LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  February 2012

ARSCLIST February 2012

Subject:

Fw: Re: Fw: [ARSCLIST] Phono Preamps

From:

Roderic G Stephens <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:13:45 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (276 lines)

Hi,
I want to once again thank all of you for the good advice about what phono preamp might fit my budget and needs. I'm still considering all the options.
In the back and forth on the subject, Goran Finnberg had some very strong criticisms (below) regarding Esoteric Sound's two units, so I forwarded the comments to the company, since I thought they should have a chance to respond.  Below is that response. I thought it might generate more insight on the subject of specs vs. user comments.
Rod

--- On Sat, 2/25/12, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Fw: [ARSCLIST] Phono Preamps
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Saturday, February 25, 2012, 2:49 PM



 
 

Hi,
 
It took me some time to devote to all of these somewhat excited remarks, 
but I finally got the time.
 
Regards,
 
Mike Stosich
 
 
 
Having been requested, I will offer a few comments on the recent 
uncomplimentary paper analysis of our PMMP BY GF. First, I would like to mention 
that we provide more specification details than most manufacturers, who often 
give up after stating the weight and power consumption.  We give minimum 
performance details, not marketing specs.  In fact, several of the 
complaints referred to info we provided that is often not published by 
others.  Had we not published them, we might have received a slightly 
different review.
 
It was suggested that the overload margin of the preamp was inadequate and 
that heavily modulated records will severely overload this preamp.  I hate 
to do things twice, especially when prompted by people who jump to conclusions 
based theoretical articles they read.  So, I revisited old design 
considerations and tested a unit pulled from stock with various LP records and 
78 rpm records.  I used a relatively high output Stanton 500.V3 cartridge 
and observed the output on an oscilloscope.  Guess what?  No peaks, no 
clicks, no pops, nothing approached clipping the output.  Too bad, nobody 
will have to listen to clipped pops!   Just for fun, I scratched the 
stylus from side to side of a record and then only that managed to clip once or 
twice.  My advice is not to purchase our preamp if you like to listen to 
dragging your phono arm from side to side.
 
Our subsonic filter was a last minute addition after it was noticed that 
the house shook when records were played on our system consisting of B&W 801 
Matrix III speakers and a subwoofer.  We had too flat of 
response.   The low end drops 3 dB at 7Hz and continues down at about 
a 9 dB/oct. rate.  It is not an exotic filter, but sonic earthquakes are 
gone and the bass is still solid.  Again, it is an oft-not specified 
detail.   
 
The signal to noise ratio of the preamp (better than most audiophile 
turntables) was described as completely useless as it is not stated whether this 
is with shorted input or with an actual cartridge connected.  Please 
understand that “completely useless” was used, not vague, or confusing, but 
“useless.”  Useless to whom?  Someone who cannot make a simple mind 
extrapolation, or cannot hear?  How often have you ever seen the test 
conditions stated in a simple spec sheet?  You get the result.  It 
doesn’t really make that much of a difference.  So, the S/N might we equal 
to the rumble of your audiophile turntable, or 10 dB better.   Who 
cares?  You won’t hear it.  As it is, we use the 600 Ohm position of 
our Audio Precision.  So, do not fear, the input is not shorted.  

 
Oh that reminds me, we were criticized for listing our output 
impedance.  The input impedance and the output impedance of most audio 
device is usually given.  They are basic information.  Suddenly, 600 
ohms is a sign of unprofessional design.  This is more a joke than a 
criticism..  We could have made it 50 Ohms but what for?  To feed some 
ancient equipment with too low an input impedance?   In actuality, we 
use 560 Ohm resistor in the output as form of short circuit protection.  
Simple, low cost, and it works.  It is amazing how many of our professional 
customers have problems with our preamp driving the 10 Ohm inputs of their 
professional gear.
 
I cannot comment on the claim that a +/-0.25 dB variation in audio response 
is excessive.   That is better or equal to just about any 
preamp.  Oops, I just did.
 
I should point out that as large percentage of the purchasers of both the 
PMMP and the Re-Equalizer are professionals, and that is a good reason for us to 
use the term in our product’s description. 
 
Our Re-Equalizer (first-ever product like it) has but one competitor, 
Manuel Huber’s FM Acoustics device.  The FM Acoustics device is very nice, 
more than nice; it is a gem.  However, consider that  we may not need 
1% accuracy to replicate records that were made with 20% tolerance 
components.  For over 25 years, every review of the Re-Equalizer has been 
glowing.  Amongst those unprofessionals are Len Feldman at Audio 
Magazine,  John Borwick at The Gramophone Magazine, and Art Dudley at 
Stereophile Magazine.  We all know that Stereophile Magazine focuses only 
on mediocre, Big-Box Store equipment.  It is difficult to understand why 
they would put it in their list of Recommended Components.  We provide a 
manual with equalization settings that have taken 30 years of research.  
Amongst those with whom we worked with was Peter Copeland, ex-BBC and the 
British National Sound Archive, and we found many mistakes in what had 
previously been published of the subject.
 
We design our equipment to be cost effective, not spec. impressive.  
They meet 90% or better of the needs of professionals and collectors   
Our PMMP will provide most of the performance of a $200.00 or more preamp, and 
our Re-Equalizer’s only competitor costs about  l0 times more (actually, it 
seems impossible to find the selling price).  My best guess is that you can 
purchase our products at a total cost of $438.00 or the complainee’s for 
$3,900.00, and end up with very similar results.
 
Best Regards,
 
Mike Stosich, Esoteric Sound
 
 
 

In a message dated 2/17/2012 12:02:05 P.M. Central Standard Time, 
[log in to unmask] writes:

  
    
    
      Ladies and Gentlemen of Esoteric, 
        

        This email is from the ARSCLIST archival group in response to my 
        search for a reasonable cost phono preamp.  I thought you should 
        have the right to refute these accusations.  Please respond, and I 
        will forward any comments to the group if you wish.
        

        Sincerely,
        

        Rod Stephens

--- On Thu, 2/16/12, Goran Finnberg 
        <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

        
From: 
          Goran Finnberg <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [ARSCLIST] 
          Phono Preamps
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, 
          February 16, 2012, 7:55 AM


          Roderic G Stephens :

http://www.esotericsound.com/Electronics/PMMPREQII/page1.htm

With 
          an overload point of just 35 mV heavily modulated records will 
          severely
overload this preamp.

And if the music is not loud 
          enough on a given record then the ticks and
crackles will do this 
          constantly since such disturbances will provide for
mechanical 
          forces on the stylus tip well in advance what can be cut so 
          the
actual voltage output is much higher on the ticks and crackles 
          than any
music can provide.

The Sub Sonic filter is 
          completely useless having a very low cut off at 6 Hz
with no 
          information what the roll off rate is.

To really be effective 
          the absolute minimum requirement is 18 dB/octave at
15 Hz to even 
          start making some inroad in the copious amounts of low
frequency 
          disturbances coming off vinyl disks.

Using +-15V dc powering, 
          standard for anything op amp based I would excpect
to see an output 
          clipping level of minimum 8.9 V RMS but this device clips
at 2.9 V 
          output.

The S/N figure specification is completely useless as 
          it is not stated
whether this is with shorted input or with an 
          actual cartridge connected.

Shorted input always gives a much 
          better S/N figure compared to with an
actual cartridge 
          connected.

The Re-Equalizer is the same with very low values of 
          clipping level at 3.5 V
rms.

With such mediocre 
          specifications I would not even bother to listen to 
          this
couple.

The very low overload level of the RIAA preamp 
          is a real killer and makes it
unusable in a professional setting. I 
          prefer minimu 100 mV and most
"Professional" ones will easily give 
          you 200 mV.

In no way can I agree to the claim of 
          "Professional" in its name, Rek-O-Kut
Professional blah blah. This 
          is just sales babble.

Looks like a cheap two transistor 
          implementation of an RIAA preamp for home
use with its attendant 
          problems......600 ohms output impedance means nothing
at all since 
          no indication is given to its actual current delivery,
loadability, 
          but true professional equipment usually is below 50 ohms and
can be 
          loaded down to 200 ohms with little change in its 
          specifications.

Also when I look at the printed RIAA response 
          curve on top of the box I note
that the response is elevated below 
          1 kHz and depressed above 1 kHz.

Such an inbuilt chosen EQ 
          inaccuracy will always sound nicer than a really
accurate RIAA 
          preamp having basically flat response from 20 to 20 kHz.

This 
          Rek-O-Kut RIAA curve inaccuracy will tend to lessen perceived mid 
          freq
harshness and increase the LF warmth since the errors are over 
          at least 5
octave either way.

Sorry, no 
          cigar.

YMMV.

---- 
Best regards,

Goran 
          Finnberg
The Mastering Room AB
Goteborg
Sweden

E-mail: 

          [log in to unmask]

Learn 
          from the mistakes of others, you can never live long enough to
make 
          them all yourself.    -   John 
          Luther

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager