Decent low-cost basic phono pre-amp??

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

To attach to line-inputs of home stereo.

-CC
"itching to hear when a song is about to begin by the little ticks n' pops"

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 24 Oct 2004 07:24:06 -0700, ckozicki@snet.net (ChrisCoaster) wrote:

>To attach to line-inputs of home stereo.
>
>-CC
>"itching to hear when a song is about to begin by the little ticks n' pops"


Here is a list of 5 of them:

http://www.bswusa.com/search_resul [...] turnt-prea

The ART seems to be widely available, and handles either MM or MC
cartridges, though they don't give many specs. The company does make
other products that seem well designed.

http://www.artroch.com/default.asp?p_id=4

Good luck!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Stamler wrote:

> "hank alrich" wrote...
> > ChrisCoaster wrote:

> > > To attach to line-inputs of home stereo.

> > Rolls

> Uh-uh. We had a thread about that a few weeks ago; go Google it. audioXpress
> did tests on a collection of low-cost phono preamps and discovered massive
> frequency-response errors on almost all of them, plus extremely poor
> overload margins. The Rolls (Parts Express) was one of the stinky ones.

> The best of the tested units, by far, was the Hagerman Bugle, which has a
> pretty elegant design. US$50 in kit form. The Radio Shack unit was in second
> place; everything else was way, way behind.

Thank you, Paul.

--
ha

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:34:58 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
<pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>Uh-uh. We had a thread about that a few weeks ago; go Google it. audioXpress
>did tests on a collection of low-cost phono preamps and discovered massive
>frequency-response errors on almost all of them, plus extremely poor
>overload margins. The Rolls (Parts Express) was one of the stinky ones.
>
>The best of the tested units, by far, was the Hagerman Bugle, which has a
>pretty elegant design. US$50 in kit form. The Radio Shack unit was in second
>place; everything else was way, way behind.
>
>Peace,
>Paul


This is interesting - Radio Shack has been making little phono preamps
for over 30 years and this is one thing they are getting better at!

I suppose it should be a clue when a preamp has a single polarity
supply that they might be cutting corners (or sine waves).

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <apGdne6A8P0Y4uPcRVn-tA@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:

> Nothing wrong with single-polarity power supplies done right. After all
> outside of analog computers and the like, when is the last time you saw
> tubed equipment with both B+ and B- supplies?

You don't see too many direct coupled phono preamps, but using a
bipolar power supply is a good excuse to get twice the operating
voltage (hence more headroom, when "done right" ) using common power
supply components.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <TLEfd.32144$OD2.12518@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> pstamlerhell@pobox.com writes:

> Most of these ultra-cheap phono preamps use batteries for power. It reduces
> hum problems, and since the batteries aren't included, the total power
> supply cost is about a dime for a +/- supply, or a nickel for a +only, for
> the battery clips.

Good thinkin' (on their part) - and without class A toobs, a set of
batteries lasts a reasonable length of time. I still think that the
best solution for casual transfer of records to digital form is to get
a receiver with a phono preamp at a yard sale or thrift store. The
quality will be good enough, the price is right, and no batteries are
required (your audio won't die in the middle of a disk transfer).

For truly high quality transfers, just like anything else, it costs
real money, though if a battery powered preamp is really better than
one that costs a couple of hundred bucks (but not better than one that
costs a couple of grand) then it seems reasonable to use it - though
in an application like that, it would make sense to be sure to always
have fresh batteries when beginning a transfer session.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Al wrote:
>
> What I would like to see on a phono preamp is a true balanced input
> because a phono cartridge is at least on the inside a balanced device.


Audio Research (among others) made a balanced phono preamp.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Stamler wrote:

> "hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
> news:1gm5k7t.w5i63m1txlocgN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> > ChrisCoaster <ckozicki@snet.net> wrote:
> >
> > > To attach to line-inputs of home stereo.
> >
> > Rolls
>
> Uh-uh. We had a thread about that a few weeks ago; go Google it. audioXpress
> did tests on a collection of low-cost phono preamps and discovered massive
> frequency-response errors on almost all of them, plus extremely poor
> overload margins. The Rolls (Parts Express) was one of the stinky ones.
>
> The best of the tested units, by far, was the Hagerman Bugle, which has a
> pretty elegant design. US$50 in kit form. The Radio Shack unit was in second
> place; everything else was way, way behind.

Considering how easy it is to design a decent ( MM input at least ) phono stage,
it's astonishing that there were poor results !

Then again, I spec 1% Rs and not worse than 5 % Cs ( pref 1 or 2 % where
available ) for eq networks. It also makes sense to read Lipshitz's ? article in
the JAES about 'proper' RIAA eq. Simple calculations based on the time constants
assuming no interaction are way off.

Graham