Parks Audio Waxwing measurements

[antcollinet]

Only on or off
how does that compare to the “gold standard”? The Sugar Cube

I have no idea. I'd never heard of the sugar cube** until yesterday.

**Except as something I can drop two of into a cup of tea.

 

[antcollinet]

I was taking about Sweetvinyl.

Sorry - my mistake.

 

[Snoopy]

I think that lack of headroom in this case is a phantom problem. This forum, however never over complicates anything! That is sarcasm by the way.

Probably but I quess if someone really wanted a phono stage with lots of headroom , this might be a interesting option. And just use the waxwing as DSP box

MM Pro Moving Magnet Phono Stage by Michael Fidler

Precision RIAA MM phono stage by Michael Fidler with linear power supply, balanced outputs, mono switch and low-frequency crossfeed

michaelfidler.com

@@@@@@———@@@@@@

Passive RIAA network phonostages quickly run out of headroom at high frequency, as they throw it away into an attenuating network, greatly escalating the risk of overload when subjected to high-frequency transients and surface clicks, making the latter much more noticeable. The MM PRO, on the other hand, uses a fully active shunt-feedback equaliser that allows the maximum input voltage to increase from 82mV RMS to 400mV RMS at 10kHz and an eye-watering 800mV RMS at 20kHz, faithfully reproducing the most challenging discs.


Or this one with less features

SPARTAN 15 Moving Magnet Phono Stage by Michael Fidler

Low noise phono moving magnet stage, with linear power supply, accurate RIAA equalisation, mono switch and low frequency crossfeed

michaelfidler.com

 

[WDeranged]

Probably but I quess if someone really wanted a phono stage with lots of headroom , this might be a interesting option. And just use the waxwing as DSP box

MM Pro Moving Magnet Phono Stage by Michael Fidler

Precision RIAA MM phono stage by Michael Fidler with linear power supply, balanced outputs, mono switch and low-frequency crossfeed

michaelfidler.com

@@@@@@———@@@@@@

Passive RIAA network phonostages quickly run out of headroom at high frequency, as they throw it away into an attenuating network, greatly escalating the risk of overload when subjected to high-frequency transients and surface clicks, making the latter much more noticeable. The MM PRO, on the other hand, uses a fully active shunt-feedback equaliser that allows the maximum input voltage to increase from 82mV RMS to 400mV RMS at 10kHz and an eye-watering 800mV RMS at 20kHz, faithfully reproducing the most challenging discs.


Or this one with less features

SPARTAN 15 Moving Magnet Phono Stage by Michael Fidler

Low noise phono moving magnet stage, with linear power supply, accurate RIAA equalisation, mono switch and low frequency crossfeed

michaelfidler.com

I've used my Sugarcube with various low headroom preamps and some pops and clicks are emphasized (distortion from preamp) to a point that the Sugarcube can't remove them cleanly. Using a Spartan 15 turned several of my 'must replace' records into keepers. I'm sure the Waxwing would benefit from a similarly beefy preamp.

 

[Richard G]

Who said SugarCube is the golden standard? It sells for several thousand dollars so it must be very good?

Your first question was rhetorical

It must be very good because “it sells for several thousand dollars”?
You don’t need to imply I’m stupid. I’ve read reviews, and threads on any forum I could find
The consensus I found was it did the best job

If that collective view is wrong, and something else is better and/ or less … great

Ergo my question.. before your post - Has anyone compared it to the Sugar Cube on a couple of different scenarios aka noise patterns?

 

[Richard G]

There are a couple notable differences. The value of the differences is in the eye of the beholder.

SugarCube offers much higher levels before clipping. Waxwing clipping is governed by amplification or attenuation of the signal prior to ADC. SugarCube advertises 7.7Vrms in on their least expensive model, and it goes up over 10Vrms from there. While headroom isn't unmanageable on the Waxwing, it's something that needs to be considered depending on cartridge and source material.

SugarCube offers USB out directly to a computer. You'll need to have some way of processing coax or optical with the Waxwing.

SweetVinyl has their own recording software. SugarCube (SC-1 Mini and its variants notwithstanding) can pull metadata from Discogs which I assume is incredibly useful when processing vinyl rips to the computer. If a person is digitizing a large collection I imagine this feature could be worth the price alone if it's implemented well.

We don't have any direct comparisons for the click removal yet. SugarCube click removal is variable and could presumably be adjusted to prevent some of the issues processing transients as noted in this thread.

Even if you don't consider the click removal, the Waxwing is still a very good product for its price with perfect RIAA and so much adjustability to the sound. The overall feature set is incredible value when click removal is added. If Shannon is able to further refine the Magic function it will basically make every other phono stage obsolete.

Excellent analysis, and imo summary and foreshadowing what might well happen

If Waxwing’s Magic did get closer to the competition … “will basically make every other phono stage obsolete” SugarCube sales would plummet
To my knowledge their only remaining unique feature would be the metadata. You’d think to maintain sales they’d have to slash their prices.

 

[Richard G]

The sole interesting part of the SugarCube is its click removal software

apparently the sole interesting part - to you.

“If we had this software as a DAW plug-in then anyone with an audio interface could use it”

There are a couple of standalone programs for click removal. One is quite old, poss no longer supported
Might be wrong but from memory(?) there is a DAW plug-in for click removal

“anyone with an audio interface could use it”

I’ve no idea - How many vinyl rippers use a DAW? You;re implying it’s quite a few?
(They’re not, but Other things being equal) I’d think a fair few people would prefer not to need a DAW vs the simplicity of a dedicated device

 

[Richard G]

Passive RIAA network phonostages quickly run out of headroom at high frequency, as they throw it away into an attenuating network, greatly escalating the risk of overload when subjected to high-frequency transients and surface clicks, making the latter much more noticeable

I have no idea- what proportion- approximately- of phono stages are active? I’d hazard a rough guess: few or none at low prices; the more you pay the more choices you’d have which are active.

That Fidler MM Pro has a lot of better tech attributes for the money

 

[undeakyetonde]

Yes, the declicking algorithm is the only interesting part, because it is the only non-trivial part involving some know-how. All other features are convenient automations, doable by anybody who can write code. They are not unique or very interesting or very complicated, 5 buyers of that box could pay somebody to write the software instead, and even make it open source for everyone else to use and improve.

Re: DAW. Plugins like that can be loaded and used by any competent audio editor like Audacity or iZotope RX. Both in real-time and for processing a pre-existing digital signal. No need to use an actual full-fledged DAW. That's the beauty of software, you don't need a separate box with a circuit for every little thing.

Same critique applies to waxwing but it is much more reasonably priced. It is also based on a constrained platform, while sugarcube has a proper computer board inside, which costs about $99 by the way. It is very likely I could run their software on my computer without much change, while Waxwing software is more specialised.

 

[AaronJ]

Excellent analysis, and imo summary and foreshadowing what might well happen

If Waxwing’s Magic did get closer to the competition … “will basically make every other phono stage obsolete” SugarCube sales would plummet
To my knowledge their only remaining unique feature would be the metadata. You’d think to maintain sales they’d have to slash their prices.

Do we know that waxwing magic is not as good as sugarcube’s? I don’t know if any proper comparisons have been made.

 

[Richard G]

All other features are convenient automations, doable by anybody who can write code.

Are you for real ?? what proportion of people can write code? Or would learn it - were capable of learning it sufficiently
Maybe many of your friends are programmers? Then you would be almost unique
Most of my friends are fairly smart. None can

> They are not unique or very interesting or very complicated

“Unique” no.
“Very interesting” to you- who with each post is increasingly sounding like you live in a bubble/ seem to think your opinions are more insightful/ just arrogant
“very complicated” so what?
If anyone wants these “uninteresting”, “simple” tasks automated, and can afford a product that does it, why poo Pooh it. (Refer intellectual arrogance?)

“5 buyers of that box could pay somebody to write the software instead”
Yep. And who would organise it, how long would it take from go to full functionality, bug free

If you think it’s such a good idea, when are you starting? write back here when you have delivered this project which is so doable and sensible (to you)

I can’t be bothered responding to the rest of your programmer bubble arrogance

But … Good luck with your brainwave project!

 

[Richard G]

Do we know that waxwing magic is not as good as sugarcube’s?

I wish. You may also wish? As would others

Just an educated guess based on how long Sugarcubes have been around, more importantly favourable reviews, and especially several comparisons to pre-existing software

 

[undeakyetonde]

Wow that ruffled some feathers. Chill.

My main point is: it is a very useful piece of software that (most likely) could be used on any computer. Hiding it inside a scarcely available overpriced box is an atrocious thing to do. They could offer both software and solution-in-a-box but they don’t.

 

[morillon]

there is still a certain number of powerful software (like rew, arta, m-t) and free, see python scripts offered here, or not too expensive, allowing you to carry out all the necessary-useful measurements for the adjustments.... "as for this part ", "except in "search mode", these are not functions that we use, fortunately, so often ..
a correct used sound card and a preamp like the little pro-ject box etc..
and zou.. ;-)

 

[ivanj]

Question:

Does the choice of 'table and arm have a measurable or audible difference when properly used with the Waxwing? If so, which parameters are critical, and which not so much or at all? For example, low unweighted rumble, VTA, arm tracing error, and so on versus a cheap and cheerful entry level 'table and arm?

Examples would be the Stereophile A+ rating versus the B (or C if they have it) rating. Do we really need to spend this amount of money for esoteric stuff?

 

[Bob from Florida]

Question:

Does the choice of 'table and arm have a measurable or audible difference when properly used with the Waxwing? If so, which parameters are critical, and which not so much or at all? For example, low unweighted rumble, VTA, arm tracing error, and so on versus a cheap and cheerful entry level 'table and arm?

Examples would be the Stereophile A+ rating versus the B (or C if they have it) rating. Do we really need to spend this amount of money for esoteric stuff?

From my experience, my own gear and audio nuts I know, the difference between a $3000 table/arm and a $30,000 table/arm, is not very significant. If I were buying something new, I would catch a Denon 3000NE on sale and just be happy. That combo has a very adjustable higher mass arm- which I prefer, is direct drive, and doesn’t look like a DJ table- personal preference. Retail is $2500 and I would put a VM95SH on it and enjoy. You may want to spend more or less depending on budget and other factors.
The Waxwing won’t fix turntable/arm deficiencies. It can “fix” a cartridges frequency response to some degree.

 

[pogo]

The Waxwing won’t fix turntable/arm deficiencies.

But that will be the case for me.
Due to the very high gain I need for my 310MC, I also pull up a 100Hz interferer:



I have now integrated a notch filter via the PEQ function:



You can see the filter result here:



You can simply hear an even better silence without the sound being negatively affected, which you can also recognize here with a pink noise test signal:

 

[morillon]

From my experience, my own gear and audio nuts I know, the difference between a $3000 table/arm and a $30,000 table/arm, is not very significant.

in general those with one at 3000 will consider it this way...
but those with those at 30000, rather the opposite....
same with 300 and 3000 ;-)

 

[Bob from Florida]

in general those with one at 3000 will consider it this way...
but those with those at 30000, rather the opposite....

I am speaking to my concept of “reality”. Pride of ownership of something expensive is more of an individual choice. Along the lines of the $30000 piece of equipment is not necessarily needed for proper playback. However, if you think it makes a difference and you can afford it and still keep your family fed, housed, and clothed - then get it, if it is needed for happiness.

 

[Balle Clorin]

But that will be the case for me.
Due to the very high gain I need for my 310MC, I also pull up a 100Hz interferer:



I have now integrated a notch filter via the PEQ function:



You can see the filter result here:



You can simply hear an even better silence without the sound being negatively affected, which you can also recognize here with a pink noise test signal:

What turntable is this? Seems like it has a vibrating transformer or something. Or an hum interference,? A 100hz notch filter will also filter the 100hz of the music.