Hi John,
Just FYI, Mcintosh built an external power supply called an D-8A that will run the c-4 or c-8 beautifully.It has a hum balance pot that is effective in minimising hum. Note minimising !!
Hope this is usefull. Or buy the parts and build one yourself. Nothing special.
Bob Hodge
>>> smolians@xxxxxxxxx 4/4/2007 1:20 PM >>> I've been working some from mono LPs to master to CD. In my experience, accurate recording/playback eq is imprecise at best, and, quite frequently, imaginary. Further eq is always needed.
I've encountered a specific situation where I've had three issues of a Period LP, all mastered before 1959, each with its own eq. One was early, probably Columbia, c. 1951, for which I used the LP setting. Another, mastered by RCA with the type in 1954 in small block letters and numbers, used NAB, a third, using the same RCA matrix number but handwritten, fell in the cracks somewhere. I used RIAA and adjusted a whole lot with an equalizer.
Tube equipment has hum- it's genetic! It should be removed during the restoration process. If you prefer your finished audio with tube sound, ok.
But don't plead accuracy. You are deliberately including non-musical noise.
In short- you know the answer. Listening.
Steve Smolian
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Ross" <johnross@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:31 PM Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] (dream) restoration phono preamp opinions wanted
> At 4/3/2007 10:24 PM, EricJ wrote: >>When it comes to phono preamps that are capable of >>historical EQs, I was wondering... >> >>1. How many people use anything but RIAA, NAB, and FLAT >> EQs for digital transfers when doing preservation work? > > For 78s and pre-RIAA LPs, I generally use a tube-era preamp that has
> front-panel adjustments for Turnover and Rolloff. A McIntosh C-8 is > particularly flexible, but it requires an early Mac power amplifier as a > power supply. I also like my Scott 121-C, with the Dynaural Noise > Reduction function. I wouldn't use the noise reduction for preservation, > but it's nice for casual listening. Of course, any tube equipment of that > vintage almost certainly needs to be re-capped before you would want to > use it for serious work. > > >>2. Is the ability to reproduce a wide range of EQs on the phono preamp >>important, or do you apply the final EQ in the DAW using digital filters? > > I think either approach is acceptable, as long as the EQ is correct. > >>3. Do you use an analog processor in conjunction with your DAW to apply >>EQ later to a FLAT digital transfer (ie. an analog processor loop)? > > No. > >>4. How often do you run into the situation where your phono preamp >>doesn't have the EQ you want? It gets close, but not quite what you want. > > That is not an issue with either the Scott or the McIntosh preamps. > >>8. If the phono preamp has accurate EQ(s), is quiet, and has low >>distortion, does anyone prefer tube versus solid-state electronics? Does >>this matter? > > Obviously, I'm partial to tubes, but for RIAA EQ, I also use solid-state > (including a McIntosh C-24, a Stanton 310 and some other broadcast preamps > with balanced outputs > > >>9. Do you use a custom-built phono preamp or a commercial phono preamp? > > They're all commercial devices. > > >>And if there's a phono preamp that supports historical EQs that you >>really absolutely love, let me know, because maybe I should be buying >>instead of building. > > As I said earlier, I like both the Mac C-8 and the Scott 121-C. > Unfortunately, both are subject to the demands of the loony collectors' > market, so the prices are out of line with their value as playback tools. > You can find relatively inexpensive C-8s, but they're useless without an > expensive MC-30 or 20W-2 amplifier to supply power to the tubes. > > John Ross