2. analog
  3. 1172373006

What Makes a Good RIAA or Line Stage?

Hi Doug,

In a currently running thread on a certain RIAA / Line stage beginning with the letter "E", some very provocative comments were made that are of a general nature.

I fear that this conversation will be lost on the many individuals who have soured on the direction which that particular thread has taken. For the purpose of future searches of this archive, those interested in the "E" thread can click this link.

For the rest of us who are interested in some of the meta concepts involved in RIAA and Line Level circuits, I've kicked this thread off - rather than to hijack that other one. In that thread, you (Doug) mused about the differences between your Alap and Dan's Rhea/Calypso:

... the Alaap has the best power supplies I've heard in any tube preamp. This is (in my admittedly unqualified opinion) a major reason why it outplayed Dan's Rhea/Calypso, which sounded starved at dynamic peaks by comparison.

Knowing only a bit more than you, Doug, I too would bet the farm on Nick's p-s design being "better", but know here that "better" is a very open ended term. I'd love to hear Nick's comments (or Jim Hagerman's - who surfs this forum) on this topic, so I'll instigate a bit with some thoughts of my own. Perhaps we can gain some insight.

----

Power supplies are a lot like automobile engines - you have two basic categories:

1. The low revving, high torque variety, characteristic of the American muscle car and espoused by many s-s designers in the world of audio.

2. The high revving, low torque variety characteristic of double overhead cam, 4 valves per cylinder - typically espoused by the single-ended / horn crowd.

Now, just as in autos, each architecture has its own particular advantage, and we truly have a continuum from one extreme to the other..

Large, high-capacitance supplies (category 1) tend to go on forever, but when they run out of gas, it's a sorry sight. Smaller capacitance supplies (category 2) recharge more quickly - being more responsive to musical transients, but will run out of steam during extended, peak demands.

In my humble opinion, your Alap convinced Dan to get out his checkbook in part because of the balance that Nick struck between these two competing goals (an elegant balance), but also because of a design philosophy that actually took music into account.

Too many engineers lose sight of music.

Take this as one man's opinion and nothing more, but when I opened the lid on the dual mono p-s chassis of my friend's Aesthetix Io, my eyes popped out. I could scarcely believe the site of all of those 12AX7 tubes serving as voltage regulators - each one of them having their own 3-pin regulators (e.g. LM317, etc.) to run their filaments.

Please understand that my mention of the Aesthetix is anecdotal, as there are quite a few designs highly regarded designs which embody this approach. It's not my intent to single them out, but is rather a data point in the matrix of my experience.

I was fairly much an electronics design newbie at the time, and I was still piecing my reality together - specifically that design challenges become exponentially more difficult when you introduce too many variables (parts). Another thing I was in the process of learning is that you can over-filter a power supply.

Too much "muscle" in a power supply (as with people), means too little grace, speed, and flexibility.

If I had the skill that Jim Hagerman, Nick Doshi, or John Atwood have, then my design goal would be the athletic equivalent of a Bruce Lee - nimble, lightning quick and unfazed by any musical passage you could throw at it.

In contrast, many of the designs from the big boys remind me of offensive linemen in the National Football League. They do fine with heavy loads, and that's about it.

One has to wonder why someone would complicate matters to such an extent. Surely, they consider the results to be worth it, and many people whom I like and respect consider the results of designs espousing this philosophy of complexity to be an effort that achieves musical goals.

I would be the last person to dictate tastes in hi-fi - other than ask them to focus on the following two considerations:

1. Does this component give me insight into the musical intent of the performer? Does it help me make more "sense" out of things?

2. Will this component help me to enjoy EVERY SINGLE ONE of my recordings, and not just my audiophile recordings?

All other considerations are about sound effects and not music.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier
128x128thom_at_galibier_design
mothra
110 posts
 
raul,

the vast majority of recording engineers to not like uncolored recording equipment in my experience. The ubiquitous sound of the proximity effect on a neumann u-47 up close that bumps in the high midrange and rolls off steeply in the higher freq.is evidence of this. Especially today, accuracy is not the name of the game. heavy editing and the close mic'ing of soloists in classical music, changing the sound stage has taken some of the natural quality that remained in classical music recording longer than some forms, out of it.

The very idea of multiple microphones really changes what the ear would hear "live". And yes, you can out you ears when the mics are, but how the mics are mixed together and their on and off axis response are just two factors of many that make recording an art as much as a science. Sometimes microphones with poor freq response measurably, have more of a "you are there" feeling than people would imagine. Sort of the like quad 57 speaker can be very musical. The famous rca living stereo string sound is wonderful but far wider than an actual orchestral image.

I tend to be digressive in these discussions and I apologize, but given your post on this, I wanted to point out that these things are carefully designed often for the colorations they bring to music. Reproducing equipment hopefully is trying for less coloration and more neutrality in that it gives the recording its intended sound. But recordings themselves are all over the map. Engineers, sadly are moving even further away from reality as they have been doing since the 70's when heavy isolation came into vogue.
jcarr
382 posts
 
Quite so, Mothra. I've been at recording sessions where I was able to physically put my ears where the microphones were, and then listen to the electrical feed from microphones. In the majority of cases, there is a substantial difference between what the ear and microphone hears, even from the same location. And in most modern recordings, a variety of microphones are used, and each modifies the sound in distinctive ways.

Also, the location and angle of the microphones will in most cases be quite different from what you would hear if you were at a performance of the same event. Most microphones are located far closer to the instrument than any audience seat, and the angles will be quite different, too.

If you have a friend who plays the violin (for example), it is very instructive to listen to it being played at a distance (like you would hear from an audience seat), then listen to it from a distance of under one meter to get the microphones' perspective, and also listen to the instrument from above (again to get the microphones' perspective).

Now put all of the above together and think about the implications for a home audio reproduction system. Since the recording likely does not sound like what you would have heard live from a seat in the audience, if you have set up your audio system to sound like what you'd hear live, it is almost certain that your audio system is modifying what's on the recording, and not in a small way, either!

However, there are recordings that include a list of the equipment used, and also microphone placement drawings. If you know what the recording gear sounds like, and also study the placement drawings, you can form a closer guesstimate of what these recordings should probably sound like, and this can be a somewhat better guide to setting up your system (although you still won't know what the mixing contributed, as Mothra pointed out).
mothra
110 posts
 
yes, and some of those "you are there" recordings like roy dunan's Rollins "way out west" are all u-47's and c-12's. very colored mics with a lot of proximity effect in cardioid pattern. I'm do this for a living and I can't make a record sound that good (nor have i ever had players of that caliber), so i'm not knocking it. But you're right that the live sound and the mic feed is often very different. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

I have great respect for your ability to make cartidges that bring out those colored sounds with an even hand though!
jcarr
382 posts
 
And my hat goes off to you, and all recording engineers who capture those great performances which justify our having audio systems!
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,841 posts
 
It is really helpful to work with live recording sessions and master tapes, especially if they find their way to LP!

I've done a lot of recording and after a while you get used to the way your mics 'hear' and place them where they will get the effect you are after- not always where you would put your ears.

Hagtech is quite correct that the device does not have to be inductive; IOW a balanced source is certainly not limited to inductive devices (like microphones, transformers and cartridges). You can even get ceramic devices to be balanced, but who would want to- like frying an egg on the sidewalk :)

IMO, careful design of differential balanced circuits includes the use of properly designed constant current sources and you will want to have a properly regulated power supply too. A proper CCS will dramatically increase the differential amplifier's ability to reject power supply noise, and again if done right seems to reduce the overall noise floor of the differential amplifier as well.

I my case where this took me was less stages of gain overall. Figuring out what the tubes needed to be quiet was the key.
More to discover