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).]