[[email protected]]

Let's say you have a tube amp without phono.
If you consider a phono preamp, would you more likely go for tube phono
preamp? Then, why?
What would you think is a best tube phono preamp at under $400?

Or, a solid state phono preamp would be equally good? If you think so,
what would you think is a best solid state phono preamp that would work
well with a tube amp at under $400?

Thanks in advance.

cho

[Eeyore]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

read the seminal and undefeated JAES paper, Tubes or Transistors-Is
There A Difference? by Russell O. Hamm. It's readily avalable.

It's a load of misrepresentation. Utterly flawed on every single level.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
wrote:
Let's say you have a tube amp without phono.
If you consider a phono preamp, would you more likely go
for tube phono preamp? Then, why?
What would you think is a best tube phono preamp at
under $400?

Or, a solid state phono preamp would be equally good? If
you think so, what would you think is a best solid state
phono preamp that would work well with a tube amp at
under $400?

There are two schools of thought or maybe three.

At least one of those so-called schools of thought is grotesquely flawed,
not to say a whole lot obsolete:

One is that the most necessary place for tubes is at the
mechanical/electrical interface

How wrong can one get? In Y2K tubes have only one technically-justified
role, and that is as a generator of EFX in production and musical instrument
applications.

and for the best pursuit
of that view, read the seminal and undefeated JAES paper,
Tubes or Transistors-Is There A Difference? by Russell O.
Hamm. It's readily avalable.

Hamm's paper is also readily debunkable. How this POS ever made the pages of
the JAES is one of those mysteries that has never been revealed to me. It
was a highly-biased, out-of-date work on the day it was submitted to the AES
review board, and it only gets worse with time.

Less readily available but
worth seeking for fairness is his follow up on solid
state.

Fairness? Hamm's paper is a classic example of why advocates of a
technology that has passed out of the mainstream should not be allowed to
control comparisons with new technology. The simplistic, poorly-chosen and
poorly-designed SS circuits that Hamm used in his paper as reference
standards were not representative of the best generally-accepted practice
for the use of SS devices, either then or now.

He later amended his views somewhat, but not completely.

Just another example of how intellectual honesty can be elusive once a small
man hits the big time.

Ignore bozos, especially automotive engineers
with nothing better to do, that advocate Hamm be thrown
out on the basis of later devices.

Note the gratuitous personal attack, which disqualifes its source as a
person who is interested in reasoned discussions.

Newer transistors have
better parameters but are still subject to the same laws
of physics.

Both tubes and transistors can still be misapplied and abused with a poor
choice of operational parameters, as Hamm did so many decades back.

The other is that the noise figure and precision of RIAA
performance is unequalled using modern solid state
devices,

A grain of truth shows through.

and for the best exploration of this view see
the relatively recent AudioXPress articles by Norman
Thagard, engineer and astronaut.

Here's Norman Thagard's resume
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/thagard.html resume. Note the absence
of relevant education and experience, except in the most general sense.

Note that Thagard's design credits mostly realate to tweaking some Nelson
Pass designs. Thagard's major contribution is his name.

My take on it is either works ok, but the best tube phono
section I have ever heard is the design published in
Elektor BV's magazine and in a book by the German author,
Rainer zur Linde. It will drive most any pre or most tube
and many solid state amps directly, and its sonic
qualities are unexcelled with certain cartridges at
least. It is a simple circuit. It is not expensive or
difficult to build.

Most modern high end preamps feature phono sections that
are quiet but in my opinion do not sound particularly
good.

Spoken like a true tube bigot.

I actually prefer the venerable Shure head amp,
used in every radio station for thirty years and
practically giveaway items today, to some VERY expensive
high end saloon offerings. Of the vintage ones the
marantz 7 and Mac C22, nearly identical, are best.

Note that there is no single device that can be called a "Shure head amp".
There are among others, the SE1, the M60, the M61, M64, etc. Some are tubed,
and some are solid state. There's even the M66 which is a passive RIAA
equalizer.

BTW, the Shure SE1 bears further investigation by tubophiles, on paper it
looks like a true high end device.


Try both and make your own decision.

First, try to find a well- informed source.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message

One is that the most necessary place for tubes is at the
mechanical/electrical interface

This is utter drivel !

Semiconductor amplifers are vastly better at driver louspeaker loads ( not least
because they eliminate the utterly compomised use of an output transformer ) and
for ultra-low noise inputs, once again semiconductors are miles ahead !


How wrong can one get? In Y2K tubes have only one technically-justified
role, and that is as a generator of EFX in production and musical instrument
applications.

Which is not to deny their usefulness there of course ( for intentionally adding
'artistic colouration' ) , but at least in that application you can choose the
amount of 'tube sound' you want in the final product.


and for the best pursuit
of that view, read the seminal and undefeated JAES paper,
Tubes or Transistors-Is There A Difference? by Russell O.
Hamm. It's readily avalable.

Hamm's paper is also readily debunkable. How this POS ever made the pages of
the JAES is one of those mysteries that has never been revealed to me. It
was a highly-biased, out-of-date work on the day it was submitted to the AES
review board, and it only gets worse with time.

It begs belief how it got through. I guess someone fancied being controversial
and it hangs like a dark cloud over us to this day. It's riddled with total and
complete untruths. Not to mention it's no example of modern semiconductor design
practice.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore"
wrote
in message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message

One is that the most necessary place for tubes is at the
mechanical/electrical interface

This is utter drivel !

Semiconductor amplifers are vastly better at driver
louspeaker loads ( not least because they eliminate the
utterly compomised use of an output transformer ) and for
ultra-low noise inputs, once again semiconductors are
miles ahead !

Agreed. One major contribution of SS technology has been the vast reduction
in the use of transformers.

How wrong can one get? In Y2K tubes have only one
technically-justified role, and that is as a generator
of EFX in production and musical instrument applications.

Which is not to deny their usefulness there of course (
for intentionally adding 'artistic colouration' ) , but
at least in that application you can choose the amount of
'tube sound' you want in the final product.

Agreed.

and for the best pursuit
of that view, read the seminal and undefeated JAES
paper, Tubes or Transistors-Is There A Difference? by
Russell O. Hamm. It's readily avalable.

Hamm's paper is also readily debunkable. How this POS
ever made the pages of the JAES is one of those
mysteries that has never been revealed to me. It was a
highly-biased, out-of-date work on the day it was
submitted to the AES review board, and it only gets
worse with time.

It begs belief how it got through.

I hear that there were some political issues within the AES at the time.

I guess someone
fancied being controversial and it hangs like a dark
cloud over us to this day. It's riddled with total and
complete untruths. Not to mention it's no example of
modern semiconductor design practice.

Hamm cooked the books when he chose his examples of SS design to compare to
tubes.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com

Not to mention it's no example of modern semiconductor
design practice.

In 1973, it was.

No, it wasn't. Even Heathkit was doing far better.

Try say, 1963 semiconductor design practice.

[George M. Middius]

It's Krooglish time!

a whole lot obsolete

Arnii, did your superfantastic Krooglish-to-human translator module break
down again? tsk, tsk.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[[email protected]]

Thanks for responses.
I guess my question begs for controversy?

I guess the best practice is to try different options and choose by
myself. I may, in the long run, but I need something to begin with.

NAD PP-1 seems to be one of the cheapest SS phono preamps I can get at
$100. As with other NAD amps, it has a pretty good review.
I see a good review on Bellari VP129, which I think is the cheapest
tube phono preamp. It is $250. My friend has it and he likes it very
much.
I can also try vintage tube preamps made in 1960 - 1970 at around $100
on ebay.
Some Chinese made tube phono preamps are available on ebay at around
$300~400 with shipping.

I guess I may try NAD PP-1 first. I will compare it with my friend's
Bellari and if there is no noticeable differences, I will stick with
NAD. If Bellari is significantly better, I will buy Bellari. If the
difference is not quite significant, I may continue shop around.

Again, thanks for your comments. Futher comments would be appreciated.

[Powell]

wrote

What would you think is a best tube phono
preamp at under $400?

I'm only aware of two tube phono preamp under
$400, the Bellari VP120 and Antique Sound Lab
Mini Phono II DT at $350. You might consider a
used Pro-Ject Tube Box (MSRP $550). Most
tubed phono preamps run in the $1K - 8K range.


Or, a solid state phono preamp would be
equally good?

At you price point they (SS) will almost certainly
be technically more competent. Parasound also
makes a well respected amp (Parasound P/PH-100,
$120) allowing for the use of Moving Magnet phono
cartridges and some use of medium to high output
Moving Coil.
www.parasound.com/products/specialty/pph100.html


If you think so, what would you think is a best
solid state phono preamp that would work
well with a tube amp at under $400?

What kind of cartridge are you using on your
turntable... magnet (MM)/moving
coil (MC)... and what is the output voltage?

[[email protected]]

Powell wrote:

At you price point they (SS) will almost certainly
be technically more competent. Parasound also
makes a well respected amp (Parasound P/PH-100,
$120) allowing for the use of Moving Magnet phono
cartridges and some use of medium to high output
Moving Coil.
www.parasound.com/products/specialty/pph100.html

Thanks, I'll check it out.

What kind of cartridge are you using on your
turntable... magnet (MM)/moving
coil (MC)... and what is the output voltage?

I am looking for MM. Currently I have a rotel turntable and Grado Black
cartridge.

Thanks again.

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
oups.com...

Powell wrote:

At you price point they (SS) will almost certainly
be technically more competent. Parasound also
makes a well respected amp (Parasound P/PH-100,
$120) allowing for the use of Moving Magnet phono
cartridges and some use of medium to high output
Moving Coil.
www.parasound.com/products/specialty/pph100.html

Thanks, I'll check it out.

What kind of cartridge are you using on your
turntable... magnet (MM)/moving
coil (MC)... and what is the output voltage?

I am looking for MM. Currently I have a rotel turntable and Grado Black
cartridge.

Thanks again.

Look for an AT 440. It is the best sounding lower priced MM around IMO.

[Powell]

wrote

At you price point they (SS) will almost certainly
be technically more competent. Parasound also
makes a well respected amp (Parasound P/PH-100,
$120) allowing for the use of Moving Magnet phono
cartridges and some use of medium to high output
Moving Coil.
www.parasound.com/products/specialty/pph100.html

Thanks, I'll check it out.

What kind of cartridge are you using on your
turntable... magnet (MM)/moving
coil (MC)... and what is the output voltage?

I am looking for MM. Currently I have a rotel turntable
and Grado Black cartridge.

The Grado Black has a high level of output (5 mV)
and a typical 47K capacitance pF . You shouldn't
have any problems matching it with any phono
preamp. I suspect the Black will have a greater
influence (limitation) on the final sound quality
compared to the phono preamp, at your price point.

One correction: the recommended Parasound P/PH-100
has been replaced with the Zphono.

[[email protected]]

Powell wrote:

The Grado Black has a high level of output (5 mV)
and a typical 47K capacitance pF . You shouldn't
have any problems matching it with any phono
preamp. I suspect the Black will have a greater
influence (limitation) on the final sound quality
compared to the phono preamp, at your price point.


Very good point. I was thinking of upgrading the cartridge with
something like Shure M97XE.

One correction: the recommended Parasound P/PH-100
has been replaced with the Zphono.

At $150 new, ZPhono would be a good choice.
I am also thiking of Creek OBH-8. I guess it is comparable to zphono.

Again, thanks for comments.

cho

[Sander deWaal]

said:


Let's say you have a tube amp without phono.
If you consider a phono preamp, would you more likely go for tube phono
preamp? Then, why?
What would you think is a best tube phono preamp at under $400?

Or, a solid state phono preamp would be equally good? If you think so,
what would you think is a best solid state phono preamp that would work
well with a tube amp at under $400?


I use both, DIY tube preamps and DIY solid state preamps.

Both can have their attraction, be it that selecting the right tube or
semiconductor for the job is an important task.
Once you've found a suitable type, buy a stash of them, test them
thoroughly for microphonics and reasonable matching, and enjoy.

Solid state is usually better when it comes to low-output MC
cartridges, the noise level is (can be) very much lower.
A 'hybrid"solution I use now, is that one can built a MC-prepre with
SMT devices and mount it in the plinth or even in the tonearm, giving
a large enough signal to be used with a normal MM (tube) input.
In such cases, careful selection of the device (either IC or BJT,
Jfets are usually too noisy for this application) is important as well

I have had good results with both SS and tubes, but since I'm an old
tube tinkerer, I find it easier to achieve good sound with tubes.

Tube wear is usually grossly overstated; when on for 24/7, a good NOS
tube can keep its parameters reasonably constant for about 10.000 hrs.

I wouldn't know about a factory unit, I build all this stuff myself.

HTH.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

said:

Tube wear is usually grossly overstated; when on for
24/7, a good NOS tube can keep its parameters reasonably
constant for about 10.000 hrs.

Hmm, true confessions? 10 hour tube life?

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" said:


Tube wear is usually grossly overstated; when on for
24/7, a good NOS tube can keep its parameters reasonably
constant for about 10.000 hrs.


Hmm, true confessions? 10 hour tube life?


A real engineer would have known that here in Europe, the use of
commas and periods in numbers are reversed.

Especially for you, I''l restate that number to 10,000 hrs.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:


Tube wear is usually grossly overstated; when on for
24/7, a good NOS tube can keep its parameters reasonably
constant for about 10.000 hrs.

Hmm, true confessions? 10 hour tube life?

A real engineer would have known that here in Europe, the
use of commas and periods in numbers are reversed.

Where did I say I was a real engineer, whatever that might be?

Especially for you, I''l restate that number to 10,000
hrs.

Science fiction.

More like the truth:

http://www.ccdemo.info/SportsAndHobb...ectronics.html

"Tubes produce considerable heat which can shorten the life of other
components in the device.

"Designing for disposal of the heat produced restricted the design of
equipment enclosures, requiring bulky box shapes for equipment. This heat
leads to low efficiency in terms of audio watts produced for wall plug watts
consumed. Tube equipment efficiency is especially bad at low levels of
output since cathode heaters consume constant power regardless of the
device's output.

"Tubes have a limited life. Several thousand hours of use is typical. Many
on and off cycles will further shorten tube life, thus a tube set may be
left on when not in use, further degrading overall efficiency.

In fact, tubes that are designed to have upwards of 10,000 hour useful lives
are specially desgned and built, and sold for premium prices.

[George M. Middius]

Admission of snottiness by Mr. ****, LOt"S.

Where did I say I was a real engineer, whatever that might be?

Thank's Mr. Krooborg for, admitting Mr. Kroo**** that you, peaked as an
"engineer" when you helped design ashtray's for minivan's Mr. Kroofeces.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" said:


Tube wear is usually grossly overstated; when on for
24/7, a good NOS tube can keep its parameters reasonably
constant for about 10,000 hrs.


Science fiction.

More like the truth:

http://www.ccdemo.info/SportsAndHobb...ectronics.html

"Tubes produce considerable heat which can shorten the life of other
components in the device.


Irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is useful tube life in the
context of a (phono) preamp.


"Designing for disposal of the heat produced restricted the design of
equipment enclosures, requiring bulky box shapes for equipment. This heat
leads to low efficiency in terms of audio watts produced for wall plug watts
consumed. Tube equipment efficiency is especially bad at low levels of
output since cathode heaters consume constant power regardless of the
device's output.


Irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is useful tube life in the
context of a (phono) preamp.


"Tubes have a limited life. Several thousand hours of use is typical. Many
on and off cycles will further shorten tube life, thus a tube set may be
left on when not in use, further degrading overall efficiency.....


Which is just what I said above.
"Tube wear is usually grossly overstated; when on for
24/7, a good NOS tube can keep its parameters reasonably
constant for about 10,000 hrs."

Several thousand hours is typical, 10,000 hrs is a good average
estimate for good NOS small signal tubes, provided they're not abused
( meaning: being used within their ratings).
My personal experience confirms this.

Several SQ Philips (Mullard) and Telefunken double triodes such as
E88CC and ECC803S were even * factory guaranteed* to stay within
certain tolerance limits for 20,000 hrs.

I know of cases were such a double triode had roughly 7 years of
continuous duty in a preamp circuit, and when measured, Gm and
emission were within the manufacturer's tolerance for a new one.
Of course, it was on 24/7, both heater and anode voltage, without
interruption.
Calculating the hours, I get 61,320 hours of continuous duty.

I'll grant you, this was an exception, and I've never again come
across such a long life span.


.........further degrading overall efficiency.


Efficiency is irrelevant in the contexy of useful tube life in a
(phono) preamp.


In fact, tubes that are designed to have upwards of 10,000 hour useful lives
are specially desgned and built, and sold for premium prices.


In the '60s, many normal production tubes were made according to the
same process as the SQ tubes.
The only difference being that SQ tubes had a longer burn-in period,
and were often (roughly) factory matched for the military etc.
The longer burn-in period served mainly to pick out the duds, after a
tube survived the first 100 hrs. of operation, there was a 95 % chance
it would stay reasonably constant up until the cathode was exhausted,
or the getter was used up.


Sources: Philips Receiving Tube Manual, ed. 1968, and Philips Special
Quality Tubes manual, ed. 1968.
Telefunken Labor Buch, Elektronenröhren, 1962.

I can make scans of the articles in case you're interested.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Margaret von B]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:


Tube wear is usually grossly overstated; when on for
24/7, a good NOS tube can keep its parameters reasonably
constant for about 10.000 hrs.

Hmm, true confessions? 10 hour tube life?

A real engineer would have known that here in Europe, the
use of commas and periods in numbers are reversed.

ANY educated or informed or smart or sophisticated or non-moron would've
known that.


Cheers!

Margaret

[Eeyore]

Sander deWaal wrote:

"Arny Krueger" said:

Tube wear is usually grossly overstated; when on for
24/7, a good NOS tube can keep its parameters reasonably
constant for about 10.000 hrs.

Hmm, true confessions? 10 hour tube life?

A real engineer would have known that here in Europe, the use of
commas and periods in numbers are reversed.

But not in the UK of course, so I guess that should be 'mainland Europe'.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore"
wrote
in message
Sander deWaal wrote:

"Arny Krueger" said:

Tube wear is usually grossly overstated; when on for
24/7, a good NOS tube can keep its parameters
reasonably constant for about 10.000 hrs.

Hmm, true confessions? 10 hour tube life?

A real engineer would have known that here in Europe,
the use of commas and periods in numbers are reversed.

Note gratuitous wad of snot from Sander.

But not in the UK of course, so I guess that should be
'mainland Europe'.

At any rate, Usenet is a US creation (Bell Labs) and traditionally uses US
standards. Not that I'm defending our system of weights and measures or date
formatting.

[Sander deWaal]

Eeyore said:


A real engineer would have known that here in Europe, the use of
commas and periods in numbers are reversed.


But not in the UK of course, so I guess that should be 'mainland Europe'.


I'm sorry, I'm used to British people insisting they're *not* a part
of Europe ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[ScottW]

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Arny Krueger" said:


Tube wear is usually grossly overstated; when on for
24/7, a good NOS tube can keep its parameters reasonably
constant for about 10.000 hrs.


Hmm, true confessions? 10 hour tube life?


A real engineer would have known that here in Europe, the use of
commas and periods in numbers are reversed.

Especially for you, I''l restate that number to 10,000 hrs.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

Did rec.audio.tubes tell you to take your Kreuger fetish back to RAO
already?

It's OK, its annoying, but I can deal with it.

ScottW

[Sander deWaal]

"ScottW" said:


A real engineer would have known that here in Europe, the use of
commas and periods in numbers are reversed.

Especially for you, I''l restate that number to 10,000 hrs.


Did rec.audio.tubes tell you to take your Kreuger fetish back to RAO
already?


It is even worse, Krueger appears on his own every now and then in
RATubes, therefore I thought I'd return the honor by dropping in here.


It's OK, its annoying, but I can deal with it.


Are you a "real engineer", Scott? ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."