Coffee Phil wrote:Hi Steve,
I get out plenty. I also get sarcasm. You probably don't want to get into a sarcasm match with me. My wife is constantly on me to curb it so I will be fit to be around civilized people.
I question if you get sarcasm or tolerate it well as you seemed to take offense at the amount I dumped on you.
To your - Electronics Bad! I asked how you were connecting your phono cartridge to your speakers without the benefit of electronics.
To your - EQ Bad! I questioned if you knew what a phono stage is.
To your - Gain Bad! I pointed out that most of us realize that you need a fair bit of it to get from the level out of your cartridge to line level.
Now you may say that you didn't realize that my phono stage was a stand alone phono stage to be used instead of the stereo phono stage as opposed to in front of it. I did put up the schematic of it and a description. If you didn't understand what it is you could ask before coming up with statements like the Stanton engineers have forgotten more stuff than I am likely to ever know.
Your apology is accepted.
steve195527 wrote:Coffee Phil wrote:H Steve,
"Oh yes,don't use any EQ or even any gain! don't be so touchy and I still think Stanton will know,probably forgotten!, more about reproducing mono and stereo than you,just saying they advised a far simpler solution,how many records play mono vertically??"
A good many of us here are aware that most MM (and MI and variable reluctance) cartridges require ~30 dB of gain at 1 kHz to get to line level and equalization to complement the record EQ and convert the velocity response of the mag cartridge to an amplitude response.
All designs are a compromise to optimize the goals of the designer. If I were working for Stanton (or any other cartridge manufacturer) and my boss came to me and said I need a circuit which can be implemented on our existing products by our customers at little cost or effort there is little doubt that I would say just put the channels in parallel. Does it work? Fairly well. Is it optimum? Not really, for the reasons ld outlined.
ld put his coils in series to address the issues he stated in the parallel approach. He is not the first to do that or the only one. The person who provided a 3 mill stylus for my Sonus cartridge is a big proponent of the series connection.
Joe pointed out how the series connection will raise the output impedance of the cartridge and cause capacitive loading of the cables and preamp to be an issue. ld then pointed how he mitigated that issue.
Now my goals.
1. accurate summing of the channels for mono
2. ease of switching from lateral to vertical
3. load on each channel of cartridge the same as the stereo phono stage it was designed for
4. Choice of play back EQ
5. Easy switching from mono to existing stereo phono stage.
6. Ability to switch from left channel, right channel, or the sum when in mono
I think my design addressed all of the above goals.
Am I as smart as the Stanton Engineers? Who knows.
Am I a reasonably competent engineer? Well I hope so. I do have a BSEE and now have for the most part retired after a career of designing RF and analog circuits. I have been an audiophile for most of my life and have designed several amplifiers and preamps for my use.
If you can't tell that I was being sarcastic perhaps you need to get out more?sorry if I offended you,I din't mean to but seems you're going to take whatever I write the wrong way,no probs carry on fiddling with things
Decided its not worth effort