a standard preamp in MC setting, I can't appreciate any real improvement.
Pretty good argument here for using a SUT instead of the MC gain stage.
I used to have a Sutherland Insight which I really liked as an upgrade to a Parasound Zphono. Used a Hana SL on it. But when I went to a Bryston phono with an integrated SUT, I didn’t look back.
There can be something different that a SUT adds to the mix versus simply increasing op amp gain.
The problem is that adding a quality SUT to a iFi Zen may not be competitive in total cost and performance to a dedicated MC phono like the MC Pro.
Take a look at the below graphs. The Zen’s 60,120, & 180 HZ humps are well masked by the noise baseline, the Mani 2’s 60,120, & 180 HZ humps stand out. During quiet passages at higher volume settings you may hear hum on the Mani that is masked on the Zen. That is the primary issue in my view, most likely the result of the power supply in the Mani.Why would one buy this when the Schiit mani 2 has far better Sinaid and costs less? I believe it even has MC capabilities. Am I missing something?
I'm surprised at the amount of views of this review. I couldn't care less about phonograph playback.
if you post that only to show your feelings ... listen to digital and forget about it.
if you post that waiting for some comment, i can say that vinyl is the blockbuster in physical media, so i don't understand your opinion properly ... unless you think your point of view must be valid for everyone else.
Thanks! That is very helpful. I am just learning about the specifics of phono preamps in the ASR way and am a bit lost among the reviews. Pity about the Schiit noise.Take a look at the below graphs. The Zen’s 60,120, & 180 HZ humps are well masked by the noise baseline, the Mani 2’s 60,120, & 180 HZ humps stand out. During quiet passages at higher volume settings you may hear hum on the Mani that is masked on the Zen. That is the primary issue in my view, most likely the result of the power supply in the Mani.
View attachment 400451View attachment 400452
I am still waiting for an ASR analysis of actual LP playback SINAD. If Amirm needs a test LP with test tones on it, I will send him one, just let me know.
I’m not. For those with a vinyl collection for some reason, it is not all that easy to find proper objective testing of phono stages. especially if it’s either ones passion OR like me, a very occasional use/indulgence so I want decent performance at a reasonable price.I'm surprised at the amount of views of this review. I couldn't care less about phonograph playback.
Please don't feed the trolls.
I'm not entirely convinced I've got this figured out right yet on high frequencies. When they refer to high frequency overload margins in decibels, should that or should that not include RIAA? This goes on to say that 28dB is desirable in the audio band, rising to 36dB ultrasonic. That just doesn't make sense at all if you calculate the required margin in dB after tending to RIAA. @sergeackland went on to say in that thread that, "with, say, a 20dB overload margin at 1kHz, that should be near enough 40dB at 20kHz". Well, that's just how Soundstage was specifying it in decibels, so maybe they are right to do that after all.
So, I have to think they're suggesting 16dB in the ultrasonic region (subtracting out the 20dB RIAA), when measured as ASR measures it. I think this must be the right answer, since maintaining 38dB at ultrasonic would otherwise be impossible. If we call 20kHz "ultrasonic", this is only 31mV at 20kHz as ASR measures it, since the RIAA curve is applied (310mV off the cartridge). If we call 20kHz "audio band" it's an itty bitty 12mV (which I believe is still 120 off the cartridge). If so, that would put overload requirements much lower, and a lot of these declines wouldn't be very concerning at all. The performance would actually be just fine.
That said, almost nothing but the iFi Zen that has been measured actually hits this quite optimistic 28dB at 1kHz, ref 5mV. So, I'm more impressed with this than I was. I think. I hate pre-emphasis curves.
(...) Now, this get's really confusing due to the pre-emphasis curve. (...)
The Shure chart was one of the references I ended up using. The highest velocity, I believe, is actually around 8kHz. It drops somewhat after that. The real question is whether that includes clicks and pops. If it does, it's quite possible you need slightly less margin at 20kHz. With the usual closer to 1mv per cm/s an audiophile cart is likely to put out, it would seem you rarely need a full 20dB margin, and possibly never at 20kHz which would explain how a lot of high end phono stages get away with less than "ideal" margins.Might make sense to use Shure's old study result graph as orientation, which they've published in their technical seminar paper - and of which you can see a variant with improved scaling over there: https://pspatialaudio.com/shure velocities_enhanced.png. In that study they've checked quite a lot of records for actual peak velocities, represented by those dots/little circles in that graph. So according to that, worst case peak velocities would appear to be roundabout 50 to 55 cm/s in the region between roundabout 5 and 20 kHz.
For cartridges, that are designed for MM inputs, we can assume a transmission factor range of roundabout between 0.5 and 2.2 mV(eff.) per cm/s (peak) - so with the aformentioned actual peak velocities that would translate to phono stage input voltages of roundabout 27.5 to 121 mV(eff.). If we now assume a medium high gain of factor 100 (or respectively 40 dB), we can see, that this would get problematic, if we'd use opamp-based linear amplification, followed by passive RIAA-(re-)EQ, as in combination with a "loud" DJ cart with 2.2 mV per cm/s (like for example an Ortofon Q.Bert) the opamp would have to provide an output voltage up to 12,1 V(eff.) or respecitvely a tad over +/- 17.1 V(peak). So, assuming a typical phono stage model with an internal supply voltage of ca. +/- 15 V symmetrical, that approach won't work. Whereas if we'd reduce the level by (-) 6 dB, for example by either using a more regular cartridge with ca. 1 mV(eff.) per cm/s or by lowering the gain to a more conservative factor 50 (ca. 34 dB), that should work.
Would be good, if the phono stage would be also be able to cope with "loud" carts, though - and at the same time we might not want to lower the gain, in order not to produce an all too weak output voltage in combination with typical records, not so loud cartridges and some modern receivers and integrated amps with somewhat insensitive line-level inputs (like for example the Yamaha A-S201 and R-S202 or the Sony STR-DH190, all of which having a line-level input sensitivity of 500 mV). Hence one can understand the popularity of "the usual Lipshitz style approach", being supposed to mean a single-stage, opamp-based implementation with the RIAA-(re-)EQ being done in the negative feedback loop - so that the amplification isn't linear anymore, but frequency-dependent instead.
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
P.S.: Oh, and hello ASR community, btw!
edit: Post scriptum added.
(...) The real question is whether that includes clicks and pops. (...)