Is this happening? If not maybe @JohnYang1997 could make it happen.
-
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!
Parasound Zphono Phono Preamplifier Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Thanks for your answer Matthias.
My confusion is due to the hesitation about which level to test for, I think.
I guess the most interesting comparison base is for a fixed input level (be it 5mV or 10mV).
For a given cartridge, you get same input level.
As the SINAD is almost only linked to noise level for phono preamps (as long as generator impedance is fixed), I suppose it doesn't matter much if you choose 5mV or 10mV input level, as long as you stick to it.
But why to fix the preamp output level ?
In that case, the gain will matter, won't it ?
If I compare the Cambridge Solo and Duo, as an example, their SINAD is about the same, for same input level (as we can see from the THD+N vs level plots - You have to divide the horizontal scale on the Duo by the gain factor, which is 89 - For same input level, the Solo has lower THD+N than the Duo).
While in Amir's ranking, the Duo leads by several dB difference, in "fixed input" figures, the situation is slightly in favor of the Solo.
Also, I played with the Millennia HV-3C with some RIAA measurement curve (using the RME ADI-2Pro fs R):
For 10mV, I measured 87dB SINAD at 40dB gain, but over 90dB at 46dB gain. (Or 3dB improvement for 6dB gain increase).
But thats for fixed input level.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...e-signal-level-right.14831/page-4#post-483780
So, in that case at least, I can measure a benefit for higher gain.
Last edited:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds2-usb-phono-stage-review.14680/#post-455529
This one is pretty good. I spent some time doing calculation finding out the performance is pretty close to as good as it can get.
I won't be making phono stage as it's hardly meaningful to me.
Collecting CD's doesn't make sense to me. However, neither does collecting new vinyl. Most of it is mastered from digital files now. You'd be better off with the hi-res digital files and a good DAC. Would be nice if we could still get most hi-res in a physical format to collect. I miss the artwork and liner notes.
I don't "collect" either CDs or LPs but I have thousands to listen to.
I don't find streaming convenient, mainly for finding what I want to listen to.
CDs are already higher res than my ears so no problem there. LPs have audible shortcomings but there are still plenty of nice enough sounding recordings. IME the recording quality makes a bigger difference to the sound than the format it is distributed on.
Well, I don't collect money but I like to have thousands to spend!
I often hear hi-res albums that sound better than any CD version I've heard. Not sure exactly why but it would seem to me that mastering at the CD sample rate has issues that don't exist at higher sample rates and bit depths. Thus making mastering for CD more difficult to do correctly. And not many do.
I can demonstrate many albums that sound better on hi-res formats for whatever reason.
I don't think many, if any, CDs are recorded or mastered at 16/44.1, probably 24/48 or 24/96 then changed for distribution.
It is entirely feasible for the "high res" recordings to sound different if mastered differently.
I have heard a comparison of a 24/96 file down sampled to 16/44 then re sampled to 24/96, so the DAC treats them the same but if there was any data in the 24/96 version which doesn't "fit in" to 16/44 it is missing in this new file, and the original and level matched I hear no difference.
I am sure any superiority there may be in a 24/96 file will be in the mastering not the format.
There is nothing audible in music which exceeds the envelope of 16/44 afaik, though there may be in special effects film sound tracks.
Even LPs sound pretty good and they are nowhere near 16/44.1 resolution!
The first digital recordings I made myself were on a StellaDAT at 16/48. For the first time since I started making recordings in the 1960s the recording sounded the same as the microphone feed.
fricc
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2019
- Messages
- 33
- Likes
- 45
That is marketing... If you look into how phono cartridges work, they introduce loads of distortion at high frequencies. Whatever you have above 18kHz is mostly harmonic distortion...
See for instance this Lab Report, and this is a good cartridge.
I have transcribed a good portion (~150 LPs) of my vinyl collection using a pretty decent system (Thorens TD160 super, Mission 774 Tonearm, Shure V15 V Cart, ProJect pre, and a Creative 0204 Interface). My collection is mostly original pressings from 70s and 80s, very carefully maintained, large variety or rock, jazz, and classical. There is no content to talk about beyond 20kHz, aside from some harmonic distortion products...
agreed, valid point, as long as it's a different mastering.
do you mean there is no cutoff of all sound above 20k? sure, it can be true if the recording is fully analog. or digital with no cutoff was applied.
I know some engineers believe all high frequencies >20k should be cut off because they can't be heard and can't be mastered properly. or just harmful to the sound. personally I would leave them as is - if the instruments make those sounds, they should be kept in the recording.
thought of another benefit - there is no "brickwall" in terms of compression - digital allows you to make quiet sounds loud, see "loudness war" if you don't know what I mean. this can't be done on vinyl. however if it's done at early stages, the vinyl sound will still suffer - by the time of transfer to vinyl the dynamic range will be small in source material.
Your simulations seem to show that the carts characteristic LR conversion to voltage of preamsp current noise , at high frequencies, is more significant with preamps which have increased current noise. This seems reasonable to assume.
On the one hand you don't want to swamp the measurement with thermal noise that is greater than the electronics or all you see is thermal noise from the cart. But on the other hand you cannot overlook the impact higher current noise designs can have on the noise floor.
It is almost as though one or two tests cannot show the whole picture. You would need to do a matrix of results with inductance on one axis and resistance on the other. Amir will never be willing to do all this testing.
I believe in some cases high frequencies are completely artificial. example - high resolution release of Black Album by Metallica (DVD-A?) - the album was recorded on 44.1k equipment, but in this high resolution version there was lots of stuff over 22k.
sadly, some are lossy-mastered
let alone 24 bit etc., they don't bother to even use uncompressed audio.
more often musicians use lossy samples - Burial, Nicolas Jaar on some releases for example.
First, very few mics do above 20k, there designed that way fior a reason, theres nothing audible to record up there. Since thats the only reason people say vinyl is better than CD, its not. Your vinly has been thru a lathe. The stampers wear out so the last pressing is worse than the first. It has less dynamic range, more noise, ticks and pops, less bass, less channel seperation thats freq. dependent (no seperation in the bass) wow and flutter ( compare a sine off CD and vinyl ) it wears out ( so does the needle), rumble, microphony ( footsteps in your music) and even feedback, off center holes, warping, and probably a few more. But people still believe vinyl is technicaly better than CD? Are they really that ignorant or are they just gullible? And almost all vinyl released today has been digitized at some point.
As far as lodness wars, Compressors have been used in recording for 70 years and tape has been used for limitting for longer. You cant record without limiting the dynamic range. Your statement aboy compressing vinyl is just plane wrong.
fricc
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2019
- Messages
- 33
- Likes
- 45
Of course they do not sound the same, the difference is in the mastering, they do it on purpose to differentiate the two products, to appeal to a wider range of consumers.
It has nothing to do with the technology of the recording medium though.
Jake71
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Messages
- 35
- Likes
- 75
A useful addition to the measurement results for Phono Pre-Amps would be the input capacitance and impedance, especially for MM inputs.
It really can make a huge difference in the frequency response when combined with a cartridge. Unfortunately some designers seem to think they need to add input capacitance because a MM cartridge might specify something like 47K input impedance and 100-200 pF input capacitance when the 100-200 pF is already in the cable going from the cartridge to the pre-amp.
Typical configuration:
Too much input Capacitance:
Too high input impedance:
It really can make a huge difference in the frequency response when combined with a cartridge. Unfortunately some designers seem to think they need to add input capacitance because a MM cartridge might specify something like 47K input impedance and 100-200 pF input capacitance when the 100-200 pF is already in the cable going from the cartridge to the pre-amp.
Typical configuration:
Too much input Capacitance:
Too high input impedance:
Attachments
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Skeeter
Member
Similar threads
- Poll
