Phono stages in integrated amps/preamps

[Zutroye]

I've read a lot of articles and forum threads claiming that built-in phono stages in integrated and preamps are "garbage" or "throw-away". I always thought that phono stages were supposed to boost the signal and follow the RIAA curve. If that's the case, it seems like that shouldn't require too much cost, and engineers have had over half a century to figure out the best designs. I've always used built-in phono stages. I currently have the Yamaha A-S501 integrated. Am I missing something? Will I truly hear a difference with a stand-alone phono preamp? I've thought about buying one for < $200 to see if there's a difference. I'm guessing that if I don't hear a difference, the response will be "You have to spend more than $X dollars" for quality.
I haven't seen any measurements for built-in phono stages on this site. If there are any, can someone share a link?

Thanks,
Zu

 

[watchnerd]

Some built-in phono stages perform quite well, others are garbage.

Vintage integrated amps, when LP was the main medium, often have quite good phono stages compared to modern integrateds.

However, even with the good internal phono stages, usually configuration and loading options are less than with an external phono stage.

Some integrated amps have a good phono stage, but with a fixed loading (e.g. Luxman L-590AXII MC loading is fixed at 350 ohms) or fixed gain.

This may make it harder to optimize across a wider range of carts, even if the phono stage is otherwise good quality.

 

[anmpr1]

It's like anything audio related. Easy to fool yourself. Building a SOA phono stage may not be a trivial matter, but whether one needs (i.e., can identify) a SOA phono stage from a merely good one is questionable. Refer to the ASR Apt preamp thread. In the late '70s there was much buzz about many technically interesting 'tests' for phono cartridge/RIAA stage interaction. What to do and what to avoid. But here's the thing-->a lot of stuff that can be measured can't be heard. The reverse is not the case. At the end of the day those tests didn't make much difference, at least from a "Can I hear this?" point of view.

Over at the Home Hi Fi Secrets page David Rich (one of the best reviewers extant) runs down the latest and greatest Bryston phono preamp. Rich mentions some of the old Tom Holman research papers, as if it is important stuff. Is it? For the end user? Now, the Bryston is likely as SOA as anything anyone can buy. Not cheap, but not cloud cuckoo-land expensive, either. But you know what the big problem was? The thing they had to overcome, when listening--getting it to work? Grounding the turntable! Their record player wouldn't ground to the unit, so they had to wire it to another component. Hum made it unlistenable in their unique setup (they were using a Japan-only market turntable with non-US standard mains wiring).

Bryston BP2-20 MM/MC Phono Preamp Review - HomeTheaterHifi.com

Bryston’s deceptively simple yet potent little phono preamp has but one purpose, to translate the music from your record collection as...

hometheaterhifi.com

In my experience, FWIW, noise is the big thing you want to get rid of in your phono stage. It's why I've never had good luck with pure tube phono electronics. My current home-made preamp uses tubes to amplify a JFET input, in order to get rid of noise. I also have a small SS phono stage that is extremely quiet (when played through Benchmark electronics and sensitive horn speakers). And that little phono stage didn't cost Bryston money, I'll tell you for sure.

I remember Michael Elliot (of the erstwhile Counterpoint company) writing how his tube MC step up (SA-2) device was a mistake, and that he should have used a transformer. Because of noise.

 

[Zutroye]

Thanks for the responses. I went ahead and bought the Emotiva XPS-1. I wanted to test first-hand if there was any benefit to a stand-alone phono pre as opposed to a built-in. I went with the Emotiva based on the RIAA measurements from Amir. I plugged it into my old Onkyo receiver. I bought the Onkyo new in ~1998, and at the time, it was one of the few receivers that I could find with a phono input. Needless to say, the Emotiva was much better. I tested the db outputs from both and balanced to make sure it wasn't just volume. It still could be my mind playing tricks on me, but the Emotiva sounded quite a bit clearer. The Onkyo sounded like I had earmuffs on in comparison. I'm looking forward to testing it with my Yamaha, which is in storage right now. Thanks for your measurements and this site @amirm.

 

[watchnerd]

Thanks for the responses. I went ahead and bought the Emotiva XPS-1. I wanted to test first-hand if there was any benefit to a stand-alone phono pre as opposed to a built-in. I went with the Emotiva based on the RIAA measurements from Amir. I plugged it into my old Onkyo receiver. I bought the Onkyo new in ~1998, and at the time, it was one of the few receivers that I could find with a phono input. Needless to say, the Emotiva was much better. I tested the db outputs from both and balanced to make sure it wasn't just volume. It still could be my mind playing tricks on me, but the Emotiva sounded quite a bit clearer. The Onkyo sounded like I had earmuffs on in comparison. I'm looking forward to testing it with my Yamaha, which is in storage right now. Thanks for your measurements and this site @amirm.

Sounding "clear" isn't really an indictor of good RIAA -- it could just be emphasizing certain frequencies inaccurately.

What you want is a flat, accurate response and low noise with adequate overload headroom.

 

[Zutroye]

What you want is a flat, accurate response and low noise with adequate overload headroom.

That seems to be what Amir's measurements of the Emotiva XPS-1 indicate, and it sounds great to me. So, for $121.00, I'm happy.

 

[watchnerd]

That seems to be what Amir's measurements of the Emotiva XPS-1 indicate, and it sounds great to me. So, for $121.00, I'm happy.

They do.

But just be careful with equating that to sounding "clearer".

 

[Zutroye]

They do.

But just be careful with equating that to sounding "clearer".

Noted. Thank you.

 

[DVDdoug]

Unless there is an obvious flaw I wouldn't worry about it. The "sound quality" of vinyl isn't that great and it varies quite a bit. A lot (most?) of older vinyl had rolled-off highs so the EQ on the records is generally worse than the RIAA playback EQ of the preamp, or a decent cartridge. (I don't have any experience with newer records, and I assume they are better and more consistent.)

What you want is a flat, accurate response

But not really flat... You want it to "exactly" match the RIAA playback EQ curve, or flat if you include the recording and playback RIAA EQ.

 

[watchnerd]

Unless there is an obvious flaw I wouldn't worry about it. The "sound quality" of vinyl isn't that great and it varies quite a bit. A lot (most?) of older vinyl had rolled-off highs so the EQ on the records is generally worse than the RIAA playback EQ of the preamp, or a decent cartridge. (I don't have any experience with newer records, and I assume they are better and more consistent.)

But not really flat... You want it to "exactly" match the RIAA playback EQ curve, or flat if you include the recording and playback RIAA EQ.

Flat meaning matching the curve perfectly with no deviation.

The EQ itself curve isn't flat, obviously, or we wouldn't need one at all.