What Tom said? I'm with him.
Just this note: Many (or anyway some) 78s pressings in unplayed M or M+
condition are very un-noisy. Properly handled the surface noise is
constant and not unlike tape hiss.
Best of all are the fabulous Victor Z-scrolls made for radio stations and
libraries from the highest-grade compounds.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Paul Stamler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 3/29/2015 1:26 AM, Corey Bailey wrote:
>> I would like to respectfully disagree (Agree to disagree?).
> Well, that's how things should be! Let a hundred flowers bloom.
> First of all, I have, and use, the software you mentioned. I've tried
>> the comparisons, not only with Audition 3 and DC-8, but Sound Forge 9,
>> Pro Tools and Sonic Solutions (haven't tried after-the-fact phono EQ
>> with Cedar or Pyramix) and I agree with those who are on the side of
>> hardware EQ in the analog domain. Audiophiles have been arguing for
>> years about the virtues of one phono preamp over another. The
>> differences that they are really hearing can be defined as the "time
>> constants" of a given design. The differences in time constants are
>> simply the result of the type of parts used in a particular design and
>> how they are arranged, regardless of weather we are discussing solid
>> state or vacuum tube circuitry. And, as you know, the debate between
>> "toobs" and solid state circuit designs rages on.
> Not relevant; whether or not the differences in hardware RIAA preamps are
> due to different time constants, there's no excuse for making an RIAA
> preamp with the wrong time constants these days. The formulas are known.
> (Not simple, but known.)
> EQ in the digital
>> domain does not make allowances for part tolerances or varying circuit
> Huh? It doesn't need to. A flat transfer is (or should be) a flat
> transfer, and parts tolerances will only affect channel balance (easily
> I find that when digital EQ is applied to a flat record
>> transfer, the result is somewhat lifeless sounding although much more
>> precise, I'm sure. I have to agree with Gary Galo that making a "flat"
>> transfer does not allow for the headroom needed for the turnover
>> frequencies unless you are willing to make your reference level around
> Actually I've done and published measurements and calculations showing
> that standard opamps, used with +/-5V supplies, have enough headroom to
> handle the output of standard-sensitivity cartridges; the big barrier is
> large scratches.
> Not adding the roll-off can make sense if a considerable amount
>> of digital processing is needed to reduce noise or remove scratches,
>> etc. This is where accessing an external analog EQ is useful for post
>> processing (I use a GML8200 for this) although it has to be done in real
>> time. If digital processing is going to be required, using a higher
>> sample rate and bit depth is also beneficial.
> I always use 24-bit recording. The descratching programs seem to work
> better at 24 bits. I do record at lowish levels, sometimes around -25dBFS.
> sometimes lower, sometimes higher. Since I use a fixed-level card
> (CardDeluxe) and no level control in the preamp, the level in the computer
> depends on how hot the disc was cut. But with 24-bit recording, there's no
> real penalty for recording at max=-25dBFS.
> As one who works on both the outside and inside of analog mixing
>> consoles (have for years) and, although it wasn't your main point, I can
>> tell you that the electronic design world has moved on from the NE5532.
>> The disclaimer here is that I have never been a fan of multiple op-amps
>> in one package and the NE5532 is the one I would use to make my argument.
> Actually, for serious designs, I too prefer single-opamp packages; the
> problem isn't so much leakage from one amplifier to the other inside the
> package, but simultaneous loads on a single pair of power supply pins and
> closely-spaced PC traces, leading to crosstalk. But for a simple "bivouac"
> flat-EQ preamp, a 5532 will do a more-than-adequate job. Even powered by
> batteries, definitely non-ideal but, again, workable.
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.