Good to "see" you again, Roy!
IME, the 4-2SE has evolved into a clearly better-sounding design that the 3.0 (although the 3.0 has many attractive sonic attributes). Despite the use of more expensive electrical components, more elaborate mechanical structures, and more demanding hand-craftsmanship on the 3.0, the circuit topology and structural design approaches of the 4-series are more sophisticated than on the 3.0, and that (together with its easier-to-work-on physical structures) has allowed the 4 to pull ahead in terms of performance.
When heard in isolation the 3.0 does not sound as if it is lacking in focus or precision, but when compared against the 4-2SE, the 3 does not attain the same surgical-like levels of clarity and precision. The 4-2SE also has better timbres and dynamics, in terms of both gradation and range. As a result, the 4-2SE is more resistant to congestion, and music that sounds ugly or confused on the 3.0 comes through as being understandable and enjoyable. To my ears the sonic advantages of the 4-2SE are particularly noticeable on dense, dissonant, and less-than-perfectly-recorded works; even more so when the musical concepts are not easy to grasp.
FWIW, the latest revision of the 4-2SE sounds considerably better than what Roy has heard, and it is also better-sounding than Chris Thomas' line preamp from last year. The areas of improvement are dynamic range and gradation, frequency linearity, transient impact, transparency / clarity, and noise floor. It is also easier to hear microphone patterns and soundstaging and imaging stuff, like how the sound reflecting from the rear and side walls changes when a performer moves around the stage or turns away from the microphone. The 4-2SE now sounds closer than ever to a tool for recording engineers and producers, as well as arrangers and musicians.
OTOH, part of the improvement arises from a cleaned-up, more extended bottom end, and this may result in a very slightly less warm, less friendly tonal balance. Given all of the other sonic improvements, however, I think that a slightly less warm tonal balance is a small price to pay.
Note that all of the above improvements have been accomplished without making any changes to the power supply (essentially the same as what is in Roy's units).
Regarding phono stages and adjustments, I agree on the desirability of having EQ options. However, I am yet to be convinced that the RIAA curve in phono stages is fully understood (in practice and using real-world components, not just in theory). I would love to have a go at a multi-EQ phono stage, but only after I am fully satisfied with the RIAA solutions that I am able to actually implement. Have to be confident in my crawling abilities before I attempt to run.
Per-channel gain trimming could also be useful, as most phono cartridges have different L/R output levels. However, obvious ways of trimming the gain are likely to affect the RIAA response as well; we don't want a medicine that cures one disease but creates another. From the engineering perspective, trimming the gain is better-done in the line preamp than the phono stage, but reality has demonstrated that, in a digital-audio-centric world, separate L/R controls are disliked by the majority of audiophiles.
Also, certain types of phono cartridge design are more prone to different L/R output levels than others - one of the things that I appreciate about our new Atlas is that I see less crosstalk and less difference between the L/R output levels. IOW, I think that we phono cartridge manufacturers could do more to reduce the need for per-channel gain trimming.
Regarding loading adjustments, the picture is murkier. The work that I have done with both cartridges and phono stages suggests that, one of the major reasons why MC loading adjustments are considered desirable is because not all phono stages are properly designed.
Loading a low-impedance MC cartridge does not affect the audible frequency response in the slightest, which would suggest that sonic differences due to loading should be minor. But this is at odds with the findings of many listeners. So what causes the effects that are we hearing?
To state the conclusion first, "MC loading" is in most cases a misnomer.
The capacitances present in the tonearm, phono cable and phono stage interact with the inductance in the cartridge's signal coils to generate resonant spikes at ultrasonic frequencies which can potentially upset the behavior of a phono stage. A well-designed phono stage should be impervious (or at least very resistant) to such ultrasonic energy, but it does not appear that this is always the case.
What input loading adjustments at the phono stage accomplish is to give the user a means to resistively alter the resonant energy and severity of the ultrasonic spike, and thereby mitigate the deleterious effects on the phono stage's circuitry - but this will have the unfortunate side-effect of curtailing some of the cartridges' dynamics, transients and resolution (in addition to reducing its output, and in extreme cases, affecting its tracking).
My experience is that a well-designed phono stage will show comparatively little change with input loading, and such a phono stage will tend to be quite resistant to RF breakthrough. This is why the 4-2SE works well and sounds good, despite the absence of input loading facilities.
I recommend the use of phono cables with very low capacitance values, since the resonances that result will be higher in frequency and can be controlled with fairly light resistive loading. However, low-capacitance cables may not always be enough, since the phono stage may have enough capacitance (either directly at its input, or as part of the first low-pass filter) to mandate the use of heavy resistive loading at the input.
Although I may have given the opposite impression, I believe that providing input loading facilities can be of benefit in phono stages. However, it appears that input loading is frequently used to cover up problems in the phono stage, and the inevitable side effect is to over-damp and limit the performance of the cartridge. It would be nice if "cartridge loading" could really be about loading the cartridge.
kind regards, jonathan
IME, the 4-2SE has evolved into a clearly better-sounding design that the 3.0 (although the 3.0 has many attractive sonic attributes). Despite the use of more expensive electrical components, more elaborate mechanical structures, and more demanding hand-craftsmanship on the 3.0, the circuit topology and structural design approaches of the 4-series are more sophisticated than on the 3.0, and that (together with its easier-to-work-on physical structures) has allowed the 4 to pull ahead in terms of performance.
When heard in isolation the 3.0 does not sound as if it is lacking in focus or precision, but when compared against the 4-2SE, the 3 does not attain the same surgical-like levels of clarity and precision. The 4-2SE also has better timbres and dynamics, in terms of both gradation and range. As a result, the 4-2SE is more resistant to congestion, and music that sounds ugly or confused on the 3.0 comes through as being understandable and enjoyable. To my ears the sonic advantages of the 4-2SE are particularly noticeable on dense, dissonant, and less-than-perfectly-recorded works; even more so when the musical concepts are not easy to grasp.
FWIW, the latest revision of the 4-2SE sounds considerably better than what Roy has heard, and it is also better-sounding than Chris Thomas' line preamp from last year. The areas of improvement are dynamic range and gradation, frequency linearity, transient impact, transparency / clarity, and noise floor. It is also easier to hear microphone patterns and soundstaging and imaging stuff, like how the sound reflecting from the rear and side walls changes when a performer moves around the stage or turns away from the microphone. The 4-2SE now sounds closer than ever to a tool for recording engineers and producers, as well as arrangers and musicians.
OTOH, part of the improvement arises from a cleaned-up, more extended bottom end, and this may result in a very slightly less warm, less friendly tonal balance. Given all of the other sonic improvements, however, I think that a slightly less warm tonal balance is a small price to pay.
Note that all of the above improvements have been accomplished without making any changes to the power supply (essentially the same as what is in Roy's units).
Regarding phono stages and adjustments, I agree on the desirability of having EQ options. However, I am yet to be convinced that the RIAA curve in phono stages is fully understood (in practice and using real-world components, not just in theory). I would love to have a go at a multi-EQ phono stage, but only after I am fully satisfied with the RIAA solutions that I am able to actually implement. Have to be confident in my crawling abilities before I attempt to run.
Per-channel gain trimming could also be useful, as most phono cartridges have different L/R output levels. However, obvious ways of trimming the gain are likely to affect the RIAA response as well; we don't want a medicine that cures one disease but creates another. From the engineering perspective, trimming the gain is better-done in the line preamp than the phono stage, but reality has demonstrated that, in a digital-audio-centric world, separate L/R controls are disliked by the majority of audiophiles.
Also, certain types of phono cartridge design are more prone to different L/R output levels than others - one of the things that I appreciate about our new Atlas is that I see less crosstalk and less difference between the L/R output levels. IOW, I think that we phono cartridge manufacturers could do more to reduce the need for per-channel gain trimming.
Regarding loading adjustments, the picture is murkier. The work that I have done with both cartridges and phono stages suggests that, one of the major reasons why MC loading adjustments are considered desirable is because not all phono stages are properly designed.
Loading a low-impedance MC cartridge does not affect the audible frequency response in the slightest, which would suggest that sonic differences due to loading should be minor. But this is at odds with the findings of many listeners. So what causes the effects that are we hearing?
To state the conclusion first, "MC loading" is in most cases a misnomer.
The capacitances present in the tonearm, phono cable and phono stage interact with the inductance in the cartridge's signal coils to generate resonant spikes at ultrasonic frequencies which can potentially upset the behavior of a phono stage. A well-designed phono stage should be impervious (or at least very resistant) to such ultrasonic energy, but it does not appear that this is always the case.
What input loading adjustments at the phono stage accomplish is to give the user a means to resistively alter the resonant energy and severity of the ultrasonic spike, and thereby mitigate the deleterious effects on the phono stage's circuitry - but this will have the unfortunate side-effect of curtailing some of the cartridges' dynamics, transients and resolution (in addition to reducing its output, and in extreme cases, affecting its tracking).
My experience is that a well-designed phono stage will show comparatively little change with input loading, and such a phono stage will tend to be quite resistant to RF breakthrough. This is why the 4-2SE works well and sounds good, despite the absence of input loading facilities.
I recommend the use of phono cables with very low capacitance values, since the resonances that result will be higher in frequency and can be controlled with fairly light resistive loading. However, low-capacitance cables may not always be enough, since the phono stage may have enough capacitance (either directly at its input, or as part of the first low-pass filter) to mandate the use of heavy resistive loading at the input.
Although I may have given the opposite impression, I believe that providing input loading facilities can be of benefit in phono stages. However, it appears that input loading is frequently used to cover up problems in the phono stage, and the inevitable side effect is to over-damp and limit the performance of the cartridge. It would be nice if "cartridge loading" could really be about loading the cartridge.
kind regards, jonathan
