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
thom_at_galibier_design's avatar
thom_at_galibier_design OP
729 posts
 
Groovey one ...

Yes, it goes without saying that halls, mikes (and miking techniques) can drastically alter the recorded sound for good or for ill.

I was on the phone with a recording engineer today and we were waxing philosophically about how under-emphasized pro-sound (recording) practices are in hi-end audio.

I have greatest respect for the opinions of Ralph Karsten, Jim Hagerman, Victor Khomenko, and Nick Doshi.

Having said that, Jim's and Victors' and Nick's arguments about balanced operation in a home audio context make more sense to me than Ralph's do.

Nick Doshi, for example works in a broadcast environment but in this case advocates a deviation from pro-sound practice by advocating single-ended phono stage operation.

What's to be concluded from this? If it sounds good, it IS good.

Sorry for the relativism here, but at the end of the day the only meter that you should be concerned with is the one that measures the width of the smile on your face.

It's we designers who have to sweat the details and numbers.

Now, as far as balanced is concerned, you can only try it and report back. Theory is just that and nothing more.

I have no doubt Ralph's experiences with balanced hookups are real and I would advise someone with an Atmasphere RIAA stage to experiment with a balanced hook-up.

It's Ralph's explanation that makes no sense to me however, as well how relevant it is to other balanced gear like Ayre, Hagerman, and BAT.

Please bear in mind that a correlation (Balanced hook-up in product X sounds good) does not imply causality (all balanced hookups are good), but at least you'll know what works for you in your situation.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier.
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,861 posts
 
Hi Thom, what is it about my explanation that you do not understand?
mothra
110 posts
 
What impressed me about talking to Nick (among other things) was that we both came from the pro audio background and he seemed very sensible about his design issues with hi fi gear. He doesn't throw around a lot of snake oil.

One thing I can tell you about tape machines and recording studios where all this music we listen to is made, is that power supplies have long been the devil. This may not be news to anyone but if get into the pro audio community you'll find slathering comments about certain ampex atr's and never boards and 3m half inch two tracks. In La, where i lived for a long time, most of the good studios like capitol, had dean jensen go through and rebuild everything. Their atr's machines were not nearly stock. not were the consoles at olympic or the neve's at ocean way or really any piece of gear that was famous. And, almost always, the power supply is the big thing that was skimped on.

nick's heavily damped unit, with separate supplies and keen attention to grounding is probably one of the reasons why his stuff sounds so great even though he didn't re-invent the wheel design-wise. I think he just has the diagnostic issues that create problems in other units licked.

I had an aesthetix rhea and the doshi absolutely embarrassed it for noise floor, detail and neutrality. I have not tried everything out there, but I kind of don't want to anymore.
thom_at_galibier_design's avatar
thom_at_galibier_design OP
729 posts
 
Hi Ralph,

Likely this best discussed (or put to rest) in the already heavily beaten to death thread on balanced inputs to phono stages - where you and Jim H. had an "enthusiastic" discussion - ultimately agreeing to disagree.

Two of the main points I can't get around are:

(1) Whether or not a cartridge is a balanced or a floating single ended device. Floating single ended makes more sense to me.

and

(2) Since everyone more or less agrees that there isn't a 6dB noise advantage to running a cartridge in "balanced" mode, what might the advantages of running a cartridge in balanced mode be.

Given the fact minds far greater than mine disagree on the subject, I'm content to ultimately let my (and your) ears be the final arbiter of goodness.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier
mothra
110 posts
 
I can see why some people don't like revealing systems for rock, but I always prefer neutrality (while still retaining musicality), it can just take some getting used to.

My dunlavy's are ruthless compared to my B&W's and some people think B&W's are overly neutral! The dunlavy's give you ever speaker cone distortion from an amp amd every rattle from a string while the B&W's are a little more cohesive with more of a mid-bass bump. The things that takes getting used to is how some of the older recordings especially certain rock stuff that was mixed on altec 604's, just really changes a lot on a revealing system. But that resolution is also addictive and I find myself not caring what speakers I hear chuck berry on. He's still great and the players are still great. The recordings reveals strange things but to me nothing gets in the way of music except bloaty or harsh colorations. Many tube products do this and I am with doug on not dialing sweetness into the system.

There is a line where a system becomes unmusical, but i find if it is unmusical it is usually not reproducing music the way it was heard by the microphones.

Some people find certain things musical that are really not very neutral and these things strike first and bug you later. wilson speakers come to mind, but to each their own.
More to discover