LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


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  June 2014

ARSCLIST June 2014

Subject:

Re: headroom

From:

Mark Durenberger Mobile <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 18 Jun 2014 06:49:20 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (131 lines)

As usual Tom...you're spot on.  BUT don't forget that loudspeaker 
high-frequency drivers can be taken out by such steep-rise-time transients 
faithfully passed through a good amplifying system :-))


Mark Durenberger, CPBE
On the Road

-----Original Message----- 
From: Tom Fine
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ARSCLIST] headroom

Hi Paul:

This opens up a whole new area of discussion!

I have a phono playback system with a lot of headroom and am very surprised 
at just how loud tick
and pop transients can be (6-12dB above musical peaks in some bad cases). I 
definitely agree that
clipping distortion plus tick equals worse sound. I think many of the tube 
preamps don't clip
because tubes aren't as fast into clipping and then the tick goes by and all 
is swell again,
especially if there's enough power supply current so nothing sags. My father 
did tests on mic
preamps, and talked about it at one of his AES NYC Section sessions. He 
found out that almost all
solid-state designs could be driven into clipping with European condenser 
mics relatively close to
muted trumpets, drum strikes or hard-hit piano notes. In the midrange 
frequencies, this was very
audible and distracting. The tube preamps, with the same sensitivity specs, 
and usually
older-vintage input transformers, did not overload as easily and did not 
present annoying clip-pops.
Keep in mind, this was circa early 70s testing, but also keep in mind that 
those early 70s
solid-state consoles are coveted by some to this day. I think that later 
transformerless designs,
with good input sensitivity control (real low-noise attenuator networks, not 
just a feedback
adjustment on an input differential amp), mitigated a lot of these problems.

I'm not saying you need tubes for good fidelity, in fact I use almost no 
tube gear in my studio and
none in my living room listening system. I am saying that, if you go with a 
solid-state design, for
anything involving wild and woolly peaks -- like a phono preamp or a mic 
preamp -- you better design
in a lot of headroom, more than you ever expect to need. You also better 
design a rock-solid
over-spec'd power supply, in either tube or solid-state equipment. In tape 
electronics design, there
is a known limit to headroom (the saturation point of whatever tape you're 
using). This, for
instance, is why Beyer Peanut transformers work fine for Ampex AG-440 
playback electronics (when
operated within spec -- +9 operating level is not appropriate for any older 
machine) but not so good
for mic preamps (except for low-output ribbon mics in front of moderately 
loud sources). And with
digital you have a brick wall limit to dynamics -- the distance from 
wherever you start to digital
zero. But even there, new debates rage about headroom. See the design notes 
for the latest Benchmark
DAC2 units. They were purposely designed with 2dB above digital zero 
headroom, explained better than
I can attempt in their white papers and technical notes.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Stamler" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Upgrading Audio Systems


> On 6/17/2014 12:53 PM, Miller, Larry S wrote:
>> Regarding your reluctance to upgrade your system to the point where
>> you can't stand to listen to your favorite recordings, I completely
>> sympathize.
>
> Funny, I'm just getting ready to address that question in an article I'm 
> working on (about a phono preamp design that's been percolating for 
> several years). My suspicion is that the electronic gear that "makes 
> pristine records sound better but makes imperfect records sound worse" is 
> not, as is often asserted, "revealing more accurately just how bad these 
> records really are". I suspect, instead, that imperfect records sometimes, 
> through their imperfections (scratches, wear, etc.) stimulate misbehavior 
> in the electronics which then causes us to hear the records as sounding 
> worse.
>
> Back in the 1970s, when tube equipment was beginning to reappear in the 
> home-audio world, a lot of people reported that certain tube preamps 
> seemed to emphasize scratches less than their solid-state brethren -- I 
> heard this a few times myself. A well-done article in, I think, JAES, 
> pointed out that the tubed preamps in question all had significantly more 
> headroom than solid-state preamps of the time, and suggested that this 
> might explain the lesser audibility of scratches. That sounded reasonable 
> to me, and my own experiments (written up in audioXpress) suggest that the 
> worst scratches on LPs and 78s may be as much as 26dB higher than the 
> 5cm/sec considered "nominal level" in disc cutting. I designed the preamp 
> with that kind of headroom in mind, and its various incarnations so far 
> have sounded very good.
>
> I hope to submit the article for publication within the next six months. 
> The design actually comes in two flavors -- one intended exclusively for 
> RIAA discs, and one with adjustable compensation (mostly for 78s).
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>   One reason I'm so fond of the Stanton 881-S cartridge is
>> that it seems to make recordings sound good without getting to the
>> point, as do some moving coils, that mediocre recordings sound
>> unpleasant.  I often wonder why this cartridge isn't used in
>> transcribing 78s since it was available with an off the shelf 2.7 mil
>> stylus and, to my ear, sounds much better than the commonly used
>> Stanton 500. But getting back to upgrading, I'll offer an alternate
>> view.  I'm not one who frequently upgrades my system, but when I do,
>> that is, when I hear some piece of equipment that makes some of my
>> favorite recordings sound better, then acquire it, I'm essentially
>> rewarded with a new record collection, sometimes hearing things I
>> never heard before.  That's why I upgrade.
>
> 

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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
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