|
|
Post by stanleyb on Sept 14, 2015 7:23:26 GMT
Is there still a market for a well thought out phono preamp?
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Sept 14, 2015 7:31:11 GMT
I reckon so, Stan. I'd think a cheap but really good model with proper hifi credentials and a a usb output would go down a storm.
|
|
|
|
Post by stanleyb on Sept 14, 2015 7:57:11 GMT
I assume you mean USB for recording purposes? I am thinking more about playback than recording.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Sept 14, 2015 8:05:57 GMT
I do Stan and yes, I realise that's what you meant. Playback is all I'm personally interested in too and, as such, I wouldn't have a use for such a thing but I'm sure it would push such a product more towards the mainstream market.
|
|
|
|
Post by stanleyb on Sept 14, 2015 8:13:51 GMT
My ten year agreement with my previous employer regarding the use of some low noise transistor circuits that I came up with has now expired. So I am free to continue my work on those circuits and make improvements since they are not subjected to any patents or claims of ownership by my previous bosses. I made sure I didn't patent anything  . But before I invest time and money into further developing a new kind of phono preamp I need some feedback on if it is worth the effort. A pity I don't have a suitable case of some sort to bolt the test prototype in so that I can get a few people to try it out and give their input. |
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Sept 14, 2015 9:22:03 GMT
It might be worth considering ADC capabilities too with customer assignable 24/96 or 24/192 output.
OK, 24/96 is more than capable of resolving ye olde LP, but someone will ask for 24/192, so you might as well put it on there.
Digital input amplifiers are a reality, and not all of them have an analogue line input.
|
|
|
|
Post by stanleyb on Sept 14, 2015 9:55:05 GMT
I have played about with 96 versus 192 A to D conversion and real time storage onto a PC. The playback of the 192 did sound dodgy compared to the 96kHz. Anyone wanting 192khZ AtoD from phono would end up slagging off the converter instead of their PC if they got the same results as me. A lot of people don't take into consideration that real time scanning/recording and storing of large analogue data takes more time. Audio can not wait in the same way that a flatbed scanner can until the scanned part of the image is processed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2015 10:27:08 GMT
As long as it's cheap & good i recon so, High quality Phonostage are very expensive & tbh i don't think they are worth the high outlay.. When ever i see a cheap new Phonostage appear on the market i always buy it see if it's any cop..Just bought a Behringer 'PP400' only £20 but you never know, it might be better than the one in my amp..
|
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Sept 14, 2015 10:28:36 GMT
I'm not even thinking of computer connectivity Stan.
The USB thing couldn't be further from my thoughts.
I'm thinking phono stage with output via analogue outputs for those with analogue amplification, and autonomous ADC to SPDIF for those with digital amplification.
A switch to remove power from the digital side of things if the phono stage is to be used wholly in the analogue domain, and a switch to remove the power to the analogue output stage if it's to be used in the digital domain.
If someone wants to record the digital output from the phono stage they can go out and buy a SPDIF interface for their computer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2015 10:30:28 GMT
Chris i connect my phonostage the Focusrite 'sapphire' USB interface give me 24/96 conversion..
|
|
|
|
Post by stanleyb on Sept 14, 2015 10:41:38 GMT
I'm not even thinking of computer connectivity Stan. The USB thing couldn't be further from my thoughts. I'm thinking phono stage with output via analogue outputs for those with analogue amplification, and autonomous ADC to SPDIF for those with digital amplification. A switch to remove power from the digital side of things if the phono stage is to be used wholly in the analogue domain, and a switch to remove the power to the analogue output stage if it's to be used in the digital domain. If someone wants to record the digital output from the phono stage they can go out and buy a SPDIF interface for their computer. I'll send you the cigar  . I don't want to say more than absolutely necessary at this stage. I got a thread deleted here when someone challenged it on the basis of an existing product of mine being discussed. The same kind of challenge was raised when someone discussed a tonearm. But judging from the comments so far I shall soldier on in the plotted direction. |
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Sept 14, 2015 10:46:02 GMT
Chris i connect my phonostage the Focusrite 'sapphire' USB interface give me 24/96 conversion.. I do similar with my phonostage - I connect the analogue outs to an EMU0404 USB interface, and it's happy recording at 24/192, not that I ever do record at 24/192. The EMU requires an external power source (there's no power feed connected over the USB) and for this I use the linear PSU that powers my Squeezebox Touch. There's no noise transmitted from the computer into the interface because there's no electrical ground plane connected via the USB. |
|
|
|
Post by AlanS on Sept 14, 2015 10:54:43 GMT
The market for phono stages is awash. Ignore Arkless <J>
I have a great phono stage care of Arkless and Audacity takes care of ADC duties. Why would I want another box?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Sept 14, 2015 10:59:36 GMT
That was the only USP I could think of to justify development Stan. There are already plenty of decent quality phono stages out there in what I would think is a pretty small marketplace. This is why I thought the way I did .... There's no analogue input on the amplifier. It's a current model from NAD. I think mainstream hifi amplification will be taking this route more and more.  |
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Sept 14, 2015 11:05:35 GMT
The market for phono stages is awash. Ignore Arkless <J> I have a great phono stage care of Arkless and Audacity takes care of ADC duties. Why would I want another box? Audacity does not take care of ADC duties. Audacity is a software tool. Your computer hardware does the ADC, and they're electrically noisy things computers. The analogue audio interfacing is built to the lowest possible cost, and it's affected by the electrical noise of the computer. |
|
|
|
Post by AlanS on Sept 14, 2015 11:20:04 GMT
The market for phono stages is awash. Ignore Arkless <J> I have a great phono stage care of Arkless and Audacity takes care of ADC duties. Why would I want another box? Audacity does not take care of ADC duties. Audacity is a software tool. Your computer hardware does the ADC, and they're electrically noisy things computers. The analogue audio interfacing is built to the lowest possible cost, and it's affected by the electrical noise of the computer. Really, wow. Forgive me my ignorance as you see it. Anyway Audacity does a fine job turning my vinyl to FLAC so I am happy The only noise I am concerned with is the surface noise of the disk and no other box that I think you are advocating would fix that would they? You produce a great generalisation Mr Strat. Don't even know what my computer is. |
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Sept 14, 2015 12:16:59 GMT
AlanS
My post was not written with any tone or attitude, so the sarcasm in your response is unnecessary.
There's no need to be an arse about it.
All computers are electrically noisy internally, even the ones with fruit emblems on them.
I don't care what computer you're using - it will be electrically noisy.
The box I'm advocating is purely for capturing SPDIF stream on the computer.
No analogue interfacing.
If you had read my post mentioning it properly you'd understand that.
|
|
|
|
Post by stanleyb on Sept 14, 2015 12:21:29 GMT
That was the only USP I could think of to justify development Stan. Don't worry. I know what you mean. Right now I am only asking questions. I'll get into more details in the appropriate place at the appropriate time. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Sept 14, 2015 12:25:01 GMT
I got a thread deleted here when someone challenged it on the basis of an existing product of mine being discussed. I think that a manufacturer seeking design input into a potential new product is very much welcomed and you won't find any problems with doing that, Stan. Feel free to keep discussing. |
|
|
|
Post by stanleyb on Sept 14, 2015 12:56:31 GMT
The market for phono stages is awash. Ignore Arkless <J> I have a great phono stage care of Arkless and Audacity takes care of ADC duties. Why would I want another box? I am aware that the market is awash, which is why I asked if a market still exists for a new one. My colleague who manufactures my DACs etc for me is one of the largest manufacturer in the world of phono stages as well, making the phono stages for some well known brand names. But these phono stages are designs that are more focused on cost rather than technical construction and performance. I am more interested in the technical perfection and performance. Price is not an issue at this stage. The modified Cambridge 640P from Arkless is not a bad product I have been told. But I am designing something of a far higher technical construction from scratch so that I can decide everything from the width of each copper track, to the position of the holes for the screws for the PCB. |
|
. But before I invest time and money into further developing a new kind of phono preamp I need some feedback on if it is worth the effort. A pity I don't have a suitable case of some sort to bolt the test prototype in so that I can get a few people to try it out and give their input.
. I don't want to say more than absolutely necessary at this stage. I got a thread deleted here when someone challenged it on the basis of an existing product of mine being discussed. The same kind of challenge was raised when someone discussed a tonearm. But judging from the comments so far I shall soldier on in the plotted direction. 
