Anyone seriously audition a phono stage with selectable EQ Curves and decide against it? Anyone not using this feature in theirs?

[andromedaaudio]

Anyone seriously audition a phono stage with various eq options and decide against it?

Personally, whether it’s Zanden, audio research, or Ch precision, I always find that getting the right eq is not just a tone control, as some vinyl experts claim, but a giant level of improvement in musical energy, aliveness, and more lifelike realism.

in comparison, not taking advantage of the various EQ curve settings, the system sounds like hifi to me. just blah. once experience this, can’t go back.

Curious of other members experience with these eq curve feature and level of curiosity

I have the same experience and i would certainly add FM acoustics to that list

 

[caesar]

The word on the street is that Michael fremer, whom I respect, has spoken to a few guys at the record companies. They have given him the company line that the records were made using the RIAA curves.

And Fremer, instead of engaging his curiosity and actually listening, believed those guys. So sad. Much musical enjoyment lost on guys who worship his words

 

[Another Johnson]

I use alternate equalization when it is historically correct for the record. And I try different curves when I play recordings that were made with unknown, nonstandard equalization.

I have my grandparents’ lacquer and early vinyl collections. Admittedly I do not listen to these very often. But I do occasionally.

The feature of alternate equalizations is not intended to be used like tone controls, but there is no harm in using equalization choices in this way. If you buy a phono preamp that only includes RIAA equalization, you may never miss the others. But I have a phono preamp with choices, and I prefer that.

 

[Another Johnson]

The down side:
This afternoon I sat down to play some ‘80s era stereophonic records and I could tell something was wrong. I looked for several possible problems, and then as my eyes passed by the phono preamp, there it was. Equalization had been inadvertently switched from RIAA to Columbia.

Easy fix. Pressed RIAA on the remote, and all was well.

 

[astrotoy]

Those who have a collection of early mono LPs can benefit from having adjustable EQ. RIAA was introduced as a standard (de facto, not de jure) in 1954. However, it is not clear that all record companies immediately switched to RIAA in their production. Certainly, for those who have collections of LP's from before that time (my Columbia ML4001 Milstein Mendelssohn Violin Concerto is from 1948), would benefit from having adjustable EQ. There are many great artists who did not make it to the stereo era when RIAA was ubiquitous. If their work was not reissued in the RIAA or later digital era, then having their LP's and perhaps 78's are their recorded legacy.

IIRC, RCA did start using RIAA before it was introduced as a standard (pre 1954). Not sure about that. I don't (didn't) have many early RCA mono recordings. RCA did rerelease quite a few early recordings - Horowitz, Toscanini, even some in the dreaded electronic stereo format.

As usual, corrections, additions, etc. are always welcome.

Larry

 

[abeidrov]

I’ve just changed my phonostage to CH P1 and would like to explore the world of different EQ curves Could you point me to some table or quick reference guide on when to try a different curve. Also, CH has an enhanced RIAA curve with enabled Neumann time constant. Shall I try it with every record or there are some rules on when this might work?

Thanks in advance.

 

[caesar]

I’ve just changed my phonostage to CH P1 and would like to explore the world of different EQ curves Could you point me to some table or quick reference guide on when to try a different curve. Also, CH has an enhanced RIAA curve with enabled Neumann time constant. Shall I try it with every record or there are some rules on when this might work?

Thanks in advance.

Hi Abeidrov,
My apologies for the late reply - didn't see this. I would contact Zanden. I believe they have an extensive document

 

[Atmasphere]

As everyone knows, the RIAA curve was introduced in 1954 but was not widely accepted by the record labels well into the late 60's and even later.

This statement is false. When the stereo LP cutting system was first introduced (which IIRC was the Westerex 3D) the RIAA curve (very similar to the RCA Orthophonic curve used in RCA mono recordings prior to 1958) was adopted. This curve was used by all record labels and cutting systems. The Westerex 3D ushered in the golden age of stereo with its introduction in 1958. All the RCA Living Stereo LPs used the Westerex system, as seen if you read the backside of the jacket of those LPs. Mercury used it too.

I owned the Westerex 3D cutter mounted to a Scully lathe, using the Westex 1700 series mastering electronics package. The RIAA pre-emphasis module was carefully matched to the actual cutter head to correct for its characteristic: they were very serious about getting the RIAA characteristic right and didn't want variance in the cutter head to influence it. The idea that a different EQ was used after stereo LPs were introduced becomes ludicrous if you've had exposure to any LP mastering system.

With the vast amount of legacy stereo equipment that exists, a label would be foolhardy to strike out on their own with an alternate EQ. It would not matter if a larger company like Sony supported it; that would still not be a big enough market for anyone to consider.

The various LP EQ curves such as London, Columbia and so on are from the mono era prior to 1958 as seen below; by the late 50s all mono LPs were used the RIAA characteristic. Some of those EQ curves are for 78s.

So when you see those EQ curves on any audio equipment, its for mono recordings only. It can be fun to try these curves out on stereo LPs, but at that point you're really just using them as a kind of goofy tone control. Obviously the EQ settings would be alot more handy if a mono switch were also included.

Those who have a collection of early mono LPs can benefit from having adjustable EQ. RIAA was introduced as a standard (de facto, not de jure) in 1954. However, it is not clear that all record companies immediately switched to RIAA in their production. Certainly, for those who have collections of LP's from before that time (my Columbia ML4001 Milstein Mendelssohn Violin Concerto is from 1948), would benefit from having adjustable EQ. There are many great artists who did not make it to the stereo era when RIAA was ubiquitous. If their work was not reissued in the RIAA or later digital era, then having their LP's and perhaps 78's are their recorded legacy.

IIRC, RCA did start using RIAA before it was introduced as a standard (pre 1954). Not sure about that. I don't (didn't) have many early RCA mono recordings. RCA did rerelease quite a few early recordings - Horowitz, Toscanini, even some in the dreaded electronic stereo format.

As usual, corrections, additions, etc. are always welcome.

Larry

The RCA Orthophonic curve is probably what you are referring to here, which later was the basis of the RIAA curve that became the standard in 1958.

 

[bonzo75]

I’ve just changed my phonostage to CH P1 and would like to explore the world of different EQ curves Could you point me to some table or quick reference guide on when to try a different curve. Also, CH has an enhanced RIAA curve with enabled Neumann time constant. Shall I try it with every record or there are some rules on when this might work?

Thanks in advance.

You have to buy old LPs for that and then try different settings. No point trying on new. Better monos, pre-1958, also try some stereos around that time. If you try with every new record that was cut in RIAA, you are just using a tone control. Which might be what it it is anyway

Did CH not give you a manual for the settings? For example, here

https://www.goldnote.it/download/media/PH-1000_EQ_Card.pdf -

 

[Bruce B]

I had an EMT JPA66 MkII phono pre when I was doing LP/laquer transfers for the labels. Was a fine piece of kit. If you're doing this as a business, it is a no-brainer. But for just listening as an audiophile, keep it simple.
A friend of mine bought a Millennia NSEQ-2, which I also had, and used it to tweak some of his tunes....

 

[marty]

This statement is false. When the stereo LP cutting system was first introduced (which IIRC was the Westerex 3D) the RIAA curve (very similar to the RCA Orthophonic curve used in RCA mono recordings prior to 1958) was adopted. This curve was used by all record labels and cutting systems. The Westerex 3D ushered in the golden age of stereo with its introduction in 1958. All the RCA Living Stereo LPs used the Westerex system, as seen if you read the backside of the jacket of those LPs. Mercury used it too.

I owned the Westerex 3D cutter mounted to a Scully lathe, using the Westex 1700 series mastering electronics package. The RIAA pre-emphasis module was carefully matched to the actual cutter head to correct for its characteristic: they were very serious about getting the RIAA characteristic right and didn't want variance in the cutter head to influence it. The idea that a different EQ was used after stereo LPs were introduced becomes ludicrous if you've had exposure to any LP mastering system.

With the vast amount of legacy stereo equipment that exists, a label would be foolhardy to strike out on their own with an alternate EQ. It would not matter if a larger company like Sony supported it; that would still not be a big enough market for anyone to consider.

The various LP EQ curves such as London, Columbia and so on are from the mono era prior to 1958 as seen below; by the late 50s all mono LPs were used the RIAA characteristic. Some of those EQ curves are for 78s.

So when you see those EQ curves on any audio equipment, its for mono recordings only. It can be fun to try these curves out on stereo LPs, but at that point you're really just using them as a kind of goofy tone control. Obviously the EQ settings would be alot more handy if a mono switch were also included.



The RCA Orthophonic curve is probably what you are referring to here, which later was the basis of the RIAA curve that became the standard in 1958.

Thanks Ralph. I believe my info came from a Zanden communication. Please reach out to Mr. Yamada if this is incorrect.

 

[astrotoy]

Bottlehead built a custom phono preamp for me with adjustable EQ settings. I used it for ripping 10,000 records. The controls are similar to the one that Bruce has. Other phono preamps with different EQ's only allow a choice among several predetermined EQs. Larry

 

[mtemur]

Those additional EQ curves are unnecessary for stereo and probably most of the mono records. They’re there just because correcting a mistake with another one. They’re for equalizing some frequencies tipped up or down by cartridge, tonearm, misalignment, amp, speaker etc. They’re fancy new bass and treble controls. The right thing to do is sticking to RIAA, finding where the problem is and correcting it.

 

[Chop]

Those additional EQ curves are unnecessary for stereo and probably most of the mono records. They’re there just because correcting a mistake with another one. They’re for equalizing some frequencies tipped up or down by cartridge, tonearm, misalignment, amp, speaker etc. They’re fancy new bass and treble controls. The right thing to do is sticking to RIAA, finding where the problem is and correcting it.

I disagree. I don't think they are un necessary at all, I think they are a practical way of maximising enjoyment from older records particularly 1950's mono LP's.
However I understand and do agree with the logic of sticking to RIAA and if the sound is "off" fixing the problem if we can. My challenge with this is that if a problem comes from frequencies tipped up or down due to the reasons you mention then wouldn't that problem would be a system problem, consistent across a wide range of records / all records? Resolving the problem by looking at the areas you suggest would alter the sound of the system for all records.

I think that if some records (particularly but not always mono ones) sound tonally off compared to others then we have a choice. Either we have to accept those specific records sound less than optimal or the problem needs to be addressed in a relatively easy way. That means looking at phono stages with EQ curves.


As an aside, I have found an odd problem using my Allnic H7000V. I play records on the RIAA setting and they sound wonderful. I have found that if I then play a few old mono records that require other than RIAA settings they will often sound wonderful. So far so good. But I have noticed when I go back to the RIAA settings the sound is off, suddenly a bit brighter!
My conclusion is the Allnic seems to take a while to re-settle after the settings have been changed.

 

[caesar]

You have to buy old LPs for that and then try different settings. No point trying on new. Better monos, pre-1958, also try some stereos around that time. If you try with every new record that was cut in RIAA, you are just using a tone control. Which might be what it it is anyway

Did CH not give you a manual for the settings? For example, here

https://www.goldnote.it/download/media/PH-1000_EQ_Card.pdf -

It works for all eras. In the past, we performed some compares for early and original pressings for 60s and 70s records vs. analogue sounds and mobile fidelity records, and applying the curves to the former was an astonishing improvement. Too bad guys buy into "newest is best" fallacy

 

[bonzo75]

It works for all eras. In the past, we performed some compares for early and original pressings for 60s and 70s records vs. analogue sounds and mobile fidelity records, and applying the curves to the former was an astonishing improvement. Too bad guys buy into "newest is best" fallacy

for later eras you are definitely using as tone controls

 

[Atmasphere]

It works for all eras. In the past, we performed some compares for early and original pressings for 60s and 70s records vs. analogue sounds and mobile fidelity records, and applying the curves to the former was an astonishing improvement. Too bad guys buy into "newest is best" fallacy

What @bonzo75 said! There are no LPs made after 1958 that use alternate EQ curves whether mono or stereo.

That is different from LPs that had issues in the recording. For example, Everest recordings that were made using their film format tape machines had an EQ error resulting in a rolloff of 6dB/octave below 100Hz. Seems to me Westminster LPs had a similar problem. But neither occurred because of a different pre-emphasis used when the LPs were mastered.

 

[caesar]

Must be damned good tone controls then! Better than most upgrades I hear. For a level of magnitude, I would take this over the apex upgrade fremer and other dcs guys got

 

[Atmasphere]

Must be damned good tone controls then! Better than most upgrades I hear. For a level of magnitude, I would take this over the apex upgrade fremer and other dcs guys got

I suspect if you were using actual tone controls it would be even better. You'd have better control over whatever deficiency you're hearing.

 

[ketcham]

RIAA - the contact mechanism is a physical volume switch implemented in a different application. Rotate the dial several times to clear dust and oxidation; the issue should resolve.