Re: [ARSCLIST] (dream) restoration phono preamp opinions wanted

[Steven Smolian <smolians@xxxxxxxxx>]

I've been working some from mono LPs to master to CD.  In my experience, 
accurate recording/playback eq is imprecise at best, and, quite frequently, 
imaginary.  Further eq is always needed.

I've encountered a specific situation where I've had three issues of a 
Period LP, all mastered before 1959, each with its own eq.  One was early, 
probably Columbia, c. 1951, for which I used the LP setting. Another, 
mastered by RCA with the type in 1954 in small block letters and numbers, 
used NAB,  a third, using the same RCA matrix number but handwritten, fell 
in the cracks somewhere. I used RIAA and adjusted a whole lot with an 
equalizer.

Tube equipment has hum- it's genetic!  It should be removed during the 
restoration process.  If you prefer your finished audio with tube sound, ok. 
But don't plead accuracy.  You are deliberately including non-musical noise.

In short- you know the answer.  Listening.

Steve Smolian


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Ross" <johnross@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] (dream) restoration phono preamp opinions wanted


> At  4/3/2007 10:24 PM, EricJ wrote:
> > When it comes to phono preamps that are capable of
> > historical EQs, I was wondering...
> >
> > 1.  How many people use anything but RIAA, NAB, and FLAT
> >     EQs for digital transfers when doing preservation work?
>
> For 78s and pre-RIAA LPs, I generally use a tube-era preamp that has 
> front-panel adjustments for Turnover and Rolloff. A McIntosh C-8 is 
> particularly flexible, but it requires an early Mac power amplifier as a 
> power supply. I also like my Scott 121-C, with the Dynaural Noise 
> Reduction function. I wouldn't use the noise reduction for preservation, 
> but it's nice for casual listening. Of course, any tube equipment of that 
> vintage almost certainly needs to be re-capped before you would want to 
> use it for serious work.
>
>
> > 2.  Is the ability to reproduce a wide range of EQs on the phono preamp 
> > important, or do you apply the final EQ in the DAW using digital filters?
>
> I think either approach is acceptable, as long as the EQ is correct.
>
> > 3.  Do you use an analog processor in conjunction with your DAW to apply 
> > EQ later to a FLAT digital transfer (ie. an analog processor loop)?
>
> No.
>
> > 4.  How often do you run into the situation where your phono preamp 
> > doesn't have the EQ you want?  It gets close, but not quite what you want.
>
> That is not an issue with either the Scott or the McIntosh preamps.
>
> > 8.  If the phono preamp has accurate EQ(s), is quiet, and has low 
> > distortion, does anyone prefer tube versus solid-state electronics?  Does 
> > this matter?
>
> Obviously, I'm partial to tubes, but for RIAA  EQ, I also use solid-state 
> (including a McIntosh C-24, a Stanton 310 and some other broadcast preamps 
> with balanced outputs
>
>
> > 9.  Do you use a custom-built phono preamp or a commercial phono preamp?
>
> They're all commercial devices.
>
>
> > And if there's a phono preamp that supports historical EQs that you
> > really absolutely love, let me know, because maybe I should be buying
> > instead of building.
>
> As I said earlier, I like both the Mac C-8 and the Scott 121-C. 
> Unfortunately, both are subject to the demands of the loony collectors' 
> market, so the prices are out of line with their value as playback tools. 
> You can find relatively inexpensive C-8s, but they're useless without an 
> expensive MC-30 or 20W-2 amplifier to supply power to the tubes.
>
> John Ross
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/745 - Release Date: 4/3/2007 
> 12:48 PM