Benz Micro LP Ebony

Ah yes, sorry.

 

There is a fancy version with loading options just a bit further down the page.

 

Quote Devil: I don't think there's very much left to be discovered about the RIAA curve.

i don't think it's anything to do with the accuracy of the RIAA curve at all. I think it's more about how good the electronics are at resolving information. As for the 640p debate.... there isn't one. I had one at home for a while and it's worth every penny of £60 but really can't get close to even a PS.20! I know there are people here that swear by a 640 but through my HRX/ZYX Universe/ ATC 150ASL system the difference is NIGHT and DAY. If you couldn't hear the difference between 3 phono stages then there something wrong somewhere, especially if one of them was made by NAIM - their presentation is just WRONG!

 

There is a debate, because many have heard it compared to far more expensive stages and come to a completely different conclusion, including James.

 

640p vs my Whest .20 was more like day and day. I'd be quite surprised if I could tell any difference at all with a blind A/B. Admittedly it was only one side of an album on one PS, followed by the same again. I wanted the Whest to be better, but it didn't seem to be. I was left feeling a little foolish.

As regards the Naim phono stages, I can't hear a particular "wrong" presentational problem with them, but the Naim Superline / Supercap just didn't seem anything special, considering the price. It's hard for me to reach a firm conclusion about it, because the TT used in the demo was in all probability not as good as mine, and neither was the arm. On top of that, they used Sonus Faber speakers.

A phono stage is only a little amplifier, and most amps sound pretty similar, I would have thought.

 

I don't see the point of transformers and valves in a phono stage. All passive equalisation seems even more unsupported.

Anyway I think James would hear the hiss.

Paul

 

There is no point to valves 'period' for hi-fi in 2008 but they can still work well IMO. As ever the results come down to implementation.

My WD with it's ECC83 tubes is certainly less hissy than a Stageline or the 640P on MC.

 

From my 'outside' point of view, having heard the 640 and the WAD at Robs; I would say you definitely hear that the WAD adds something and that the 640 is more 'correct' and clean. However, what the WAD does is quite nice, funky and fun. It has a stronger drive that suits strongly rhythm driven music. Since vinyl is not really about accuracy in the first place, I think there is a perfectly good argument for transformers and valves.

 

Measurements:

http://wduk.worldomain.net/pdf/wdpre3review.pdf

Note the 'astonishingly' low noise on MC

It can be about accuracy - depends what you set out to achieve.
Leaving the colourations of the replay system aside you often find that, for example, a CD and LP have been mastered differently, so which is then correct?
Certainly many older analogue recordings have suffered as a result of poor re-mastering for CD and these will sound more accurate if played on a decent vinyl front end.

I think vinyl is essential if you want access to what is 50+ years of recorded material because you can't rely on a good transfer to the digital medium.
If that back catalogue isn't of interest a good TT is a waste of money because playing modern (current) vinyl releases is pointless IMO.

 

Try Elbow's Seldom seen kid - if you like their music. The sound quality is good on CD, but astonishing on vinyl. Many other examples exist.

 

I don't know the music, but fair point - I'll check it out.
However I'd put any superiority of the LP down to better mastering rather than the natural superiority of vinyl.

 

Yes I suppose it depends what you are listening to. If you listen to current releases, digitally recorded in the first place, then you can not really claim any sort of accuracy with vinyl.

If you listen to older stuff you could say you are aiming for accuracy, by hearing what the recording was meant to sound like. But I'd have thought the variation in vinyl replay systems was still too great to know what the mastering engineer expected it to be played back on.

At any rate I wouldn't worry about adding a valve or transformer here and there. Especially not if it sounds nice like the WAD.

Now to check out 'Elbow's Seldom seen kid'.

 

The Seldom Seen Kid has been superbly recorded - there is a website link on the cover to a campaign against crap tendencies in modern recording but can't remember what its called.

Also remember to play it at 45rpm.... took me a few mins to notice!
1st half of that album is good, 2nd half is pretty dull. Leaders of the Free World is better album IMO.

P.S. I was using a Benz Wood L2 very very happily into a Whest PS.20 for several months until it went duff.... then Benz in Switzerland took 4 months to replace it with one which turned out to be faulty from the start. At which point I reluctantly gave up on Benz - I had also previously suffered a faulty Benz Glider L2. They sound superb - when they work.

 

I think a lot of new vinyls half arsed...

Kate Bush's Ariel, whilst very well recorded nearly snaps the cantilever on my Clearaudio Accurate, I could get away with it on my SME arm but not on my Souther TQI tangential, you can hear the and see the tugging. Three latest buys - bought the Strokes on vinyl, buckled to hell, bought fleet foxes, buckled to hell, goldfrapp, buckled to hell - can anyone make a straight album with a hole in the middle anymore!

The old Joni Mitchells, never miss a note...

 

I'm not sure quite I believe the quoted figure. It's well into the same zone as the windings of an MC cartridge. Or transformer. Maybe my arithmetic is out.

Paul

 

Someone please correct me. The WAD phonostage graph shows the MM response fine and flat. The WAD is nothing like that on MC. The MC however rolls off rapidly at low frequencies. The text says that on MC the transformers are rolling off the low frequency, so at 30hz it's -1dB down YIKES! The advantage is that you don't get any 'ponderous bass' CRAP!! On a standard RIAA curve, when measuring a stage, it's supposed to be pretty flat from 19hz-21ish khz. Using my Hagtech RIAA measuring filter, my really old and very basic Lehmann black cube 1998 edition measures better than that to within 0.3dB across all gain settings down to 20hz.
Like most (all) valve stages, it's an MM stage with a transformer to up the gain by xxdB. This is why the performance on MC is poor in the LF range, because the input transformers kill it. Devil take note. You have a great MC cartridge which produces great bass!

This is unlike many solid state stages that use a high-gain front end (already 45-50dB) and a variable gain rear end or sometimes a variable 40dB-60dB front end and a fixed 8-10dB rear.

Valve stages are good for MM and as long as you keep the valves well away from being bombarded by sound from the loudspeaker as we all know valves are highly microphonic, and anyway, it's also a historical thing (valve phono stages), before the great MC cartridge was invented all they had was moving magnet or similar.

 

Valve phono stages can have excellent bass, and in my experience they tend to be much more dynamic than ss and can bring a real palpability to voices and instruments.

 

It's turnmeup.org/

 

Isn't the voice region about the midband? And isn't palpability a term normally associated with the midband upwards?

I'm sure if properly designed a valve phono stages can have excellent bass, but if it rolls off -1dB at 30hz what are the chances of the WAD having one?

Personally, I have never heard a quiet valve stage. There has always been background hiss. They are only good if you are using high output MC or MM. But then you sacrifice detail.

 

I have a completely silent valve stage hear at the moment you can turn the volume up to '11' and it is silent, it is too easy to make generalisations, I personally haven't heard a solid stage yet I would want to own, haven't heard James' 'reference' yet though.