Hi John,
Just FYI, Mcintosh built an external power supply called an D-8A
that will run the c-4 or c-8 beautifully.It has a hum balance pot that
is effective in minimising hum. Note minimising !!
Hope this is usefull. Or buy the parts and build one yourself. Nothing
special.
Bob Hodge
>>> smolians@xxxxxxxxx 4/4/2007 1:20 PM >>>
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