Great sound effect characterisations for treble and bass. You put a smile on my face on my birthday. It is a shame that I can can only give this a like, when I feel much stronger. Have a great day, Paul.
The RIAA doesn’t go back as far as the 1930s. It was established in 1952, and the RIAA curve was published in 1954. There is some debate about how long record companies continued to use different EQ curves, but it was certainly well into the stereo era. That’s why some of the best phono preamps offer a choice of curves beyond RIAA.
Deca, FFrr, Columbia and a few others that I can't think of at the moment. Manly Labs about 20 years ago had a real beauty, I think it was vacuum tube but had settings for numerous equalization curves. Regardless, it is amazing that it all sounds as good as it does.
You missed the most critical part of the explanation. It became assumed that magnetic coil based phono carts were the standard used. Magnetic coil generators are not linear in output based on frequency for a given amount of movement. Their output increases with frequency. IOW for a given amount of side to side travel for a stylus, the output goes up as the frequency goes up. For X amount of travel the cart's output would be higher at 1Khz than 100Hz. It would be even higher at 10Khz than 1Khz for the same amount of stylus travel. So the RIAA curve assumes this non-linearity and adds a cut off slope at a given hinge point to reduce noise past that while taking advantage of the magnetic carts greater output at those frequencies.
LP stereo recordings were introduced in 1957, 66 years ago. I'm 67 years old, so I grew up with vinyl LPs and the compromises they present. It is incredible to me that earnest discussions are yet being made about the antique technology we're still using to compensate for the deficiencies of vinyl. I have nothing against purely analog methods for recording and reproducing music - in fact, I would love to see the invention of a totally new medium for analog recording that would eliminate the inherent problems of vinyl and tape. We're nearing the second quarter of the 21st century: we ought to be creating a better analog music playback alternative, rather than resorting to a recording technology that is as old as a geezer like me.
Hmm, no, Paul, RIAA is from the 50s - 1952 established, RIAA curve 1954. So effectively, yes, to all intents and purposes, most records are standardised to the RIAA curve. By using terms like "compression" in your explanation, however, you've opened the gates to audiophile hell, and the haters are walking amongst us; it's not compression, it's pre- and de-emphasis and how it is implemented and standardised.
To put a sharper point on record playback… RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) was established in 1954 (not the 30’s as you said). This was to create a ‘standard’ EQ curve instead of everyone’s proprietary recipe. Microgroove and vinyl came along in 1948 (in both 10” and 12” format, now commonly referred to as Long Play). The third reason for RIAA is to improve tracking and keeping the stylus from jumping out of the groove. With advancements in cartridges and tonearms, this isn’t as critical now as it was in the 50s and 60s.
Anyone playing vinyl music is using a RIAA filter which is an equalizer of extreme filtering properties often with highly audible artifacts. You shouldn’t be a user of that and at the same time believe a slight tiny room EQ of a few dB perfecting your frequency response is bad 🤔
The difference is the RIAA curve effects the fringes of the music where room equalization can be heard across the whole spectrum of the music. The thing Paul didn't mention is that reducing the bass that much helps to keep the needle in the groove where it doesn't have to move as much to reproduce the bass.
@@gitmobob6266 No! It’s exactly opposite. A RIAA filter is a nasty +/-20dB phase shifting EQ filter through the entire audible frequency response. I usually EQ only at specific points and never more than +/-6dB. Nowadays we don’t need all the nastiness of vinyl playback with modern digital audio. No noise, no clicks, no L/R crosstalk, no audible playback distortion, no phase mess up, no wow and flutter etc.
@ThinkingBetter Please take this for what it is worth and is a personal observation. I worked in a high-end store for a couple of years. People who came in would spend much more time listening to our analog setup than the high-end digital equipment. The digital music may have better specs in every way, but analog just sounds more natural. I can't explain it but prefer it personally. I'm not forcing my views on anyone, and the observations are mine. Thanks for the reply, and I hope Paul clarifies his explanation.
@@gitmobob6266 Digital audio is as excellent as you want it to be. It’s not just a matter of superior specs. It’s true however that we often perceive imperfection as more natural. Variations in pitch from wow and flutter, soft clipping adding even musical harmonics from a tube amp, some noise etc. make music feel more live and natural.
When I have two turntables and a mixer, the mixer is my preamplifier based on moving magnet. Why would I want a separate preamplifier and would I need two?
Hmm, I understand the physical reason for cutting the bass frequencies, but I'm not sure why the high frequencies have to be boosted during the record cutting process. Was it to make the high frequency grooves a little bigger in order for the stylus to track more easily?
The higher the frequency the harder for the mics to pick them up, it’s common sense that every piece and item or software made by people has more than 1 flaw
@@shangrilaladeda The boosting of the high frequencies and the cutting of the low frequencies happens during mastering and not recording. Cutting the lows makes sense to me as to not make the grooves too wide on the record, but I am not clear on why the high frequencies need to be boosted. I am sure it is related to the physical cutting of the grooves and their size, I'm just not clear on it.
@@johnnytheg no that’s just a lie, cds don’t suffer like records do and they also put the crap on cds mics just like our ears have a harder time picking up higher frequencies I know the design of life so the only mystery to me is when God will fix it all
Is there any particular benefit to buying a turntable manufacturer's brand of phone preamp or can you just buy an el-cheapo one that will do the same thing? I have a Rega Planar 2 turntable hooked to my Denon AVR-X4700 phono input and am considering upgrading (?) to a dedicated phono preamp thinking I would get better sonic performance out of my system.
Like pretty much everything else, the more you invest dollar wise, your sound quality goes up. I have a P2 on one of my systems and it benefited from going to a modest priced ($350) phono preamp over the one in the $600 integrated amp.
@@pnichols6500 After I realized why I always had to crank up the AVR to get any decent volume from my speakers, I went ahead and bought a Rega MM Mk2 phone preamp. There was a 28dB difference in gain between the phono input and the preamp. Game changer! I was also considering the Pro-ject Tube Box S2 (never used a tube amp) but the Rega was $50 cheaper. I think I'm done for a while, having only a part-time job providing me income...I do the best I can with what I have. When I bought the table (didn't want to but my old one wouldn't even power up anymore) I had the stylus changed out from the standard included Carbon to an AT-VM540ML, which I'm happy with. Before the TT, my prior upgrade was an 11-channel Tonewinner power amp and a set of patch cords to run my AVR in preamp mode. The extra power in the LCR channels is really noticeable.
@@pnichols6500 I ended up getting a Fono MM mk5 and the difference was incredible. Gain on the Rega preamp was 28 dB higher than the Denon receiver...I didn't have to crank the volume up to get any decent sound. The music sounds good, too :) At some point I'll upgrade one part of the system or another, but - cartridge, table or preamp - but for now I'm happy with what I have.
I own a Carver C4000 and it has an adjustable peak unlimiter designed around the RIAA curve that boosts that filtered portion of the record. It has a simple led indicator to let you know how much boost you're giving. Too much kind'a defeats the purpose
They sound different because they Are different. The same applies to other audio circuits, but because those are supposed to have "flat" response they aren't as different as phono stages are.
definitely put a balanced input in your phono stage this is quite rare and usually only on the expensive models, Keep the price down it's not expensive to put in... and then the person has the option of changing their setup on their turntable to be balanced quite easily maybe give some instructions with your phono stage how to do it and a set of plugs. Makes a big difference and a nice little touch
Vinyl - Deliberately distorted to suit the media’s characteristics and then undistorted for playback in an attempt to recover the original signal. It seems similar to a lossy compression scheme to me.
More like a lossles compression, as you don't lose information, just use a reversible process to adapt the information to the media. BUT the means to revert this are far from perfect and induces a lot of distortion and that's the answer that Paul evade.
For the same reason RAP and Hip Hop sounds different..🙄 For the same reasons Audiophiles are buying new speakers every month. For the same reason Audiophiles are buying new amplifiers every month. Are you getting it, is it sinking in..🙄
@@aquacamel 😀😀😀😀😀 I know what you mean. I bought a CD several years ago, it sounds different..😳 I was listening to a singer singing when she was a teenager years ago. She sounds different..😳 I also bought a DVD movie. It looked and sounded different..😳 I wake up in the morning and look in the mirror, I look different. 😳 My car hasn’t been washed in a month. It looks different. 😳 I am 73 years old. I feel different 😳😀😀😀😀
Yes, RIAA curves, also known as compression. If one could build perfect filters one could make a lossless algorithm, but one can't make perfect (analog) filters and thus the RIAA curve(s, plural, there were several long long ago) effectively ends up as a lossy compression scheme. Vinyl is a highly compromising means of saving music.
@1:38 "...little needle moving back and forth." Paul, why do you insist on calling a stylus a needle? You are an audio expert, and yet you perpetuate kindergarten level misinformation. "Needle" became popular from people that were not in the music industry, that were not in the audio industry, that knew basically nothing about audio. They eyeballed the stylus, it had the appearance of a needle, so not knowing any better, they called it a needle. You, however, know better. And rather than educating the public on the correct name of the little thing that moves back and forth, you let the uninformed dictate your language. It is ironic that in your "educating the public" videos, you are obsessed with mis-educating the public on the name of a stylus. Are you not able to pronounce the work "stylus"? If that's not it, then why is it that you refuse to call a stylus a stylus? Is this a pissing match, where you do not want to give in, even at the expense of repeatedly misinforming the public? What is so difficult in calling an audio component by its correct name? What is the compulsion in insisting on calling it by the wrong name?
