Re: [ARSCLIST] (dream) restoration phono preamp opinions wanted

[Eric Jacobs <EricJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Steve,

How important is having a mono/stereo switch on the phono preamp
for the work that you do?  I'm considering leaving this off since
I can sum the channels in the DAW while monitoring the ADC.  Then
again, I almost always have my DAW connected to my phono preamp.
And when digitizing mono recordings to create preservation masters,
these are always made as stereo transfers to allow for phase or
azimuth correction.

But before I completely rip out the mono/stereo switch, I want
to be sure that this makes sense.  I'm thinking that the mono/
stereo switch is a remnant for listening/monitoring, but is less
important in a studio environment.

Which phono preamp(s) do you prefer or recommend for preservation
and remastering work?

I agree that further EQ is often required - that's been my
experience, too.  I just like to know that in the stack of
potential EQ errors, I don't have to compensate for my phono
preamp, too.  I try to control all the errors that are within
my control.

Eric


-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Steven Smolian
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 10:21 AM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] (dream) restoration phono preamp opinions wanted


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
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/745 - Release Date: 4/3/2007
> 12:48 PM
>
>