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

mep said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
TD712zMK2_mimg.jpg
 
Well the Millennia LOC certainly can be filed under the "looks lousy & industrial" category. They should pare down the features and release a consumer friendly version.
 
I dont normally give 2 hoots about vinyl, but the FM aciustics phono stage seems outrageous to me in the 1 hour demo session we had in Warsaw presented by the owner. Just the fact that he played LPs with deep nail scratches wiith pops left me gobsmacked. On top of that the double dynamics inherent in his design due to not wasting a channel made me think that this might be the most advanced component of its kind in the world.
 
MikeCh said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
FlexibleAudio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
FlexibleAudio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Myles B. Astor said:
At the least one should have five basic settings for their phono sections: RIAA, EMI, Columbia, Decca, and DIN/IEC.
Click to expand...

I thought I read somewhere that Capitol may have used their own too? I have many Capitol P-series that are some of the cleanest sounding pressings I own. Would be great to play them the way they were intended:

attachment.php


This Milstein sounds glorious now with RIAA, but could it sound better if a different curve was used?

Same with others....
 

Attachments

  • Art of Milstein 001 (Large).jpg
    Art of Milstein 001 (Large).jpg
    84.5 KB · Views: 95
Myles B. Astor said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

1014riaa_0.jpeg

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.

 
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.
 
MikeCh said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
FlexibleAudio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hi Paul, thanks.

My understanding is that even with mono's that spanned into the sixties, there still was no "standard". I don't know if that's true or not. Most of the Mono's sound great with RIAA but there are some that I wonder about. Could they sound better with a boost here or a cut there in frequency curve?

I don't want to spend thousands to find out, but in talking with an audio friend recently he suggested that I look for a used Graham Slee phono preamp with the selectable adjustments. I think that might be a way for me to test the waters and if there is an audible improvement with differing EQ's, then I can think about investing further with a higher grade and adjustable phono preamp down the road.
 
Myles B. Astor said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top