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

[Arpeggione]

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.

The Westrex 3D

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.

The Westrex 3D (1964) was Riaa indeed, but
the Westrex 45/45, the first ever Stereo cutterhead adopted by the records industry and approved by Riaa, was not

 

[Atmasphere]

The Westrex 3D

The Westrex 3D (1964) was Riaa indeed, but
the Westrex 45/45, the first ever Stereo cutterhead adopted by the records industry and approved by Riaa, was not

The cutter head has nothing to do with the EQ. The RIAA pre-emphasis module, which is part of the mastering electronics, does.

The Westerex pre-emphasis module also includes EQ calibration that is specific to the individual cutter head. The two bear the same serial number and should not be separated. The module equalizes to compensate for the cutter head itself, then applies the RIAA characteristic.

When Westerex introduced the first stereo cutter head it usered in the golden age of stereo and alternate LP equalizations become a thing of the past, even overseas.

 

[Arpeggione]

The cutter head has nothing to do with the EQ. The RIAA pre-emphasis module, which is part of the mastering electronics, does.

The Westerex pre-emphasis module also includes EQ calibration that is specific to the individual cutter head. The two bear the same serial number and should not be separated. The module equalizes to compensate for the cutter head itself, then applies the RIAA characteristic.

When Westerex introduced the first stereo cutter head it usered in the golden age of stereo and alternate LP equalizations become a thing of the past, even overseas.

I want to ask one thing only.
Give me an example of bad stereo recording in your library and if you can tell me the year when the recording was released and the name of the label.

 

[Arpeggione]

I

The cutter head has nothing to do with the EQ. The RIAA pre-emphasis module, which is part of the mastering electronics, does.

The Westerex pre-emphasis module also includes EQ calibration that is specific to the individual cutter head. The two bear the same serial number and should not be separated. The module equalizes to compensate for the cutter head itself, then applies the RIAA characteristic.

When Westerex introduced the first stereo cutter head it usered in the golden age of stereo and alternate LP equalizations become a thing of the past, even overseas.

I also have another question for you.
Was the Riaa standard decided by the record industry before the invention of the 45/45 or they decided a standard after that they were certain that the new stereo cutting head was a good choice for the new format?
What if for example who invented the 45/45, experimented with the LP curve, and never changed the equalization until the Scully with the 45/45 was replaced by a new lathe with the 3D westrex?

 

[Atmasphere]

I want to ask one thing only.
Give me an example of bad stereo recording in your library and if you can tell me the year when the recording was released and the name of the label.

I'm not at home but most of the bad recordings seem to be made much later, in the 70s and some in the 2000s.

I

I also have another question for you.
Was the Riaa standard decided by the record industry before the invention of the 45/45 or they decided a standard after that they were certain that the new stereo cutting head was a good choice for the new format?
What if for example who invented the 45/45, experimented with the LP curve, and never changed the equalization until the Scully with the 45/45 was replaced by a new lathe with the 3D westrex?

To be clear, Scully made lathes, not cutter heads or electronics. I owned one in case there's any question (along with a 3D cutter and 1700 series electronics). Westerex developed the stereo cutter system which was a big step forward not just because it was stereo but also because it had a lot wider bandwidth. The RIAA had been considering EQ curves for some time and had settled on the RCA Orthophonic curve with only minor modification, if any. So the first Westerex pre-emphasis modules only had to consider the adapted characteristic.

 

[Arpeggione]

I'm not at home but most of the bad recordings seem to be made much later, in the 70s and some in the 2000s.

To be clear, Sully made lathes, not cutter heads or electronics. I owned one in case there's any question (along with a 3D cutter and 1700 series electronics). Westerex developed the stereo cutter system which was a big step forward not just because it was stereo but also because it had a lot wider bandwidth. The RIAA had been considering EQ curves for some time and had settled on the RCA Orthophonic curve with only minor modification, if any. So the first Westerex pre-emphasis modules only had to consider the adapted characteristic.

I'm not at home but most of the bad recordings seem to be made much later, in the 70s and some in the 2000s.

To be clear, Sully made lathes, not cutter heads or electronics. I owned one in case there's any question (along with a 3D cutter and 1700 series electronics). Westerex developed the stereo cutter system which was a big step forward not just because it was stereo but also because it had a lot wider bandwidth. The RIAA had been considering EQ curves for some time and had settled on the RCA Orthophonic curve with only minor modification, if any. So the first Westerex pre-emphasis modules only had to consider the adapted characteristic.

This is an interesting story

"I See What You Mean!" How the Westrex 45/45 System Was Adopted by the Record Makers (Mar. 1975)

 

[Atmasphere]

This is an interesting story

"I See What You Mean!" How the Westrex 45/45 System Was Adopted by the Record Makers (Mar. 1975)

Thanks!

 

[Arpeggione]

Thanks!

You’re welcome

 

[mtemur]

Here is a Westrex cutting amplifier and electronics but it’s not functional anymore.

 

[Atmasphere]

Those amps make about 125 Watts at full power. The cutter head gets fried if you send it more than about 10 Watts. They did this so the system can't be overloaded or anywhere near it, with any kind of groove that can be tracked by the best tonearm/cartridge combo that might exist. In fact the system can cut undistorted grooves no pickup has a prayer of tracking.

Put another way, most of the limitations of the format are in playback, not record. That is where most of the 'distortion' of the LP occurs too.

 

[UEM]

I own an AMR PH-77 and most of the time I'm using standard RIAA.

BUT occasionally I do try (Trial & Error !!) other curves.
For older MONO it can be a must indeed, as some are NOT RIAA !


RE: RIAA: it’s an industry compromise from the various other curves used in the late 40's & early fifty’s of the last century.

(Tube) phono stage with multiple equalization curves | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com)
Check my thread 63 – I made some graphs, which show RIAA pretty much in the middle….

Regards

Urs

 

[Atmasphere]

I own an AMR PH-77 and most of the time I'm using standard RIAA.

BUT occasionally I do try (Trial & Error !!) other curves.
For older MONO it can be a must indeed, as some are NOT RIAA !


RE: RIAA: it’s an industry compromise from the various other curves used in the late 40's & early fifty’s of the last century.

(Tube) phono stage with multiple equalization curves | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com)
Check my thread 63 – I made some graphs, which show RIAA pretty much in the middle….

Regards

Urs

Actually the RIAA curve was developed mostly by RCA as an engineering effort to reduce surface noise- I wouldn't all it a compromise effort.

 

[DasguteOhr]

Here is a Westrex cutting amplifier and electronics but it’s not functional anymore.
View attachment 123627View attachment 123628

The gotham pfb 150 cutting amplifer can be used in "flat position as amp 811A tubes

Later Neumann VG1 rules the world.

 

[Arpeggione]

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.

There are some rules

 

[abeidrov]

Good to know)

 

[Arpeggione]

Good to know)

With Analogue Production records try the Riaa Enhanced for example.
For Decca and London made in Uk after 1966/67 the curve is Teldec, if you don’t have Teldec you can use the Decca/London curve.
Before 1965/66 all the stereo records have been made with the Columbia Lp curve.
You have to pay attention to the absolute polarity as well. You can hear the difference if you use the right curve with the correct polarity. Last but not least your system has to be in a correct electrical phase. The all system not a single component. The interaction of components can change the correct electrical phase of a single component. When you hit the right curve with the correct polarity and the right phase the vinyl record can sound like a master tape.

 

[Atmasphere]

Good to know)

With Analogue Production records try the Riaa Enhanced for example.
For Decca and London made in Uk after 1966/67 the curve is Teldec, if you don’t have Teldec you can use the Decca/London curve.
Before 1965/66 all the stereo records have been made with the Columbia Lp curve.

The statements above are false.

For all stereo recordings made anywhere in the world the only EQ curve used is RIAA. There is no 'RIAA Enchanced' because there's no market for any alternate de-emphasis curves due to the vast amount of legacy equipment in the field.

 

[Arpeggione]

The statements above are false.

For all stereo recordings made anywhere in the world the only EQ curve used is RIAA. There is no 'RIAA Enchanced' because there's no market for any alternate de-emphasis curves due to the vast amount of legacy equipment in the field.

I was expecting an answer like that
This statement is to whom might be interested, I don’t want to change your mind.

 

[Atmasphere]

I was expecting an answer like that
This statement is to whom might be interested, I don’t want to change your mind.

You won't- But why tell someone else things like that? Sooner or later they'll find out it isn't true.

 

[Arpeggione]

I sharing my experiences.
I gave some extra advices like the polarity and the phase, that usually are not shared, when the topic is the de emphasis curves for stereo records.
You can say that I should lower the vta for Mercury records and that is the right thing to do, but for me it is not right, than so what, is it a false statement?