Preference for separate phono stages?


Yes, this is a heavily 'theoretical' topic and has (probably) been discussed here ad nauseum.

So, to get on with it: who feels that a single-chassis line/phono stage is a compromise? Do the advantages of a dedicated power supply mechanical and electromagnetic separation outweigh the disadvantage of another pair of interconnects?
paulfolbrecht
To contribute some more to this topic:

The best people to ask are designers of full function preamps on why they choose a single box solution. Talking to Allen Wright, he thought the main advantage was that one could avoid one more gain/buffer stage and the interconnect when combining pre and phono. According to Allen the problem with separate phono stage solutions is that they should be able to work with a variety of different preamps, requiring different driving and impedance-matching capabilities.

Finally from a noise perspective, I don't quite see the advantage of a separate case. One could always separate out the phono stage in a different shielded section of the preamp and keep paths to a minimum. The only thing that may be worth putting outboard seems to be the power supply IMO. I don't think that putting everything into separate cases is ideal, simplicity and shorter signal paths can have their own advantages, thus a single box solution doesn't necessarily mean a compromise.

Of course, the biggest advantage in separate phono stages IMO is the flexibility. Not only do you have more flexibility in matching pre and phono separately, but most external phono stages have more loading options too.
I find it depends on the phono cartridge. In many cases a separate phono stage w. the obvious benefits will lead to some sonic advantages. In my case, this includes a purity of signal that readibly apparent. I think some from the Doshi crowd could chime in, having owned both full function preamps and them having the separates.
Dear friends: This subject is an almost misunderstood one for many of us, well this is only a simple opinion.

Like in the cartridges that we usually see it like a stand alone performer and now we know that at least the tonearm is an intimate part of it and form a stand alone UNIT the phono stage IMHO it is not a stand alone audio link but part of a UNIT along the line stage ( I'm not talking here in commercial/marketing point of view. ).

It does not matters how good is your phono stage the cartridge signal must pass through a line stage ( before the amplifier ) too so the line stage must be at least at the same level quality performance of the phono stage doing no degradation to the cartridge signal.

The relationship between the phono stage and line stage is so intimate that both units must be " transparent " ( at the same quality level ) to the cartridge signal, it must be synergy between the phono stage and line stage and by synergy I'm reffering to same quality level and the synergy in electrical terms, not the usualy and wrong synergy that many people talk about where the errors in one audio item help to " cover "/compensate for the errors on the other unit: this is not synergy but a mistmatch.

Now, IMHO it is not easy to have a Phonolinepreamp ( integral unit ) because the designer must be a good one in line stage and in phono stage too where both designs has its own and unique challenges.

I can't see advantages on separate units and everything the same a Phonolinepreamp ( integral unit ) IMHO is the best way to go. I think that the " key " is on the phono-line stages quality design and certainly IMHO it does not depends on the phono cartridge like Dgad posted.

I know that everyone has its own opinion in the subject and it will be interesting to hear it.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
I would expect the Doshi folks to say it's the best there is. It might be - would it be better or worse with two boxes and two power supplies?

(To the person who implied the only trade-off is cost - that's not true: the extra IC needed, with more connections and more wire, is the potential sonic trade-off.)

Basically I was interested to hear from designers who've experimented with both approaches. Keeping everything constant except one vs. two boxes. Strictly academic.
Raul,

I am a big believer in phono stage/ cartridge compatibility. For a simple example, the Ortofon SPU is designed to have a SUT in line. It sounds better this way. Also, your condemnation of the PC-1 earlier... could very well be reversed using a lean, solid state type phono. But the lean solid state phono would not sound best with Dynavector XV-1s or Lyra Titan I. It is all about system synergy. YOu just want everyone to believe that there are absolute bests, when in fact some items that are less than the best, may very well be the best in the correct system and perform adimarably above what you heard in your system. Now..this does not mean that in your system they might be poor, or that in someone elses system you might not like them. It is what it is. I have realized while some like sound A others like sound B. My bias are pretty simple. No hissy tizzy highs or thinness allowed. But too thick is no good either. In that regard certain speakers will throw me out of the room. And so will certain phono stage/cartridge combinations.

Now - changing subject but relevant; isn't it amazing how VdH can tune a cartridge with a few adjustments to bring it into a different league of sound. Even more so, this tells you that even cartridges don't always sound alike due to slight difference in production etc. and thus there is no absolutes.

Hence, my strong push for system synergies. Anyone saying otherwise is just trying to push an agenda.