| Author |
 Topic 
|
zeitgeist
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 367
|
 Posted - Tue Nov 19, 2002 12:25 am
|
|
|
hi-- I just got a new pre-amp and it has a 3-way selector for phono impedence: 22k 47k and 100k ohms. What one do I use for a modern turntable? Its a P-mount arm is about all i can tell you about it.
Ty zeit.
_________________
"Can I have your autograph," he said to the fat blonde actress. |
|
|
|
Andrew Rose
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 875
|
|
Posted - Tue Nov 19, 2002 1:32 am
|
|
|
From memory 47k but I don't really know why I think that! But I think it's come up before, so worth a quick search perhaps. Otherwise I'd wait for a real expert to come along!:D
(Actually, Zeit, just use the one that sounds the best! And then post what the others sound like for reference?...)
|
|
SteveG
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6695
|
|
Posted - Tue Nov 19, 2002 11:07 am
|
|
|
Moving magnet cartridges all like to see a nominally 47k load, but some people like to think they know best, and run them into different impedances, thinking that it will somehow improve things. Almost invariably, it won't. The posher the cartridge, the more potential difference this will make - but 47k is probably what it should be left at, as this is the impedance that the vast majority of cartridges are designed to run in to.
_________________
 |
|
|
|
zeitgeist
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 367
|
|
Posted - Tue Nov 19, 2002 1:09 pm
|
|
|
47k ohm it is. Mine is one of the "vast majority" I'm sure, and not posh by any measure TYVM. :D
but......it sounds better at 100k ohms! The high-frequency sounds brighter. Could be 'cause of my crappy speakers, though. I guess I'll leave it where it sounds best. Maybe there's a different standard in the UK than the US.
_________________
"Can I have your autograph," he said to the fat blonde actress. |
|
|
|
SteveG
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6695
|
|
Posted - Tue Nov 19, 2002 3:32 pm
|
|
|
It will undoubtably sound brighter - you've just tipped up the HF response by quite a bit! Doesn't mean that its either correct, or really better. It just means that you've used up more of the first stage headroom, and are potentially nearer to clipping the input. But I think that this isn't really a problem. The rather-less-than-flat response might be, though...
_________________
|
|
|
|
zeitgeist
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 367
|
|
Posted - Tue Nov 19, 2002 7:10 pm
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| The rather-less-than-flat response might be [a probem], though... |
Who knows, Steve. Until I get hold of some good speakers, I'm pretty much in the dark, audiologically speakin'. So all I'm doing is increasing the high-end response, huh, out of curve with the rest? I should try a clip of both settings displayed on the spectral viewer. If I am getting a "flat" signal it should appear fairly even on the spectrometer, right? Can I measure the "flatness" of my signal by other means than with my ears (which are connected to a rather unstable and unreliable CPU)?
Steve, what do you mean when you say "first stage of headroom?"
I understand the idea of "flat response" and the necessity of it in sound processing, and I run all my equipment w/o any twisting of the EQ's from the soundcard on to the speakers, but I just cannot trust my speakers. They're big boxy 3-way home speakers and I know for a fact they are made to sound good to the consumer, not the engineer, so I'm stuck really having to guess or having to go around from car to car and home to home listening to my CD's to hear how they play out on other consumer systems, hoping to gain a sort of happy medium to shoot for at home. What a pain! So far, most of the records and tapes I've duped to CD sound OK, so I think I'm doing fairly well despite the handicap of the present speakers.
When I do apply EQ to stuff in cool edit or pre-cool edit, I feel like I am doing it in the dark, because I am ony tuning the sound to this particular crappy speaker set.
Am I right in thinking that quality EQ'ing requires 1) good "flat" monitors and 2) tons and tons of practice?
I guess, even where I am at now is still better than trying to use CE with some of those horribly made "170 w" (power supply) PC speakers! I can't even imagine trying to work with those. LOL Even before I was heavily into this CEP thing, I figured out it was better to hook the PC into the home system, rather than to endure the torture of those "PC sound systems" (I don't care who's name is stickered on it--they all stink). LOL ok here it comes.....which "made for PC" speakers do not suck? I'm sure I'll hear it now. hehe.
Thanks Again, ~Zeit~
_________________
"Can I have your autograph," he said to the fat blonde actress. |
|
|
|
VoodooRadio
Location: USA
Posts: 3971
|
|
Posted - Wed Nov 20, 2002 4:04 am
|
|
|
"Am I right in thinking that quality EQ'ing requires 1) good "flat" monitors and 2) tons and tons of practice?"
I have both and..... I think a person's ability to "mix" lies in their ability to "hear", and their knowledge of how to get the sound their after. Yes, "good" monitors make it an easier task. Yes, lots of practice does "hone" your skills. However, a person can learn how their mixes translate to other environments. And if you can hear it and you have the understanding of whatever means your using to record and mix, you will be capable of altering what you hear to what you want to hear.... keeping in mind, how your system sound translates to a other systems.
_________________
I said Good Day!
Voodoo
 |
|
|
|
| |
Topic
|
All Forums
phono impedence
