Spring update! (Or Autumn, or Fall, YMMV)

[kfbkfb]

https://www.phaedrus-audio.com/PHLUX.htm

(just found w/Google - stereo phono cart FR >100kHz)

(possibly an advisory that declicking works better when a wideband phono cart is used)


Kirk Bayne

 

[chucky3042]

https://www.phaedrus-audio.com/PHLUX.htm

(just found w/Google - stereo phono cart FR >100kHz)

(possibly an advisory that declicking works better when a wideband phono cart is used)


Kirk Bayne

As Dave discussed with me in the digital world you really are limited to 22 KHz (good ol Nyquist), so if we did it we would use an external analogue HPF as an input. It amazing how fast you can rattle those diamonds.

 

[par4ken]

https://www.phaedrus-audio.com/PHLUX.htm

(just found w/Google - stereo phono cart FR >100kHz)

(possibly an advisory that declicking works better when a wideband phono cart is used)


Kirk Bayne

I believe that it does. I use both the Sony XLMC-3 and the Audio Technica AT-ART9XA for thier wide frequency response, required for
CD-4. Doing (stereo) needle drops at 192Khz/24-bit (32-bit float) and then applying declicking in software does an amazing job.

Using my tube based preamplifier with passive equalisation helps to allow the big pops through. The large clicks are often many times the level of the actual audio, they are very easy to see and to remove perfectly! The automated process does an excellent job as well. I like to manually remove/repair the big ones first and then run the automated process, to "scrub" the record clean.

I save my rips at 192/24 because hard drive space is cheap but they can be downsampled to CD quality with no noticeable quality loss.

 

[kfbkfb]

We're getting kinda off topic, however, if possible, try feeding the un-EQ'd signal directly from the record (the way I read your post, the RIAA EQ is applied before declicking), the RIAA EQ does affect the click/pop risetime somewhat.


Kirk Bayne

 

[par4ken]

We're getting kinda off topic, however, if possible, try feeding the un-EQ'd signal directly from the record (the way I read your post, the RIAA EQ is applied before declicking), the RIAA EQ does affect the click/pop risetime somewhat.


Kirk Bayne

Off topic? There is no easy way for me to try what you suggest, or else I would.

In theory at least detecting and correcting the clicks before RIAA equalisation would be a good idea. In the post you pointed to the phono cartridge, preamp and the declicking software is all part of a system that Phædrus Audio are selling. I see no pricing for any of the equipment listed either, that always scares me. If you have to ask them for pricing then you can rest be assured that you can't afford it anyway! They do show pricing for the StereoLab Software but it runs on Mac only! They are the same people with the software CD-4 demodulator, also Mac only.

In this case Phædrus Audio is using StereoLab Software for declicking and RIAA equalisation. This for archival purposes, that doesn't sound like the same solution for everyday vinyl playback with real time declicking, as proposed by Involve.

What I'm describing is very similar to what Phædrus Audio is doing, except that in my case the RIAA equalisation is done first by my preamp, then the declicking with software. The process works great for me as is!

 

[kfbkfb]

I'm interested to know the processing sequence in the new Involve pre-amp for declicking and RIAA EQ.


Kirk Bayne

 

[ar surround]

Hi Dave. Thanks for the interesting update. I've some thoughts on a possible SM V4. Any gripes herein should be read in the context of coming from a long-time SM fan (I've got three)-
1. Yes, I'm sure the addition of HDMI would be widely welcomed if the route to avoiding the licencing penalties is viable.
2. Don't stray too far from the simplicity of the existing SM. I'm sure that's a key part of its appeal. A lot of the stuff you talk about like graphical displays touch controls, meters etc. are pushing it into the realm (and price bracket) of your long talked about Super Quad Preamp. I'd suggest that is a very different market.
3. For broadly similar reasons I would strongly argue against the inclusion of CD-4 in the SM. Added cost and very limited appeal I'd wager (if you thought matrix decoding niche...!). What proportion of matrix users also want CD-4 ? - vanishingly small I'd guess. Do it as a standalone unit by all means (if your market research indicates there is a market which could even recover your development and tooling costs) - or again leave it for the Super Quad Preamp.
4. What would I definitely change? -
(a) I will beat Sonik to suggesting this one (!) - include a proper synthesis mode as he has long suggested. Frankly the Involve decode alone is not the greatest stereo to quad extractor, particularly on material of limited stereo width.
(b) Add a real master volume control. I've never understood Chucky's advice to use the input level control for this function - it's just a bodge. The individual speaker level controls are also more of a ornament than of value (have never adjusted mine). I'd actually reduce the main speaker controls down to just two - Master Volume and Front / Rear Balance (you could add L/R balance if you really wanted too).
5. Improve it by making it do what it does even better and broaden its appeal by making it simpler! If you try and make it all things to all men it will satisfy no one and cost the earth. Cheers.

Keep a sharp look out Capn!

I'm for what Soundfield said:

- HDMI is especially important. Some AVR's like the Marantz have analog inputs, but functions such as tone controls do not work on these inputs rendering them useless. (Yes, what comes out of the SM often needs a bass boost.)

- Avoid fancy stuff that raises the price but does not really enhance the value of the core SM product.

- No CD-4 addition: Very limited market especially given the continued release of Quadios.

- Synthesis mode: This upgrade would enhance the value of the SM significantly. (Especially since @Sonik Wiz refuses to market his fancy contraption. LOL)

 

[armyjazzer]

HDMI Please! Thanks!

 

[atrocity]

2) Have been giving some thought to what a Surround Master V4 might look like. So far the only thing that comes to mind is to try and have some form of digital out (i.e. HDMI) - doing that ourselves involves a prohibitively expensive yearly license fee, but we may be able to get a licensed third-party to design an add-in board that goes in the case, thus getting around the problem. That would be an iterative update. The other possibility is to pivot completely away from the physical knob style and put a screen at the front with touch controls, so that it can have things like VU meters, spectrograms, vectorscope etc. Only thought is that might take away from the simplicity of the design, which was important. Would a remote add any value to the product or is that also getting too far away from the simplicity of it? And no, we haven't forgotten about the possibility of CD-4. Any other suggestions / gripes are welcome in the replies.

Everything there sounds like fun, but as I already have a v1 and a v2, the only things that would get me to buy another at this point would be HDMI and/or CD-4.

Part of the attraction of adding CD-4 (for me, anyway) is the assumption that it would also mean the addition of a quality phono preamp.

 

[Overture]

I'm interested to know the processing sequence in the new Involve pre-amp for declicking and RIAA EQ.


Kirk Bayne

Do you have suggestions around it? Do you think there is value in being able to choose where in the chain the RIAA is, or do you have a concept of where it should be?