Thread: Phono Stages with selectable EQ Curves (RIAA, Decca, Columbia, etc.) ?

Abbingdon Music Research PH-77

Zanden

iFi Audio Micro iPhono

Shindo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Allnic H5000 DHT too.

Originally Posted by mep

The Hagerman Audio Labs Trumpet Reference that I currently have in house for review has selectable curves as well. It's also a tube unit with a massive power supply (big power transformer and 4 chokes) and the main circuit board floats in order to cut down on tube microphonics.

I am guessing as much as you hate suts that guy has an ss front. (Of course I am leaning toward a sut given your feelings in that regard.)

Millennia LOC

Originally Posted by mep

You would be correct Paul. It has JFETs driving the first tube gain stage which are 12AX7s.



Since you want to play the contrarian with me, I was scanning your list of gear in your signature to see what I wanted. I was going to tell you how much I loved a certain piece of gear you owned which would make you not want to own it and since I'm such a nice guy, you would just send it to me free of charge in order to get it out of your system. Unfortunately, with all of your "TBDs" and with what gear you have, there is nothing I wanted.

Ok, you actually made me laugh so loud my wife came into the room to see what the *&@% was going on. Good thing you dislike my stuff cuz your plan would have worked. You are always one step ahead of me.

As an aside, do you plan to write a review on the Trumpet? Topology sounds similar to Nick Doshi's which I understand to be excellent.

Originally Posted by mep

Paul-Yes, I will be writing a review of the Trumpet Reference phono preamp. Unfortunately, I have only heard the Doshi phono preamp at RMAF and not my house so I will not be able to make a comparison. I do think the price of the Doshi is more dear than the Trumpet Reference, but maybe that doesn't matter at these price points. I know that Nick is constantly improving his phono section and the latest version is totally geeked out with meters to help facilitate cartridge setup. Myles wrote a review of the Doshi phono preamp which is now at least one generation behind the current Doshi phono preamp.

I know my favorite room at RMAF 2013 was the room Larry from Paragon Sight and Sound had set up. Nick was there with his phono preamp and tape preamp (not to mention a pair of his amps) along with a Studer A80 from Bruce Brown. Tape sounded great and so did the vinyl setup they were using. I had to force myself to leave this room in order to listen to the other rooms at the show and I kept coming back in order to relax and just hear great sounding music.

Yes, I have been anxiously waiting for Myles to get Nick's new 3.0 to do a review. (I think he is getting tired of me bugging him.)

Has anyone heard the Millennia LOC? The only person I know who owns one is Michael Chafee. Mike claims its THE best phono stage on the planet and if he says this I don't take it lightly. Millennia's pedigree in the pro audio world is stellar. Problem is Mike is in Florida so I don't have a reasonable way to audition it (despite my crying to Mike to lend it to me).

It seems that a new version was introduced within the past year. All made to order - no loaners available. Tough to spend $10k purely on spec.

Ken Golden

If there's a phrase in any area but particularly Audiophilia guaranteed to turn people off , it's "THE Best in the world". What does that mean? Just because the LOC uses it ? In that case, Audiophiles should only buy studio gear ... because that's what the Recording Engineers use.

There is no "best". My point was that Michael Chafee is a very respected acoustic engineer with an incredible set of ears. I don't take his opinion lightly and given the fact that Millennia makes some of the best mic preamps available, If Mike bought it I know its a great piece of gear. I'm already using a great phono stage so I'm asking if anyone on this forum has experience with it. Its simply a phono stage that is on my radar.

You did raise an interesting point. There are a number of hi-end audio manufacturers with feet planted in both the pro audio and consumer audio market. Weiss Audio, Bricasti, Avalon Acoustics, etc. No reason to discount pro-audio gear out of hand.

And yet - for the most part , Audiophiles do discount pro-gear. "Looks lousy & industrial" , "sounds too linear and detail-heavy" , "where's the warmth" . So what ends up happening is that Companies like Manley for example, come out with more audiophile-friendly products. Probably more coloured and euphonic but that's what Audiophiles want anyway.

One example - Eclipse TD speakers from Japan. These come out of a JV between Fujitsu and Toyota. Virtually unlimited R&D budget that makes most High-End audio gear manufacturer budgets laughable in comparison. Fantastically engineered and beautifully made . Recording Engineers love the stuff . Audiophiles? More of a patchy response , though Phillip O'Hanlon at OAHN is working to bring the brand to a wider audience. I have a pair & they're astounding but deadly accurate , exceptionally linear & play everything on a "warts-and-all" basis

Originally Posted by MikeCh

I know they aren't inexpensive and are likely well out of my $$$ range, but thought it would be interesting to assemble a list of Phono Stages (SS or Tube) that allow selectable EQ curves for older LP pressings.

Off the top of my head I'm aware of the Thoress Phono Enhancer, ARC Ref Phono 2 & Phono 10, TW-Acustic Phono RPS 100 and Channel D SETA "flat" phono (that uses the Pure Vinyl software for it's built in EQ curves).

What other Phono Stages exist that allow selectable EQ curves and also garner accolades for build and sound quality?

Just as an aside, I presume you are aware that many believe RIAA is the only equalization method used in the post mono-era (starting circa late 1950's, early 1960s). As a result, using another EQ curve on stereo recordings may sound different (better/worse) but it is nothing more than a tone control.

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

That's what they want you to believe but that's not true. Over 50 EQ curves were used. Other curves were used until quite recently. For instance Sheffields and some others were mastered using a DIN EQ curve-and that came from the horse's mouth. Same goes for other labels such as Columbia and Decca that used their own EQ curves. At the least one should have five basic settings for their phono sections: RIAA, EMI, Columbia, Decca, and DIN/IEC.

Well this appears to be another audio history conundrum. Myles I very much respect your knowledge and certainly your sonic judgement, but this Mikey guy is pretty convicted on the subject.

What gives????



http://www.analogplanet.com/content/phono-equalization-bs-continues

Phono Equalization B.S. Continues!


By Michael Fremer • Posted: Oct 5, 2014 • Published: Oct 4, 2014


A recently posted review of a phono preamp on a website that is not deserving of mention here once again makes the specious claim that curves other than the RIAA were used in the mastering of stereo records. This is simply not true.Yes you can use these pre-stereo curves such as the Capitol, Columbia and FFRR on stereo records but they will be used as TONE CONTROLS and just because one might make a particular album sound 'better' does not mean it is the correct playback curve!
The review asserts " but records from Deutsche Grammophon, Capitol, Angel, EMI, Decca/London, and Columbia all have unique characteristics that require their own specific EQ curves to sound best."
This is bologna! In the stereo era Capitol mastering used the RIAA curve. PERIOD. As did Decca/London! How do I know that? I ASKED Ron McMaster as he sat at the mastering board in Capitol's mastering suite. As for London/Decca you can just LOOK at the jackets. They say "use the RIAA curve" but if that's not enough for you, I asked veteran Decca mastering engineer George Bettyes who mastered between 1957 and 1972. If you have a London/Decca record whose lacquer number is followed by the letter "L" George Bettyes did the cut.
He told me IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that there is NO SUCH THING as the "FFSS" curve. "FFSS was a marketing tool like 'Living Stereo' or 'Living Presence'. It is NOT an EQ curve." He also insisted that Decca used the RIAA curve. On another subject of contention he also told me that Decca and London records were identical. I was sent a production order for a classical title that backed up that claim.
As for the notion that the Columbia curve used in the early LP days for mono LP playback (and useful for those records today) somehow continued being used in the stereo era, this too is simply NOT TRUE. I received this from someone who was there:
"When Sony closed 54th Street, we discovered a large amount of old Columbia documentation. Binders full of memos, schematics, etc... I've taken it upon myself to scan all of these documents for posterity. I came across one that answered the burning RIAA/Columbia curve question from a few months ago.
It was a document from William (Bill) Buchman, Director of Electronic Engineering and Research. He states some general facts about the Columbia curve and how the competition has tried to alter their curves to mimic the Columbia curve. This has forced a standard to arise, the RIAA curve, which is identical to the NARTB standard.
He plots a graph to show the similarities and discusses the differences between the two. He goes on to state that the differences in production can account for a greater difference than the difference between the two curves (italics mine).
And here's the kicker...He says the RIAA curve is ideal for playback of Columbia LPs and that a gradual change over to RIAA should be carried out without distinguishing the differences between the RIAA and Columbia pressings.
This document is not dated, but it's wedged in between a memo from 1955 and 1956.
I feel this is the document which clarifies that Columbia dropped their curve in the mid-50's and quietly gravitated toward the RIAA curve and was not using the proprietary curve in the 70's."
Yet there are still deluded individuals claiming that Columbia used its own curve into the '70's and '80's even though at that point much of Columbia's cutting was farmed out to independent mastering houses, which means these deluded individuals are basing their conclusions on the COLUMBIA LABEL being slapped on the record.
And then there was this, which came directly from a veteran Columbia mastering engineer:
I can absolutely, positively say, there was no "Columbia curve" (in use during the stereo era). I suggest whoever came up with this BS should stop smoking crack and get down to earth, take a walk in Central Park and smell some fresh air. Is this the case of another clueless as...le trying to write the book about the music business, while working at the Good Year Tire Center changing oil full time? Tell that sh...ck Columbia was doing the same thing every other studio was doing: using RIAA curve, period. This has to be the most ridiculous crap I have ever heard."
The review goes on to claim that Vanguard, Motown, Pablo, Prestige, Impulse! Roulette and other labels require specific curves.
Vanguard and Motown records were originally mastered by RCA. There is ZERO difference between an original Vanguard and an original Motown and an RCA "Living Stereo", which absolutely positively used the RIAA curve. Second Vanguard pressings (orange label) were mostly mastered at Columbia. The paper label color means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You cannot decide the appropriate curve based on the "label". Pablo was also manufactured and distributed by RCA but many Pablos were mastered at Kendun. Check your Pablos. Again the label means NOTHING.
Prestige, Impulse! and others listed in this review were mostly mastered by Rudy Van Gelder ("RVG" or "Van Gelder"). His lathe cut Blue Notes too. The only difference is the label art. How can label art determine EQ curve???? All were cut using the RIAA curve. Roulette? Mostly cut at Bell Sound. RIAA curve too. Interesting lathe according to lathe guru Sean Davies but RIAA.
Prestige OJC series were cut by George Horn at Fantasy. They were cut using the RIAA curve not some "fantasy" curve for Prestige records.
Do you want to know why audiophiles get a bad rap in some circles? You have your answer.

Originally Posted by MikeCh

Understood Paul. I'm in possession of close to 2k original release mono LP's (if not first pressing promo copies) from the mid 1950's thru early 1960's.

My main focus is to optimize these mono's with their intended playback curves and I would like to find an "affordable" phono preamp to try in order to see if other curves are more ideal than RIAA.

Very impressive collection Mike. While there may be a dispute about the history for stereo, it's not disputed for mono. These curves are a must for your collection. I bet you will achieve wonderful results.

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

And Mikey can claim all he wants that Deccas and Londons sound the same. All it takes one listen to hear the difference. Something was changed in the pressing or manufacturing that the engineers don't realize. Lacquers? Type of vinyl for making the records?

All I know friends and I have compared multiple pressing of at least 50 Decca/London releases and they simply don't sound the same. And there are three or four things one needs to know regarding the matrix to understand vintage. What I can say is that in most cases, the earlier the pressing, the better the sound.

Oh and Steve Hoffman cut some of the OJC and Bob Cooper Coop is one to get ahold of.

I hear you loud and clear Myles. It's remarkable to me how folks with such vast amount of experience see the issue so differently. This is a matter of historical fact after all, not the subjective measures we all normally struggle to agree on in this hobby. Reading Mikey's comments in the thread below the article; he is really committed to his position.

Originally Posted by astrotoy

A few lengthy comments. This is from the perspective of one, having a very large number of early stereo pressings of Decca and EMI records (the majority of the early SXL2000 series Deccas, EMI ASD 3 digit and EMI Columbia SAX) which I have ripped for my big ripping project, and two, having done significant research for my Decca book, including extensive interviews with Decca recording engineers from the golden era of stereo. I did not interview any cutting engineers.

1. As has been mentioned before, there is no controversy that companies used a variety of EQ's for their early mono LP's. The controversy is what happened after 1954, when RIAA was established as the international standard.

2. Separate topic: My experience with London vs Decca pressings (classical only) started with the work of Sedrick Harris, almost 20 years ago, who did some serious comparisons. I was just starting to go almost annually to London and so could find Decca pressings of records that I already had bought in their London version. What I found in comparing records with the same matrix information, that Deccas would generally sound better and sometimes sound the same as their London counterparts. They would, with the occasional exception of a worn Decca vs. a more pristine London, never sound worse. I was trying to find a rational explanation of this. My best attempt is the following. For the same matrix, if there was a run of X copies pressed, after they were finished, they would be labelled (at the Decca presssing facility outside London) either Decca or London. Since the US had a much bigger market, my assumption is that more copies would end up with a London label than a Decca label. Also, the earlier in the production run a record was stamped, the better it sounded (less wear on the stamper). So my surmise is that Decca's, destined for the home market were first off the press, with the larger US part of the run destined for the London label would come out last. The would explain why Deccas which were pressed earlier in the run would sound better than the Londons which were pressed later in the run. If one compared Decca and London copies that came close to the switch point, then they should sound about the same. Just my theory.

Please note that it was in my interest and my hope, that London pressings would sound as good or better than Deccas, since I already had a large number of them and they were much cheaper to buy used in the US.

3. As far as different EQ's, I asked the question of the two Decca engineers whom I interviewed most extensively. They both said that they did not know of any deviation from the RIAA EQ during the early stereo era or later. One of them, John Dunkerley, tried to arrange a lunch during my most recent visit in June with one of the few remaining cutting engineers, Tony Hawkins, who lives quite a bit outside of London, but he could not make the lunch. The focus of my book is not the EQ question, so I didn't pursue it further than asking the question to John D and Mike Mailes, the other engineer.

So for Decca, at least, I agree with Mike Fremer on the RIAA question.

4. However, there is still the puzzle which Fremer has not addressed. Does the Decca EQ or EMI EQ, etc. sound more like the original master tape for these early stereo issues. From what I can gather, Fremer has not actually listened to early Decca classical recordings to compare the different EQ's.
AFAIK, Yamada-San, head of Zanden Audio, was the first to actually experiment with different EQ's for early recordings. He did not like the sound of these early stereo recordings. He found by tweaking the EQ, he could make these early records sound much better. Others had similar results, including Roy Gregory who has done extensive listening. I was intrigued, especially for early EMI stereo (so called white and gold labels) which sounded excessively bright to me. Most, but not all early Deccas also had a brightness to me, though not as much as the EMI's.

Was there a way to compare an early record (using different EQ's) to the original master tape? Unfortunately, no. However, I found several surrogates for the master tape for a few of the many records that I had. The most ubiquitous are reel to reel versions of early Decca stereo recordings. They should give a sense of the sonics of the master tape and there are a lot of these around (7.5ips 4tr) and I have quite a few. However, the quality of the sonics of these early tapes is generally not so good. Second are the reissues on vinyl that have been done, mostly by Speakers Corner for Deccas and by several companies for EMI, including Testament, which have generally been quite excellent sounding. Third is one early Decca that was released as a Tape Project tape (15ips 2 track) taken from the original master tape. This is probably as close to the original as one could get. Finally, I have several digital files from FIM which were done for their early Decca CD releases and taken directly from the master tapes. Again, very close to the original.

After doing some close comparisons, I find that Zanden EQ's come closer to the originals in general than RIAA EQ for most of the early releases of EMI and Decca. One important caveat is that the various reissues are not of the original master tapes in their original condition, but of the original master tapes after years of play and sometimes not good storage. My understanding is that the reissues all have been tweaked by the mastering engineers, to try to restore and improve their sound. John Dunkerley complained to me about some of the reissues as not being true to the originals.

For my ripping project, where I have done all 3000 + Decca family analogue recordings (out of 8000+ done so far), for the early stereo recordings (before the mid '60's) I ripped all the early pressings in both RIAA and the Decca EQ as well as ripping the early reel to reel versions (in NAB), so I can compare them. The early EMI's to me so clearly benefitted from the EMI EQ that I didn't use RIAA for them. What I did was start from records that were clearly to my ear RIAA EQ and move to earlier and earlier records until I heard clear indications (mainly a brightness and glare) that told me the EMI EQ would be needed.

I don't have a good theory of why these early stereo EMI and Deccas sound bright. Michael Gray has speculated that the cutting amps and heads used in the early days of stereo are responsible for the bright sound in the records which are tamed by the different EQ (like a tone control?).

For records from after the mid 60's I don't hear evidence of the extra brightness and I have used RIAA for all of those records.

I had Bottlehead custom build my phono preamp with variable EQ (multiple settings for bass shelf, turnover point and treble rollover) so I can emulate RIAA or a very large number of EQ curves, both mono and stereo, including all those used by Zanden. The phono pre has both unbalanced and balanced outputs, the latter to directly connect to my Pacific Microsonics Model Two for my ripping.

Please feel free to get further clarifications of what I have done, either on this thread or by PM.

Larry

Wow Larry, I feel like I should write you a check after reading that; what a valuable accounting of history.

I guess what I am still puzzled by (having read your work along with that of Myles and Mikey) is whether an absolute conclusion can be made about the standard used as opposed to the sound of the actual LP's. Just because the different houses have different sounding vinyl doesn't mean categorically they where cut with a different standard. It seems possible that both sides of the argument might be right if you distinguish between the actual standard used as opposed to the differences in execution from recording to cutting on a recording house by recording house basis.

Said differently, isn't it very possible that all these stereo recordings where originally cut with the RIAA Standard (as Mikey professes) and the sound differences which occur are due to the record company's execution. In turn, these differences can be improved by being tone controlled through phonos like Zanden. I am not saying this is a bad thing if it gets closer to the master tape but the reality is equalization is equalization (i.e., tone control) if it reverses a different standard than was used to cut the original.

I think where Mickey goes to far is to condemn Yamada-son for the wonderful work he has done in putting together a mechanism to return these recording house's respective sound closer to the Master tape than the recording house was able to do back in the day. Being so dogmatic about use of the evil "T. C." term in audio sometimes make me laugh.

It's ok if one uses the Zanden's Decca setting to reverse an original Decca curve, but if one is using the Decca setting to reverse an original RIAA curve and also make the LP sound more like the Master tape by controlling the tone idiosyncrasies of the recording house thats TABOO!!!!

Didn't I read somewhere that a lot of the work that Yamada-son did to set his curves (other than for RIAA) was by ear? That would say a lot about what's happening.

Originally Posted by FlexibleAudio

Wow Larry, I feel like I should write you a check after reading that; what a valuable accounting of history.

I guess what I am still puzzled by (having read your work along with that of Myles and Mikey) is whether an absolute conclusion can be made about the standard used as opposed to the sound of the actual LP's. Just because the different houses have different sounding vinyl doesn't mean categorically they where cut with a different standard. It seems possible that both sides of the argument might be right if you distinguish between the actual standard used as opposed to the differences in execution from recording to cutting on a recording house by recording house basis.

Said differently, isn't it very possible that all these stereo recordings where originally cut with the RIAA Standard (as Mikey professes) and the sound differences which occur are due to the record company's execution. In turn, these differences can be improved by being tone controlled through phonos like Zanden. I am not saying this is a bad thing if it gets closer to the master tape but the reality is equalization is equalization (i.e., tone control) if it reverses a different standard than was used to cut the original.

I think where Mickey goes to far is to condemn Yamada-son for the wonderful work he has done in putting together a mechanism to return these recording house's respective sound closer to the Master tape than the recording house was able to do back in the day. Being so dogmatic about use of the evil "T. C." term in audio sometimes make me laugh.

It's ok if one uses the Zanden's Decca setting to reverse an original Decca curve, but if one is using the Decca setting to reverse an original RIAA curve and also make the LP sound more like the Master tape by controlling the tone idiosyncrasies of the recording house thats TABOO!!!!

Didn't I read somewhere that a lot of the work that Yamada-son did to set his curves (other than for RIAA) was by ear? That would say a lot about what's happening.

That right there, to me, is all you need. As in phono amps, preamps,cables etc. etc. it is all at the end of the day dependent on someones ears & I'm a pretty big supporter of putting mine liking what I hear first. It does makes sense to me that there would have been filters for the reason of the signature from the different plants.

Originally Posted by astrotoy

I think it makes sense that different microphone set ups would have a significant effect on the sonics. I know that there is peakiness in some of the microphones, which otherwise have great abilities to record the ambience of a space. For Decca, Roy Wallace developed the first Decca Tree, but experimented with several different mikes, including putting in baffles between the mikes. As Kenneth 'Wilkie' Wilkinson took the lead chair in recording, he chose a different mike, the M50, for the Tree which became the standard. However, the many recordings that Wallace did, particularly in Geneva with Ansermet and others, use his choice of mikes, which varied more than Wilkie's.

I don't know the exact situation was with EMI. They had the famous crossed Blumlein mike arrangement. However the producers there, particularly the infamous Walter Legge, had much more control of the sound than the engineers. At Kingsway Hall, Decca and EMI had their separate recording booths. Decca's had the producer and engineer sharing the sweet spot, while EMI had the producer in the sweet spot, telling the engineer how to adjust the sound. I'll see what I can find out about the producer and engineer of AD299 - The Carnival of the Animals.

I guess my objection to Mikey's comments denigrating people like Yamada-san and Roy Gregory, is that he hasn't done the listening. I don't think that Zanden did all the work on their phono preamp just to make some extra bucks. Yamada has been well known to use his ears and not just go by the book.

Larry

I guess maybe in Mikey's defense his criticism might be more about the definition used in describing the phono stage equalization technique. Yamada-son may not really be using the older mono curves but is rather using a modified curve (based on his lengthy listening research) that is specific to each studio's house sound to get back to the master tape sound. Thats not a bad thing just different than the way it is stated by Zanden below. As Mikey said, it may be a translation issue but the following is pretty clear. Who's right?????


Many people believe that the recording curves of stereo LPs were unified in RIAA. However, as a result of a survey that Zanden conducted, we reached the conclusion that, TELDEC, EMI, COLUMBIA, and DECCA curves also exist in addition to RIAA and must be supported.

Originally Posted by Myles B. Astor

Audiophile done by Ewing Nunn in the late '50s and early '60s wasn't RIAA.

Stereo?