Equalization Curves and Polarity

astrotoy

VIP/Donor
May 24, 2010
1,547
1,017
1,715
SF Bay Area
Another Long Post

It has been long known that until the early 1950's (in the mono era), different record labels used different equalization curves. Even the same label would have different curves. So early preamps would often have multiple EQ settings. (The need for LP EQ comes from the fact that the excursions for bass frequencies are many times the size those for treble. So when a record is cut, the bass frequencies have their volume reduced, and the treble frequencies are boosted. This allows the bass excursions to fit in a record groove and the treble excursions to be large enough to not be lost in the noise of the vinyl. The EQ curve then reverses this in playback, boosting the bass and cutting the treble ideally in mirror image to the recording EQ.)

The EQ was standardized to RIAA in the early to mid 1950's, particularly led by RCA. However, it has been long commented that many (most) of the record companies, particularly those based in England and Europe (as well as the U.S. Columbia record company) used their own versions of EQ, not following the RIAA well into the stereo era until as late as the early to mid 1970's for some labels.

There is controversy about the variation of EQ in the stereo era. The conventional wisdom is that everyone used RIAA in the stereo era - after all it was the standard, and that no other EQ is necessary for stereo records.

However, there are several manufacturers of phono preamps who have put switches for different EQ curves on their equipment. They have tended to be at the high end. These include the very high end Zanden Model 1200 Mark 3 with curves for RIAA, Decca, EMI, US Columbia, and Teldec, Audio Research Reference 2 Phono Pre with curves for RIAA, Decca and Columbia, Boulder 1008 with curves for US Columbia and some monos, and mid price Graham Slee Elevator, with switches for setting bass shelf, bass turnover frequency, and treble. I currently have the Graham Slee which allows me to do RIAA, Decca, EMI and U.S. Columbia.

Just listening to my many early EMI's, Columbia's and Decca's I can heard the benefit of the non-RIAA curve. In the treble, especially, played through RIAA, the records are excessively bright. There is a 2.3db difference in the treble between RIAA and those labels - which starts in the lower treble (around 2-3kHz) so it is very easy to hear, even with my aged ears. However, some have argued that this was not a result of different EQ, just different mastering preferences.

Since actual documentation of the mastering EQ does not appear to exist and interviews with the now elderly retired mastering engineers are inconclusive, I have come up with what I think is a reasonable test of the EQ issue. There are two main tests. First is comparing an early pressing with a modern high quality reissue of an early EMI or Decca (say Speakers Corner or Testament) which both used the same master tape. The modern recording, cut within the past 5-10 years was definitely done with RIAA. I have listened to several of these comparisons and the original always sounds brighter. When I switch to the proper EQ, the two sound very similar - RIAA for reissue and old EQ for the original. The second test came from a fortuitous circumstance. The Tape Project obtained a master tape of an early Decca recording - Oistrakh playing the Bruch Scottish Fantasy and Hindemith Violin Concerto. They issued a 15ips 2 track of that master tape as part of their Series One. I have an original pressing of the London issue of that record, made in the early 60's. Paying the tape and record back to back, with the vinyl played using RIAA and the old Decca EQ, it was very clear to my ears that the old Decca EQ was the one very close to the master tape dub. The RIAA equalized record was much brighter. I have been told that originals of Beatles, Rolling Stones, etc from the '50s and '60's benefit from the other EQ curves. I don't have those to compare.

My conclusion: If you have a sizable collection of older pre 1970 vinyl, and you want to hear closer to the master tape sounded like, then try a phono preamp with variable EQ.

A note on polarity. If you have the phase resolution power in your system (my system with horns is very good for that), then having a polarity switch on your preamp can help you hear better what was recorded. Think of a trumpet - it is the difference between hearing the air blown at you and the air sucked from you. From what I have been able to hear and to learn, many (most) labels recorded with phase reversed (both channels - not just one - that would be very easy to hear). If the record was heavily multimiked, as in many pop/rock albums, then there is a good chance that some of the instruments were recorded with phase inverted and others not - in that case, it doesn't help. Also if you have dynamic speakers with complex crossovers, then there is a good chance that some of the drivers have phase inverted compared to others - so a phase switch doesn't help there either. I have found that on horns and electrostatics I can hear the phase inversions the easiest. It also helps to have the phase inversion button on your remote (as I do on my Herron VTSP-3A) so I can more easily here the differences immediately. Sounds with strong attacks - like percussion and trumpets are easiest for me to hear.

Another Note: I was speaking to Paul Stubblebine (well known mastering engineer) recently. He told me that many reissue engineers work with an oscilloscope - so they can see the absolute phase of the recording and then use that when they cut the master lacquer. He mentioned Stan Ricker as one who always does that. So Stan's polarity is always correct.

Thanks, Larry
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Great post Larry. Getting a phono section in with adjustable EQ curves has been high on my list. I think there's a couple of others with EQ capabilities such as the Cayin preamp, and Scott Franklands Wavestream phono section (that I'm really interested in hearing!).

The variability in EQ would go a long ways to explaining why the early EMI ASDs (under 2500 or so) are usually pretty bright compared to the later ASDs issues.
 

rockitman

Member Sponsor
Sep 20, 2011
7,097
412
1,210
Northern NY
I would also suggest the Millennia LOC (Library of Congress) archival pre-amp.

Millennia LOC


Regards,

How does their 4 band eq stand up to audiophile scrutiny ? I have been thinking about a pro eq to tweak sound when wanted, but also must have a real pass through circuit if I don't want eq. Would this be the optimal eq solution for a high end two channel system ? Any other brands to consider ?

NSEQ-2
http://www.mil-media.com/nseq-2.html
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
How does their 4 band eq stand up to audiophile scrutiny ? I have been thinking about a pro eq to tweak sound when wanted, but also must have a real pass through circuit if I don't want eq. Would this be the optimal eq solution for a high end two channel system ? Any other brands to consider ?

NSEQ-2
http://www.mil-media.com/nseq-2.html

I'm an audiophile and have the NSEQ-2.... actually it's the NSEQ-4 now since I've had it upgraded. Or you can get another EQ that I use, EAR 825.

Both are up to "audiophile" quality levels.

Here is a great primer on Legacy 78rpm EQ curves
 

Attachments

  • Millennia 78 EQ C&#10.pdf
    145.6 KB · Views: 143

rockitman

Member Sponsor
Sep 20, 2011
7,097
412
1,210
Northern NY
I'm an audiophile and have the NSEQ-2.... actually it's the NSEQ-4 now since I've had it upgraded. Or you can get another EQ that I use, EAR 825.

Both are up to "audiophile" quality levels.

Here is a great primer on Legacy 78rpm EQ curves

So the 4 version has no tubes and isn't much more expensive. Is it that much better ? Kind of neat to have some tube playback (NSEQ-2 )as an option in the chain. I assume I would run my main preamp out's to the in's on this unit and run the out's of this unit directly to my power amps ? TIA

Edit: Sorry OP for straying a bit off topic.
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
So the 4 version has no tubes and isn't much more expensive. Is it that much better ? Kind of neat to have some tube playback (NSEQ-2 )as an option in the chain. I assume I would run my main preamp out's to the in's on this unit and run the out's of this unit directly to my power amps ? TIA

Edit: Sorry OP for straying a bit off topic.

Having the tube section gives your music some flavor, but in mastering, I was rarely using that "flavor". The unit is super clean and gets the job done. I'd put the unit in a tape loop instead out of the pre. Don't know how much gain your pre has, but in the pro world, that can be a lot and easily overload the circuit.
 
Last edited:

rockitman

Member Sponsor
Sep 20, 2011
7,097
412
1,210
Northern NY
Having the tube section gives your music some flavor, but in mastering, I was rarely using that "flavor". The unit is super clean and get's the job done. I'd put the unit in a tape loop instead out of the pre. Don't know how much gain your pre has, but in the pro world, that can be a lot and easily overload the circuit.

My pre is +10dB gain. That makes much better sense to use the tape loop feature built into my pre amp...Thanks for that. It's been a while since I had a tape loop going.
I think I'm going for the NSEQ-4. I don't need the tubes and this full SS version is supposedly better sonically.
 

Mikey

[Industry Expert]
Oct 25, 2012
4
0
0
another long post

it has been long known that until the early 1950's (in the mono era), different record labels used different equalization curves. Even the same label would have different curves. So early preamps would often have multiple eq settings. (the need for lp eq comes from the fact that the excursions for bass frequencies are many times the size those for treble. So when a record is cut, the bass frequencies have their volume reduced, and the treble frequencies are boosted. This allows the bass excursions to fit in a record groove and the treble excursions to be large enough to not be lost in the noise of the vinyl. The eq curve then reverses this in playback, boosting the bass and cutting the treble ideally in mirror image to the recording eq.)

the eq was standardized to riaa in the early to mid 1950's, particularly led by rca. However, it has been long commented that many (most) of the record companies, particularly those based in england and europe (as well as the u.s. Columbia record company) used their own versions of eq, not following the riaa well into the stereo era until as late as the early to mid 1970's for some labels.

There is controversy about the variation of eq in the stereo era. The conventional wisdom is that everyone used riaa in the stereo era - after all it was the standard, and that no other eq is necessary for stereo records.

However, there are several manufacturers of phono preamps who have put switches for different eq curves on their equipment. They have tended to be at the high end. These include the very high end zanden model 1200 mark 3 with curves for riaa, decca, emi, us columbia, and teldec, audio research reference 2 phono pre with curves for riaa, decca and columbia, boulder 1008 with curves for us columbia and some monos, and mid price graham slee elevator, with switches for setting bass shelf, bass turnover frequency, and treble. I currently have the graham slee which allows me to do riaa, decca, emi and u.s. Columbia.

Just listening to my many early emi's, columbia's and decca's i can heard the benefit of the non-riaa curve. In the treble, especially, played through riaa, the records are excessively bright. There is a 2.3db difference in the treble between riaa and those labels - which starts in the lower treble (around 2-3khz) so it is very easy to hear, even with my aged ears. However, some have argued that this was not a result of different eq, just different mastering preferences.

Since actual documentation of the mastering eq does not appear to exist and interviews with the now elderly retired mastering engineers are inconclusive, i have come up with what i think is a reasonable test of the eq issue. There are two main tests. First is comparing an early pressing with a modern high quality reissue of an early emi or decca (say speakers corner or testament) which both used the same master tape. The modern recording, cut within the past 5-10 years was definitely done with riaa. I have listened to several of these comparisons and the original always sounds brighter. When i switch to the proper eq, the two sound very similar - riaa for reissue and old eq for the original. The second test came from a fortuitous circumstance. The tape project obtained a master tape of an early decca recording - oistrakh playing the bruch scottish fantasy and hindemith violin concerto. They issued a 15ips 2 track of that master tape as part of their series one. I have an original pressing of the london issue of that record, made in the early 60's. Paying the tape and record back to back, with the vinyl played using riaa and the old decca eq, it was very clear to my ears that the old decca eq was the one very close to the master tape dub. The riaa equalized record was much brighter. I have been told that originals of beatles, rolling stones, etc from the '50s and '60's benefit from the other eq curves. I don't have those to compare.

My conclusion: If you have a sizable collection of older pre 1970 vinyl, and you want to hear closer to the master tape sounded like, then try a phono preamp with variable eq.

A note on polarity. If you have the phase resolution power in your system (my system with horns is very good for that), then having a polarity switch on your preamp can help you hear better what was recorded. Think of a trumpet - it is the difference between hearing the air blown at you and the air sucked from you. From what i have been able to hear and to learn, many (most) labels recorded with phase reversed (both channels - not just one - that would be very easy to hear). If the record was heavily multimiked, as in many pop/rock albums, then there is a good chance that some of the instruments were recorded with phase inverted and others not - in that case, it doesn't help. Also if you have dynamic speakers with complex crossovers, then there is a good chance that some of the drivers have phase inverted compared to others - so a phase switch doesn't help there either. I have found that on horns and electrostatics i can hear the phase inversions the easiest. It also helps to have the phase inversion button on your remote (as i do on my herron vtsp-3a) so i can more easily here the differences immediately. Sounds with strong attacks - like percussion and trumpets are easiest for me to hear.

Another note: I was speaking to paul stubblebine (well known mastering engineer) recently. He told me that many reissue engineers work with an oscilloscope - so they can see the absolute phase of the recording and then use that when they cut the master lacquer. He mentioned stan ricker as one who always does that. So stan's polarity is always correct.

Thanks, larry


i am fed up with the line of b.s. There is documentation. I spoke with george bettyes who mastered for decca/london between 1957 and 1972 and he told me in no uncertain terms that decca/london used the riaa curve for all stereo era cuts. Period. Just as it says on the back of the london jackets. He also told me that london and decca records were identical other than the label. I saw a vintage production order proving it. There is no such thing as the "ffss curve" he told me: "ffss was a marketing term like 'living stereo' and 'living presence' it was not an eq curve."

i also spoke with people who mastered for columbia. Same thing. This stuff is not buried in the "inconclusive" file. It is known and factual. If you wish to use these pre-stereo era curves as tone controls, knock yourselves out but if you think you are somehow properly playing back these stereo era lps by using a curve other than riaa because it "sounds better", you are deluding yourselves.

I'm tired of charlatans and know-nothings spreading manure.
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
i am fed up with the line of b.s. There is documentation. I spoke with george bettyes who mastered for decca/london between 1957 and 1972 and he told me in no uncertain terms that decca/london used the riaa curve for all stereo era cuts. Period. Just as it says on the back of the london jackets. He also told me that london and decca records were identical other than the label. I saw a vintage production order proving it. There is no such thing as the "ffss curve" he told me: "ffss was a marketing term like 'living stereo' and 'living presence' it was not an eq curve."

i also spoke with people who mastered for columbia. Same thing. This stuff is not buried in the "inconclusive" file. It is known and factual. If you wish to use these pre-stereo era curves as tone controls, knock yourselves out but if you think you are somehow properly playing back these stereo era lps by using a curve other than riaa because it "sounds better", you are deluding yourselves.

I'm tired of charlatans and know-nothings spreading manure.


Thanks Mikey!
 

Audiocrack

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2012
2,175
687
1,158
i am fed up with the line of b.s. There is documentation. I spoke with george bettyes who mastered for decca/london between 1957 and 1972 and he told me in no uncertain terms that decca/london used the riaa curve for all stereo era cuts. Period. Just as it says on the back of the london jackets. He also told me that london and decca records were identical other than the label. I saw a vintage production order proving it. There is no such thing as the "ffss curve" he told me: "ffss was a marketing term like 'living stereo' and 'living presence' it was not an eq curve."

i also spoke with people who mastered for columbia. Same thing. This stuff is not buried in the "inconclusive" file. It is known and factual. If you wish to use these pre-stereo era curves as tone controls, knock yourselves out but if you think you are somehow properly playing back these stereo era lps by using a curve other than riaa because it "sounds better", you are deluding yourselves.

I'm tired of charlatans and know-nothings spreading manure.

Of course I could react in a 'charlatian way' in saying that this post is too stupid to take it seriously. But I have more than once proclaimed that we should behave ourselves better on the WBF and accept that audiophiles have different tastes, different preferences and hear differently. So I will behave myself. I will only say that reviewers as eg Harry Pearson and Roy Gregory have made some interesting remarks regarding the Zanden 1200 phonostage using using different curves. I have been playing with the Zanden 1200 mk iii for many years now. Although not all older recordings will benefit, the differences on other recordings from eg the sixties and seventies such as Decca and EMI are profound, not only in tonality but also in presenting a clearly larger soundstage. None of the music lovers that visited me failed to notice these very obvious differences so I suppose hearing is believing.
 

awsmone

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2014
1,616
513
435
Canberra Australia
Hi Mikey

Enjoyed your thread on equalisation curves

I note though a inconsistency between your last two posts on Analog planet

Both here and on your blog, you state london and decca are identical

But on the better records article you state the london and decca of that particular record there is no comparison

Am I missing something?

There's no controversy when you hear an "RL" Led Zeppelin II of course. That is most certainly a "better record" and worth whatever it costs to get one in great condition. On the other hand, a friend got a copy from "Better Records" of The Rolling Stones's Let It Bleed on the American London label that cost him plenty. In my opinion there are no good, not to mention better copies of that album on London records, which were all mastered and pressed in America. The only great copies of that one are on the British Decca label (in this case Londons and Deccas are way different!).
 

awsmone

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2014
1,616
513
435
Canberra Australia
I just reread all the posts

It would seem the argument here is not whether Stereo vinyl is recorded with RIAA

I think Mikey Fremer has put that chestnut to bed

But rather that there are some intrinsic equalisation issues done in mastering of these original records

The evidence from the tape project is quite compelling

I have set my system up to replicate 18 " in house" curves

I have quite a lot of 60s and 70s classical vinyl

In nearly all cases the in house equalisation does sound better

I dont have many remastered reissues to compare

Others might like to comment

I am unclear what might be going on

I remeasured my system equalisation and its very flat up 16k and down to 50

I am sure Mikey is right about the RIAA cuts

But was there some preprocessing done?

One interesting thing about "dullness" in the treble occurs to me

It used to be that 47k was nearly the standard for running MC 30 years ago

We now consider this unloaded, and often overly bright

Were older systems by nature "dull" in the treble and as a result mastering engineers were "boosting" this region

Interested in informed opinion............
 

astrotoy

VIP/Donor
May 24, 2010
1,547
1,017
1,715
SF Bay Area
As the OP for this thread, I want to bring my 4 year old post up to date. Since then, I have made discoveries both in the area of research that Mike Fremer mentions and in the area of listening, something he doesn’t mention.

First, dealing with research, many of you know that I have been working closely with and for Winston Ma of First Impression Music (FIM) for almost two years. The result is the book on Decca records which I wrote for FIM and Winston produced including the accompanying 4 CD set of great classical (and a few non-classical) selections, which came out in August of this year (Decca:Supreme Stereophonic Legacy - to our amazement, the first printing of 1100+ copies sold out to customers and dealers in two weeks. Second printing is on its way).

In researching for the book, I was able to conduct extensive interviews with many Decca staff from the golden era of stereo vinyl (1958-1980) on two trips to London in 2013 and 2014. Although we focused on the personalities and private stories of the engineers, producers and artists and their venues, I took the opportunity to ask about the EQ used in the vinyl and found, like Fremer, that there was no evidence or remembrance other than RIAA. There were other issues, such as different non-NAB tape EQs that were used and some issues with high frequency peaks in the cutter heads which Michael Gray has also mentioned.

Winston has had a very long relationship with Decca, beginning 35 years ago which he mentions in the introduction to my book. He issued a set of 17 CD’s between 2005 and 2009, using the original master tapes, with most transferred to digital by his long time mastering engineer Paul Stubblebine. Beginning in the mid-late 1990’s until the late 2000's Paul mastered the vast majority of CDs released by Winston, with additional digital mastering done by Tohru Koetsu and Takeshi Hakamata of JVC. For my book, Winston had Michael Bishop and Robert Friedrich do the remastering. Bishop and Friedrich of Five/Four Productions have done all of last 40-50 CD’s that Winston has released since late 2010, using their jointly developed UHD system, which was improved by adding his PuReflection system. I plan to ask Paul, Michael and Robert what they know of EQ issues in the remastering of the Decca albums they did. (Bruce Brown has also done some mastering for Winston, using DXD, during the period around 2009, the year of the 2 DXD albums done by Bruce that I have in my personal 100+ CD FIM collection. However, I don’t believe he did any of the Decca recordings.)

Although Fremer believes he has answered the EQ question for Decca (and Columbia, I assume US and not UK), I would have liked it if he had pursued the more fundamental question, rather than casting a wide net of aspersions against some people whom I believe are honest and with good ears, not charlatans. That is, is there a difference for early Deccas and other labels (EMI, DGG, Columbia) that is improved by using a different EQ than RIAA? In my reading of Fremer’s columns I don’t believe that he has ever undertaken any listening tests with these early stereo classical records, particularly with phono preamps like the Zanden or Boulder with variable EQ. I believe that little of his listening involves classical music, and he may not have any of these early original recordings in his personal collection, from which I believe he gets most of his listening test material.

When the modern heretic view of non-RIAA stereo recordings was first publically advocated by Yamada-san, CEO of Zanden, it was quite shocking to many of us who had large collections of these early pressings. I had always felt that early EMI classical (white-gold label 3 digit ASD label) were generally brighter sounding than later issues, but couldn’t do anything about them. Zanden was proposing to use a different setting for playback using his Phono preamp, which was about $25,000 (IIRC) when first introduced. I didn’t have that kind of money and was very happy otherwise with my Herron phono pre. However, when Audio Research, Boulder and others came out with phono pre’s with similar multiple EQ settings (and not just for earlier mono records which generally require different turnover frequencies), then it appears that these substantial companies were hearing something similar to Mr Yamada.

I agree with audiocrack, that I hear significant improvements in playing (and ripping) my early Decca and EMI’s (I really don’t have any US Columbias or early DGG’s to speak of) using non RIAA settings. People who have come over for blind hearings, are quite consistent in their choice of the non RIAA settings. For posterity, I have ripped my early Decca’s in both RIAA and non-RIAA EQ versions. I even have some early 4 track R2R tapes of the same albums, which I have also ripped, so I can compare and pick the ones that sounds most real to listen to.

Larry
 

Audiocrack

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2012
2,175
687
1,158
Thanks much for your nuanced reaction Larry.

When I contacted mister Fremer trough his analog planet website, shared with him my experiences with the Zanden 1200 mk iii using various curves with vintage Decca en EMI recordings and asked him wether his (strong) opinion is based on actual listening test he reacted as follows:

"Yes I reviewed a Zanden phono stage but that it's a Zanden is not the issue. Any phono stage with various curves will produce the results you obtained just as will any set of tone controls. EQ curves only affect tonal balance. They have nothing whatsoever to do with dynamics or sound staging other than as byproducts of tonal shifts. Phase shift (better called "polarity") is another subject entirely and has NOTHING whatsoever to do with EQ curves. Simply miked recordings in particular can produce profound sonic changes by changing polarity. But again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with curves. My opinion here is based on FACTS not "listening tests". As I said at the outset, if you like the sound of a particular record better using the wrong EQ curve that's your choice but in no way should you confuse your preference with that somehow being the correct curve for that label!"

It is also my impression that mister Fremer's (strong) opinion is not based on actual listening tests with vintage recordings of various record companies from the fifties till seventies of the last century. That said, I must confess that not all of (eg) my Decca and Emi recordings profit from a different curve than RIAA. I cannot explain why some recordings - sometimes from the same recording companies with only a few years between them - do profit and others do not. Imho it is a matter of actual listening to a recording and choose for every record the best curve. Btw, the same applies to polarity.
 

awsmone

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2014
1,616
513
435
Canberra Australia
Ha Ha

Its a fascinating subject

I have done some research into this

Whats most interesting is everyone is right to some extent and also everyone is wrong in others

Ok lets get some facts

Equalisaion is not based on label but who cut the record

The number of companies who cut records is quite limited

Michael Fremer is right in so far as USA

Strangely there is a world beyond USA

There is little doubt that USA changed over to USA RIAA for stereo microgroove LP

However there was no universal standard RIAA but UK and effectively Europe adopted the standard within two years

This is based on the actual circuits for the cutter heads and the test records cut by labels to check there were cutting per a particular frequency

This as Fremer and other s has said is pretty much irrefutable

Sorry but Yamada-san and Roy Gregory and many many others are wrong there

Ok....

You heard all this before whats news...

Ok they all tried to cut to RIAA standard ( excluding Teldec which was actual different standard to rIAA)

Well when you exam the implementation of these standards at the cutting head things get interesting....

OK

most of you will probably know the RIAA represents three time constants for turnover

This is a turnover from constant velocity to constant amplitude

So effectively we have a series of asymptotes or vectors or lines with changes at turnover of trajectory

These changes represent changes in how the cutting head represent the audio signal

Therefore bass is represented down to 75usec by constant amplitude
The critical midrange by constant velocity

Ok that all sounds pretty neat

but in 1953 to 56 and later the ability to get close to these turnover frequencies was ummm by modern standards not close

circuits did not represent a series of straight lines, but gentle curves which at times varied by up to 3db from the RIAA ideal

On top of this the cutting heads ability to match linearity particularity in the critical midrange where we have constant velocity which means amplitude varies inversely with frequency was less than linear

So in the end what we are hearing with the individual cuttings from stereo mastering LPs is not various in house "equalisation " curves

But.... various real attempts at driving the cutting head with RIAA implimentated equalisations : circa 1956 to 56

One only needs to look at the circuits for driving the cutting heads many of which exist to see they leave a lot to be desired by modern standards in getting close to RIAA
which we in 2014 would consider a good approximation

Hence, as Yamada and many others have commented each cutting head needs its own equalisation to sound right

And Fremer is right...RIAA was effectively standardised for cutting of microgroove LP stereo recordings

The problem is, the equalisation was in house and as good as they could get then, but lead to inaccuracies in the cutting that are clearly heard with modern equipment as a house sound requiring individual equalisation to sound timbrally correct

So Yamada is right
Fremer is right

Yamada is wrong
Fremer is wrong

Seriously... if you cannot hear the difference when you correct the inaccuracies... don't embarrass yourself by saying you cannot tell LOL
 

Audiocrack

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2012
2,175
687
1,158
Very interesting viewpoint awsmone. Would be interesting to get a reaction from mister Yamada and Mister Fremer. But in the end for me as a music lover only one thing really counts: can I get a better sound using the various curves that are available (in my case on the Zanden 1200 mk iii). And there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever: the answer is yes.
Your viewpoint might also explain why eg certain Emi recordings sound better with the Emi curve and other Emi recordings with RIAA. I even experienced this with some recordings from the same year! I could not make any sense out of it.
 
Last edited:

awsmone

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2014
1,616
513
435
Canberra Australia
Thx Audiocrack

Couldn't agree more

Can i make a correction to my post bass turnover is at 3180 usec not 75 which is the high frequency turnover

Apologies for the reversal there

A
 

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
Any new discoveries here?

There is no doubt that Michael Fremer has made tremendous positive contributions to many audiophile lives, but could he be wrong about this? And I from his writings I know he is not a cable denier. Yet for those who have heard the playback through various curves and the "right curve" know that the sonic differences are more than just mere tone controls. The differences are MUCH, MUCH, MUCH larger than differences in cables, and more akin to a serious remastering job in the way things come together.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing