MC phono stage without transformer?

Ralph, what's your opinion on Roy Gregory's writings / reviews on "alternative" LP equalizations and the supposed criticality of adjusting this EQ to fit the label?

He might be on to something, but I wonder if this compensates for EQ differences or just "bad" mastering? Can all DGs be that poorly mastered?

Another long discussion on the viability of step up transformers and what is the conclusion? Spend big bucks on a transformer less design if you want the best sound. What a surprise! Any transformerless carrots for people who don't want to spend $3K-$10K on a phonostage and would rather spend that sort of money on records (ie 90% of audiophiles and 100% of music lovers)?

Dear Plinko, Build it yourself, if you feel that strongly about expensive SUT-less phono stages. It can be done for far far less than $3K. There are schematics galore on-line. For example, check out the Vacuum State website. AW shows the schematics of many of his best designs there. But meantime, it's a bit unfair and very inaccurate to infer that those of us who use expensive phono stages cannot also be "music lovers".

There is so much more to it than just assembling the parts. I'm sure that Nick Doshi, Ralph, Jim Hagermann, Jose, etc., all started off as DIY'ers. So what are you really paying for (exclude any marketing for the sake of discussion) when you buy equipment from these folks? The answer is their invaluable experiences. I do agree that you can get very good results with DIY projects and kits. And, you can get very good results using quality SUTs. Maybe it won't be world class performance, but as long as the music it recreates sounds good to you what else matters?

Before we analogers get too busy wringing our hands over the cost of performance, take some time and read the digital forums about what is happening to CD transports. If you don't spend thousands all you get is a cheap, PC-style transport in a pretty box that may not be supported a few years after you buy it. I think that in comparison the future is very bright for vinyl.

I attended one of Roy Gregory's demos of (among other things) equalization issues and their remedy with the Zanden. The differences are not well explain IMHO by merely the vagaries of mastering. I also researched a bit the RIAA standard and when it was adopted, and though 1954-55 is the date the pre-emphasis curve was 'adopted', there are comments that it was not universally used by all until years later, perhaps in some cases more than a decade later.

It is also not implausible that some existing mastering suites were slow to use the RIAA curve, for reasons of cost and convenience. I'm speculating here, but given how well the alternate playback curves worked in improving timbre at the demo, I think these LPs were mastered with the older curves they were used to using. This contention is bolstered a bit by the observation that this isn't found on just a few LPs of the label, but seems pervasive with a label, e.g. DGG recordings of the late 50s and early 60s often seem 'muffled', with apparent roll-offs at the top and too much lower midrange which deadens string tone among other things -- when using RIAA de-emphasis that is. (At some point this changed.) Perhaps it was also assumed that few people would honestly hear the difference, or know why it was there, or there was a concern that loyal customers of the label were already using 'their' playback curve and they didn't want to disturb their customer base.

In any case, I think that for serious collectors who have many non-US recordings of the 50s and 60s, a phono stage with more de-emphasis choices is desirable. Tony Cordesman reached the same conclusion when reviewing the re-do of the Citation I preamp. This unit might be a good choice, though it may lack ultimate clarity and transparency which to me reduces its appeal. YMMV.

Jeff