Okay, I'm very interested in the 950 -- particularly now that I've heard/ read quite extensively about the previous problems and how well they have been addressed by Outlaw. However, if I get the 950 to use in the place of my current system, can I use my turntable? I place a lot of value on my record listening (probably 1/2 - 2/3 of all my music is on vinyl). In reviewing the literature, I noticed no mention of a phono section. Thus I guess I'd have to get a seperate phono pre-amp. Is that so? And if so, does anyone have an inexpensive -- but good sounding -- option? I've got a Rega Planar 3. Thanks y'all!

Yes, you'll need to get a phono preamp and connect it to the 950 through one of the analog inputs.

I use a Rotel phono preamp that works quite well and sells for under $200 retail.

I think there are also some phono preamps that will output a digital data stream, but some folks find that offensive. I suspect the intent is to apply the EQ in the digital domain.

I use a Parasound P/PH100 with my 1050 and will also use it when I pull the trigger on the 950. The Paraound unit can be found used on Audiogon for $75-$90 or new for around $120 at Audio Advisor . And NO, I do not work for AA (or Audio Advisor either).

Okay, so what are the qualities of the Rotel? Warmth? Clean? etc. And, if you don't mind bobliinds, could you list the model #?

Are there other phono preamp units to consider?

I use a Creek OBH-8SE. Not cheap, but well worth the price in my opinion. Rotel, Parasound, and NAD all make cheaper phono preamps. You can also find $25 versions on ebay and at Radio Shack, but believe it or not, the Radio Shack model actually gets quite good reviews. www.audioasylum.com is a good place to do research.

Here's an article that deals with the Rotel pretty fairly IMO.

http://www.audio-ideas.com/reviews/analog-sources/rotel-rq970-anthem-pre1p.html

I have a low output Sumiko MC cartridge. Even though the Rotel is set up for MC operation, I find my system sounds better with a Levinson phono pre/preamp ahead of the Rotel. Then I run the Rotel in MM mode.

As others have mentioned, there are LOTS of other choices, including that Radio Shack battery-powered unit (which is hard to find these days, I understand, but is quite desirable.)

Finally, I would think that a phono preamp that output digital would defeat the purpose of having vinyl capability in the first place: the increased resolution of a fully analog sound stream.

If you want to digitally tweak vinyl audio, you can always run the 950 in digital mode (not bypass) and use DPL2 or Neo:6 to dink with it. (which is very worth doing with some recorded material, by the way.)


[This message has been edited by bobliinds (edited January 26, 2003).]

My assumption (never really read the marketing stuff) was that it was designed to allow the EQ to be done with great precision in the digital domain, but that's my speculation. Also, I can think of other reasons for vinyl capability; listening to a large existing music collection would be near the top of that list I'd think.

As for increased resolution, analog is one thing (high speed tape, etc.), but vinyl is doing pretty good to muster the equivelent of 12 bits of resolution on a good day.

Playing devil's advocate is one thing, just plain misinformed is another. A comment like the one above may move me to avoid your future posts on this board. That would be a shame, but please try to watch out when personal opinion outweighs established and provable knowledge.

Getting back to the discussion at hand, Music Hall also makes a phono pre-amp in inexpensive ($100-$200) range. I have experience with their entry-level turntable and it really does impress me.

Um, do the math? 12 bits isn't really all that bad. Most LPs have around 9-10 bits of useful data, but I was being generous. This of course doesn't address sample rate - a whole new can of worms, but I'll just leave that one alone....

Your response seems very forceful for what IMO is a very simple and factual post. If you have some reasoning on this I've missed I'll be happy to discuss it, but if this is just a strongly held belief for you and it offends you to see this sort of thing in print I'll drop it and we can agree to disagree, OK?

Playing at being censor isn't in anyone's interest.

[This message has been edited by charlie (edited January 27, 2003).]

Censor? Hmm...

I do apologize if I came across harsh. It's true I've always have been more of an analog fan. It's just that I've never heard of a record being described in "bits". Nor do I understand how you can claim a record can be of a lower resolution than a redbook CD? I would actually would love to hear your reasoning behind either of these ideas.

Sure. I'm just a little gun-shy about confrontation in this forum lately....

Basically each bit in a PCM data word gives 6db of S/N ratio (in theory) and it takes a very good LP to achieve anything around 60 db S/N ratio (IIRC) so at least from a bit depth standpoint that's pretty much it, allowing for similar QoI in both systems of course.

Sample rate vs. bandwidth is a whole other discussion and has nothing to do (other than consuming bandwidth) with the above discussion. In any case, something like 11 bits at an adequate sample rate should give slightly better than LP performance.

One other thing - in the world of analog formats LP isn't near top dog. Good analog can be very, very good, but also very very big, expensive and so on.

I'm not an expert on analog stuff and I'm sure (once a cease fire is called ) there are others here who can certainly speak with more authority on those formats.

Charlie is right on that analog can be very good - as a matter of fact, there are mastering tape machines that run at 30 inches per second and use 1" wide tape for mastering two track stereo. Such machines give even 24 bit digital a good run for the money in some aspects. In other aspects, digital has it all over analog. One of these is modulation noise in any tape recording system, another is the somewhat lacking bass response of tape, especially as the tape speed gets as high as 30 i.p.s. Both have trade-offs that must be weighed when working at such levels of precision.

12 bits is actually pretty darn good - that CD that I circulated (and got me put away in a Mexican jail for copyright infringement ) proves this fact.

I have actually been questioning however if analog noise floors and digital ones can be compared, even somewhat directly. It can be proven that with the addition of dither to a digital word, it is possible to hear below the theoritical noise floor limit for a particular word length. Gonk has a CD that I made that proves this fact (it has test signals I made myself, so there is no danger of me ending up in the slammer again ) But there has to be a limit to how much can be done when adding dither to the least significant bit of a digital word. There has to be a downward limit, below which nothing can be perceived.

Analog however does not have any theoritical lower limit of resolution. The signal just continues to be submerged further and further into the noise floor.

I guess a test could be devised to determine just how much difference there actually is, but personally, I'd rather go out for pizza.

Anyway, I'm open for discussion on this subject.

The difference in practice between a theoretical limit and a real limit is, of course, immaterial...

At some point the original signal becomes hopelessly obscured for all intents and purposes and even if you give a few orders of magnitude away digital (well implemented) still comes out smelling like a rose. I do think digital has some time to make up before the level of sophistication is reached that analog systems have simply due to the years of effort that have gone into maturing them, but I think digital is getting there.

I still maintain that most of the issues with redbook CD are QoI and not actual limits of the format. The human ear has finite resolution, once we can resolve below the width of a hydrogen atom there's no more to listen to.

Just IMO and YMMV, etc.

Yes, of course. I just have a gut feel that the signal will hold on below the noise floor a bit farther with analog than it will with dithered digital. I really don't think it matters much in the real world as there are more important considerations in both formats. On the CD that gonk has, I created a whole bunch of stimuli including reverb tails that were originally 24 bit and reduced them to 16, 12 and 8 bits. It is absolutely amazing to hear the sound continue through the noise floor (from the dither) and fade to inaudibility on the 8 bit examples. When dither is omitted, the sound gets very, extremely ragged and then drops off suddenly to nothing.

I've worked in studios where 2" analog is a format option. It is very, very expensive compared to digital formats. However, there is a warmth on the analog side that really isn't explainable using specs. After an eight hour session with analog, I didn't have a headache. After a few hours with digital, my head was pounding. This isn't scientific at all, but just feeling. Feeling that something was missing in the digital that was there on the analog version.

I still have an issue with the idea of converting a record to digital. True, it would be great for archiving purposes, good for noise restoration on the proper system, and certainly more convenient. The problem arrises in the idea of a DAC inside of an inexpensive phono preamp. There's a reason why major and minor studios use mega-buck outboard converters. (Interesting side note: It's really amazing to read about how many digital users like to put their mix through analog at least once during the recording stage.) Just as there is good and bad analog, there is just as good digital compared to bad digital. IMHO, for an average home listener to get the best experience from their vinyl collection, keeping it in the analog domain is their best option.

Jason:

I am constantly amazed whenever I see "24 bit / 96Khz" analog to digital and digital to analog converters that sell for $150.00 or something like that. Really, just how good could they be??

I have in my studio a vintage vacuum tube compressor/limiter made by Collins Radio back in the 1950's. It uses basically the same circuit that the famed Fairchild limiters that the Beatles used on most of their albums. I use it quite a bit to put vocals and dialogue through. In goes crap, out comes ELVIS, 1954!!

Here's a picuture of it:



[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited January 28, 2003).]

Wouldn't that run the RIAA curve twice? Seems dubious at best to me as a vinyl fan to run two phono preamps.

Charlie, s/n is only one part of the equasion. Your assessment that vinyl resolves to about 12 bit is very simplistic and only involves one of many factors in creating good audio. S/n is vinyl's achilles' heel, for sure, but the music above that noise level can be at least as precisely resolved than redbook CD (IMO - assuming a good record).

------------------
Philip Hamm

[This message has been edited by Philip Hamm (edited January 28, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by Philip Hamm (edited January 28, 2003).]

Of course S/N ratio is only part of the equation. It's exactly the part bit depth addresses, though. I always thought harmonic distortion at high output and channel separation were vinyls' weakness, maybe it has more than two heels?

12 bit is pretty good - don't get too hung up on the bit depth wars.

Good catch.

But, in fact, it doesn't. The reason is that I'm not running the signal through two phono preamps. The Levinson device is just a head amp that raises the low output MC signal to a level that a MM phono preamp can process effectively. It doesn't run the RIAA curve.

Soundhound - now that's a pretty cool piece of gear. I would love to hear the sound of that thing. It's is really amazing how many studios still hang on to their vintage outboard gear and how much some new gear tries to emulate their sound!!

I got a standalone RIAA equalizer made by Recotron for about $35 or $40. I purchased it from the Wild West electronics web site.

It works fine.

Come on now, lets be civil!

There are two issues with digital recordings that we often confuse:

I thought that dynamic range was 16 bit or 24 bit sampling.

And that sampling rate was resolution (44.1K, 48K, 96K, etc.).

Vinyl has digital beat on sampling rate but not on bit depth. I still have a bunch of vinyl records which were dbx encoded and use a special decoder to retrieve the dynamic range. They work well!

Coming from a software engineering standpoint resolution meant bit depth to me, but it's an ambiguous term, thus is really pretty meaningless. Bandwidth, frequency response, S/N ratio, etc are terms with well defined meanings that I'd be interested in an example of vinyl beating digital by any significant margin.

"Digital sound forever." Remember the slogan that got a lot of people to replace entire lp collections with 16/44 compact discs?

All I know, is that lps have a much more realistic top end than CD. That's why they invented DVD-A and SACD: attempts to get even closer to the analog sound of lps (without the downsides, of course).

PERFECT SOUND FOREVER




[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited January 28, 2003).]

Ok, Soundhound, now you're getting into MY territory.

End to end acoustical recording. All the way, baby!

Now I'd like to get my hands on one of those.

Bits? WE DON'T NEED NO STINK'IN BITS!!

Well, back in my day we had to make our own bits, we didn't just run out and buy these fancy pre-made ones....

Shoot, now I'm gettin' nostalgic for my very 1st record player: a red, plastic, "close n'play" ...

Soundhound, wouldn't it be just perfect if you could retrofit that with a digital converter??

That will have to wait. I'm networking it to my house so it will wind itself up and be ready by the time I get home

Folks,

To reply to the original posting ...

The NAD PP-1 phono pre-amp should do the trick. It goes for $60 - $100 on ebay.

However if you want to step up in quality, and down in price, try snagging a used NAD stereo pre-amp like the model 1130. Its phono pre-amp stage sounds better than the PP-1 (to my ears anyhow) and judging by the info I could dredge up on it, its specs are about as good as you can get without busting the bank. And the neat thing is that you can find 1130s going for as low as $40 on ebay.

In fact instead of any stand-alone phono pre-amp, you could find any number of what were once high-end phono input-equipped stereo pre-amps available used for a very small fraction of their original selling price. And you never know when having an extra input or two might come in handy.

Hope this helps.

Jeff

ps. Another vinyl / turntable trick: in days of old (ie. pre-CD) we learned lots of lessons about how to get the most out of our turntables / phono cartridges / records. One of the most important lessons I re-learned a couple of months ago was when I re-connected my turntable to my system and placed it on my new equipment shelving. When I knocked on the shelves with a record playing, I could hear the knocking sound coming from my speakers. If vibrations due to this rapping could get through the shelving to the turntable and hence to to stylus, then obviously accoustic feedback could be a problem at high levels as well. To prevent the possibility I went to a local granite kitchen counter supplier and for $40 had him cut and pollish two 3/4 inch thick slabs from cast off material (sink holes) that fit perfectly under the turntable. Separate the two slabs with a layer of rubber and you've created a textbook accoustic dampening arrangement. Knuckles rapping on shelves can no longer be heard and I'm confident that no acoustic feedback can occur either.

Two problems with the NAD phono preamp: the cables are too short, and they are integrated into the unit so you can't even swap for them for longer/better ones.

Thanks to everyone who has replied to my original question. I now have some good ideas as to what phono preamp to look out for.

Your ideas, Jeff, about isolation are interesting -- however, I've never had a problem with sound being transfered through my stand to the stylus. You can punch the stand and not really hear anything. Not bad. But if you hit the turntable itself, well, any table will pick up noise at that point. I had heard of a few other DIY fix-its, including cutting racquetballs in half and place them under the rubber nubs under the platter. Since I've never needed to address that kind of a problem, I haven't tried that trick.

On the other hand, I do pick up directional electric noise. As the tone-arm angle shifts during play, an audible hum enters into the sound. I know it isn't a loose ground wire; it is the proximity to my TV set. I may eventually play with the placement of the equipment in my room maximizing the distance of the turntable away from the TV.

i haven't had time or energy to read all of these comments...just like to add one of mine about a few of the things said. first, to really quantify a bit rate to an analogue thing...is very possible...after all,that's how they figured out how to make those silly silicon things work in the first place. still, i keep hearing and reading in articles about the sig to noise figures of analogue. digital sound stops at the noise floor..gives great figures for s/n, it's true. analogue does not stop at the noise floor! a mid-fi table or tape goes below the noise floor by some 6 to 12 db; a hi-rez system will go much lower. so, what you get, is not 60 (actually bout 72) db of sound level (spl) but you must add the 6 to 18 db of sound to this...80 to 90+ db! best proof of analogue and noise floors: go to a busy bar...listen to the...noise! some is louder than your speaking voice and some is lower. yes, our analogue mouths and analogue hears speak and hear within a noisy world.
enough soap box...i like digital, too...don't get me wrong. but when i want to be bathed in glorious sound...i turn off the dvd/cd and pull out some gram parsons or van morrison or emily-lou...and spin some magic!
thank you, t-higg

I actually posted a couple sound snippets in .wav format a couple days ago that proves that it is possible to hear below the digital noise floor. Here's the original post:

The digital noise floor is not an abosolute limit: it is possible with the use of dither (as all digital recording now do) to hear well below it. I actually created a CD containing a series of tests that proves that this works, and does indeed allow the audio to be heard below the noise floor. I have included a couple samples from this CD here. If the dither is of the "noise shaped" variety, you can add an effective 2 bits to the nominal resolution of the digital word. Once you get near and beyond the 16 bit level, the "self noise" of the electrical system, microphone, and acoustic room noise create a natural dither.

The following samples use an 8 bit quantitazation level so that the effects of the quantitization process and of the dither can be clearly heard. For higher bit depths, the effects would be the same, but farther down in level. It consists of a short "excitation" of a 24 bit digital reverb, which was quantitized to the 8 bit level, with and without noise shaped dither. All processing was done in the digital domain.

Sample with noise shaped dither

Sample with no dither

Notice in the dithered example how the reverb tail can be clearly heard to fade BELOW the "hiss", which is the dither noise at the LSB level. The example without dither cuts off abruptly as soon as the level of the reverb tail reaches the limits of the noise floor for 8 bits, which is 48db. This abrupt cut-off was the reason some early CDs sounded like the low level details "fell off into a black hole" - dither was not in common use when digital audio CDs were first introduced. It is now routine practice to use dither in all recording and processing of digital audio. Some companies like Sony (with their "SuperBit Mapping" CDs) use noise shaped dither to increase the audible signal to noise range, allowing a 16 bit CD to have the effective resolution of an 18 bit recording.

All that being said, my studio/home theater, it is a virutal maze of analog tape recorders, turntable, and vacuum tubes


[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited February 15, 2003).]

so you got a collins and a fairchild (or just the collins, SH. i ran a fairchild in the '70's...a pretty stripped down thing...but man, it passed some good sound. glass faders..it was a early '60's model...about 24 chs. earlier i was head engineer for a little studio in missa-sip ee. had a wonderful RCA board to ampex 8 trk heads...and the reverb..tube...was just incredible! we used ta make funny noises threw it. my soundcraft spirit is cleaner and sounds great...but it isn't 'fat' like those collins 'n rca's could be. collins...i used ta work on their military gear in the '60's. had almost forgot about em. i'd like to hear that cd. not over this thing tho. how do they get sound below the dither? tryin to figure that one out. you can hear the edits on some of my older Lpees.. a friend w/ a studio was over the other day...freaked him out..listening to mint 'box tops'...he even knew what kinda reverb/echo box they were using...i think i made a convert outta him. as to the step-up...was that the original ? or was that somewhere else. my only regret with the ARC,is that it's a MM input only, i think. no man-uel. got it used. need to go to their site...duhhh...i've only had it for four years! not enough time to look it up. using an old cartridge a friend gave me. he had it packed away for years n never used it. an 'Audiophile', Empire...the thing is rated from...get this, 5hz. to way past 20k. i couldn't believe the difference between it and the one that came w/ the Music Hall..that is a steal of a table. my pro-ject costs 2x it...and i prefer the MH by a slight margin. had a B & O for years that was very good n sexy. very smooth response, very expensive...the Empire/MH smokes it. wish i'd grabbed a sota when i was pushin stereo. there r so many good tables out there now 'nd cartridges n step ups too. the ARC is very similar in sound to the c-j. ahhh,but i do love c-j. now their step ups r oh so nice. useta make a nuvistor model, is it still being made? vistor's were on a card in a box suspended inside the chassis. mew-cho expensive,tho.

------------------
t higg

That Collins does sound great. I use it quite a bit for vocals and dialogue, and it smoothes it out wonderfully. Kind of looks cool too, in a Frankenstein/Reto/Industrial way