rauliruegas:
Let me chime in here and speak on my own behalf. I am probably going to regret this.
rauliruegas you wrote:
"That’s why I posted is a " tricky " design. It’s not a true SS design and certainly not a full bipolar one."
The iPhono is solid state end of story. There is not a valve device to be found in it. The iPhono does NOT differentiate from the RIAA curve (provided of the 6 available that is the one you have selected) so I don’t understand your posting of " they manipulated the signal to achieve a " signature ". They did not let it " goes " the design with out " touched " with out changed.".
If you are conflating the use of differing SS devices such as mosfet’s combined with bipolars or Jfets with "manipulating a signal" while still maintaining the RIAA curve I would humbly suggest you are in error.
Based on your argument, any and all devices, that are arranged in such a way as to present a certain set of characteristics, say the CCIR curve, would portend manipulation of that curve if they did not use one specific type of device throughout the circuit. Lets say that someone built a CCIR EQ circuit using all octals and then another person built a circuit with the exact same transfer function but using octals and 9 pin miniatures and lets throw in a jfet for the fun of it. If that EQ curve measures the same, they did NOT manipulate that signal. The Strain Gauge system (the older version more so than his latest efforts) could be said to manipulate the RIAA curve because if I am not mistaken is does not adhere to the RIAA curve (and I am NOT picking on that system, just highlighting a fact for demonstration purposes).
As an example my AMR PH 77 has a unique in-house designed curve for DMM records. That IS a manipulation of the RIAA curve. I believe your terminology is incorrect. If you are writing about signatures, then sure. Most manufacturers go for a certain signature, hence a "house-sound".
Unless you can produce a frequency plot or a circuit diagram that details a gross deviation from the RIAA specification within the iPhono 2 your words are at best reckless.
Now if someone doesn’t like the unit, so what. I don’t like most gear that the reviewers and many people rave about especially when it comes to dacs and phono stages.
I was shopping recently for my 4th phono stage and I compared the Pass Labs XP25, Sim Audio 810P, SPL Phonos and a few others in the same system. Based on magazine reviews and various sites and the psycho babble nuts who show up from time to time to tell us we only hear what we want to hear and that the most expensive units influence us, I should have chosen the Pass. I love Pass gear and at one time had the AWESOME Aleph 1.2 amps which by the way I should have kept, I still regret not hanging on to that amplifier, sigh. Ok, back to the point, the XP 25 was probably the one I liked least of all. I found it thin, sterile and detached from the music but it was airy. The best by FAR was the SPL Phonos and I bought it. Is it better than my iPhono 2 on a linear supply? Yes it is. It is the first phono stage other than my PH 77 that I have preferred to the iPhono 2 but it is noisier than the iPhono 2. The noise is not an issue unless you really have to go high into gain or volume which in my case I do not. The Sim was about $9K, Pass was $10.6K and the SPL is $2.5K. The point is that the iPhono 2 is a serious piece of gear and while it has vanquished many very expensive phono stages, I did find one (albeit 5 times the cost) that I prefer.
All of the above because you (Raul) wrote in another post "There is no way that tubes can compete with a good SS design if what we want is to be truer to the recording. ". I can tell you as the owner of a fully sorted R2R deck with R2R Safety Master of Jacintha "Here’’s to Ben" and "Jacintha is her Name" and the 45’s of both albums including the newly released 1 Plate Master limited edition of "Jacintha’s Here’s to Ben" my SP10 MK3 Kuzma/Anna/PH77 sounds closer to the R2R than any other phono stage I have heard. This tube vs SS nonsense needs to stop.
I have said for years the better my gear gets i.e. the better the individual pieces are the more they sound alike REGARDLESS of the underlying topology. This should make sense to anyone who understands what we are going after.
My Graaf Modena OTL sounds very very much like my Acoustic Reality Thaumaturges. If you a listen to live unamplified music or visit the Opera, etc. and your goal is an attempt at the recreation of that live sound AND if you go after gear that REALLY sounds truer to life and not what some on-the-take reviewer says is the best this month you should notice that more and more of your gear sounds very very similar regardless of its design.
Let me chime in here and speak on my own behalf. I am probably going to regret this.
rauliruegas you wrote:
"That’s why I posted is a " tricky " design. It’s not a true SS design and certainly not a full bipolar one."
The iPhono is solid state end of story. There is not a valve device to be found in it. The iPhono does NOT differentiate from the RIAA curve (provided of the 6 available that is the one you have selected) so I don’t understand your posting of " they manipulated the signal to achieve a " signature ". They did not let it " goes " the design with out " touched " with out changed.".
If you are conflating the use of differing SS devices such as mosfet’s combined with bipolars or Jfets with "manipulating a signal" while still maintaining the RIAA curve I would humbly suggest you are in error.
Based on your argument, any and all devices, that are arranged in such a way as to present a certain set of characteristics, say the CCIR curve, would portend manipulation of that curve if they did not use one specific type of device throughout the circuit. Lets say that someone built a CCIR EQ circuit using all octals and then another person built a circuit with the exact same transfer function but using octals and 9 pin miniatures and lets throw in a jfet for the fun of it. If that EQ curve measures the same, they did NOT manipulate that signal. The Strain Gauge system (the older version more so than his latest efforts) could be said to manipulate the RIAA curve because if I am not mistaken is does not adhere to the RIAA curve (and I am NOT picking on that system, just highlighting a fact for demonstration purposes).
As an example my AMR PH 77 has a unique in-house designed curve for DMM records. That IS a manipulation of the RIAA curve. I believe your terminology is incorrect. If you are writing about signatures, then sure. Most manufacturers go for a certain signature, hence a "house-sound".
Unless you can produce a frequency plot or a circuit diagram that details a gross deviation from the RIAA specification within the iPhono 2 your words are at best reckless.
Now if someone doesn’t like the unit, so what. I don’t like most gear that the reviewers and many people rave about especially when it comes to dacs and phono stages.
I was shopping recently for my 4th phono stage and I compared the Pass Labs XP25, Sim Audio 810P, SPL Phonos and a few others in the same system. Based on magazine reviews and various sites and the psycho babble nuts who show up from time to time to tell us we only hear what we want to hear and that the most expensive units influence us, I should have chosen the Pass. I love Pass gear and at one time had the AWESOME Aleph 1.2 amps which by the way I should have kept, I still regret not hanging on to that amplifier, sigh. Ok, back to the point, the XP 25 was probably the one I liked least of all. I found it thin, sterile and detached from the music but it was airy. The best by FAR was the SPL Phonos and I bought it. Is it better than my iPhono 2 on a linear supply? Yes it is. It is the first phono stage other than my PH 77 that I have preferred to the iPhono 2 but it is noisier than the iPhono 2. The noise is not an issue unless you really have to go high into gain or volume which in my case I do not. The Sim was about $9K, Pass was $10.6K and the SPL is $2.5K. The point is that the iPhono 2 is a serious piece of gear and while it has vanquished many very expensive phono stages, I did find one (albeit 5 times the cost) that I prefer.
All of the above because you (Raul) wrote in another post "There is no way that tubes can compete with a good SS design if what we want is to be truer to the recording. ". I can tell you as the owner of a fully sorted R2R deck with R2R Safety Master of Jacintha "Here’’s to Ben" and "Jacintha is her Name" and the 45’s of both albums including the newly released 1 Plate Master limited edition of "Jacintha’s Here’s to Ben" my SP10 MK3 Kuzma/Anna/PH77 sounds closer to the R2R than any other phono stage I have heard. This tube vs SS nonsense needs to stop.
I have said for years the better my gear gets i.e. the better the individual pieces are the more they sound alike REGARDLESS of the underlying topology. This should make sense to anyone who understands what we are going after.
My Graaf Modena OTL sounds very very much like my Acoustic Reality Thaumaturges. If you a listen to live unamplified music or visit the Opera, etc. and your goal is an attempt at the recreation of that live sound AND if you go after gear that REALLY sounds truer to life and not what some on-the-take reviewer says is the best this month you should notice that more and more of your gear sounds very very similar regardless of its design.
