Phono Input Capacitance question

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

I'm using a Luxman C-1010 preamp with a variety of
Stanton/Pickering phono cartridges. The capacitance load
requirement for all of these cartridges is 275 pf. Luxman didn't
specify the capacitance of their input circuit. That's what I
need to know.

I have a capacitor test meter, so I can measure the capacitance
of all cabling; the meter goes bonkers on input circuits. I need
to come up with a quick and dirty way to determine the
capacitance of the preamp (or an actual figure!). I'd appreciate
any help, especially help that's accurate.

Thanks.

Richard
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In <MlGDc.19241$Fo4.251640@typhoon.sonic.net>, on 06/27/04
at 08:45 PM, "Richard Steinfeld" <rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS@sonic.net>
said:

>I'm using a Luxman C-1010 preamp with a variety of
>Stanton/Pickering phono cartridges. The capacitance load
>requirement for all of these cartridges is 275 pf. Luxman didn't
>specify the capacitance of their input circuit. That's what I need to
>know.

>I have a capacitor test meter, so I can measure the capacitance of all
>cabling; the meter goes bonkers on input circuits. I need to come up
>with a quick and dirty way to determine the
>capacitance of the preamp (or an actual figure!). I'd appreciate any
>help, especially help that's accurate.

Generally, the electronic manufacturers expect cartridges need loading
in this range and design their inputs accordingly. (Unfortunately, they
must guess the turntable wiring capacitance.)

I assume that the C-1010's active components in the input circuit are
frustrating the capacitance meter. Try using the lowest test voltage
that you can. If you don't mind fussing with things, break the
connection between the input jack as physically close to the first
active device as you can.

There will probably be a difference between measuring while the C-1010
is turned on or off, but in general, I feel that the test voltage will
be a bit high and you'll bump into some nonlinearity either way.

There are many methods that could be used to measure capacitance. Pick
one that measures at less than 0.5 volts pp otherwise you could run
into an active component inside the preamp that turns on.

One method that you may be able to manage is to insert a known
capacitor in series with the tester. This may reduce the voltage enough
to avoid the nonlinearity in the preamp and block any DC component from
the tester.

Another technique would be to inject a known single frequency into the
preamp through a resistor and measure the voltage at the RCA jack. Then
start adding parallel capacitors until the voltage falls to 50 percent
of the original. Be careful to use a low signal voltage. Don't forget
to deal with the input capacitance of the voltage measuring device and
your tester.

---

Others have suggested measuring the frequency response of the system
using a test record and tune the result for a flat response. This
sounds like a good idea, but I think you will find enough variation in
different test records to frustrate your sense of accuracy. Also, be
very careful to duplicate the temperature during all test runs, then
operate your turntable at that temperature. Finally, cartridges,
typically, are not very flat. There are peaks, dips, and resonances.
You may have to scratch your head a bit to decide when things are
"flat".

As you measure the frequency response, keep the response of your
measuring device in mind. Most DVM's are not flat enough for audio
work.

---

I think your easiest path is to examine the preamp's input circuit. You
may find series and/or parallel capacitors in front of the first active
device. Calculate the equivalent capacitance of that network and add a
few pF for the wiring.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Barry Mann" <zzzz@zzzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:40e0154f$2$avgroveq$mr2ice@wcnews.cyberonic.com


> As you measure the frequency response, keep the response of your
> measuring device in mind. Most DVM's are not flat enough for audio
> work.

Agreed. DVM's tend to break down into two categories w/r/t frequency
response.

Many are basically designed for measuring power line voltages, and have
pretty fair response up to about 1 KHz. Their response then drops like a
stone.

Others are designed to have good frequency response. I have a Fluke 85, and
it is within 0.5 dB or better over the audio band. I have a Protek 506, and
its within about 0.5 dB up to 20 KHz.

Arguably, the best way to measure the frequency response of a vinyl playback
system is to use a good computer sound card. hooked to the output of your
phono preamp, or stand-alone component preamp. Record the playback of a test
record and then analyze it.

You can confirm the performance of your sound card using a freebie download
called "RightMark Audio Analyzer"

The frequency response range affected by capacitive loading is > 500 Hz. You
can get more consistent measurements if you filter out noise and garbage
below 500 Hz, which some DAW software like CoolEdit and Goldwave support.
They also have analytical features that will enable you to make accurate
measurements of selections in a file.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Richard Steinfeld" <rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:MlGDc.19241$Fo4.251640@typhoon.sonic.net...
> I'm using a Luxman C-1010 preamp with a variety of
> Stanton/Pickering phono cartridges. The capacitance load
> requirement for all of these cartridges is 275 pf. Luxman didn't
> specify the capacitance of their input circuit. That's what I
> need to know.
>
> I have a capacitor test meter, so I can measure the capacitance
> of all cabling; the meter goes bonkers on input circuits. I need
> to come up with a quick and dirty way to determine the
> capacitance of the preamp (or an actual figure!). I'd appreciate
> any help, especially help that's accurate.

You're going about it the wrong way. The 275pF figure may not be exact for
your cartridge anyway, so an accurate measurement may make you feel good,
but not necessarily give you flattest response..
Get a good test record and adjust the input capacitance for flattest high
frequency response.

TonyP.
 

cjt

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
66
0
18,580
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

TonyP wrote:

> "Richard Steinfeld" <rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:MlGDc.19241$Fo4.251640@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
>>I'm using a Luxman C-1010 preamp with a variety of
>>Stanton/Pickering phono cartridges. The capacitance load
>>requirement for all of these cartridges is 275 pf. Luxman didn't
>>specify the capacitance of their input circuit. That's what I
>>need to know.
>>
>>I have a capacitor test meter, so I can measure the capacitance
>>of all cabling; the meter goes bonkers on input circuits. I need
>>to come up with a quick and dirty way to determine the
>>capacitance of the preamp (or an actual figure!). I'd appreciate
>>any help, especially help that's accurate.
>
>
> You're going about it the wrong way. The 275pF figure may not be exact for
> your cartridge anyway, so an accurate measurement may make you feel good,
> but not necessarily give you flattest response..
> Get a good test record and adjust the input capacitance for flattest high
> frequency response.
>
> TonyP.
>
>
Flattest? Or closest to the RIAA curve? Where are you suggesting he
measure?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:40DFBD14.3030807@prodigy.net

> TonyP wrote:
>> You're going about it the wrong way. The 275pF figure may not be
>> exact for your cartridge anyway, so an accurate measurement may make
>> you feel good, but not necessarily give you flattest response..
>> Get a good test record and adjust the input capacitance for flattest
>> high frequency response.

Agreed.

> Flattest? Or closest to the RIAA curve? Where are you suggesting he
> measure?

Test records are generally made with RIAA pre-emphais, so your goal is
flattest possible response via the output of a RIAA equalized preamp.

The High Fidelity News test record is arguably the best contemporary test
record. However, many audiophiles bought test records in the past and never
seriously used them. So, there are quite a number of the classic test
records of the past (example CBS labs and Stereo Review) in good shape,
available on eBay and the like.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:4vadnTSQmuOkhH3dRVn-tw@comcast.com...
| "Barry Mann" <zzzz@zzzz.zzz> wrote in message
| news:40e0154f$2$avgroveq$mr2ice@wcnews.cyberonic.com
|
|
| > As you measure the frequency response, keep the response of
your
| > measuring device in mind. Most DVM's are not flat enough for
audio
| > work.
|
| Agreed. DVM's tend to break down into two categories w/r/t
frequency
| response.
|
| Many are basically designed for measuring power line voltages,
and have
| pretty fair response up to about 1 KHz. Their response then
drops like a
| stone.
|

...................

| Arguably, the best way to measure the frequency response of a
vinyl playback
| system is to use a good computer sound card. hooked to the
output of your
| phono preamp, or stand-alone component preamp. Record the
playback of a test
| record and then analyze it.
|

Thanks, Barry and Arnie, for contributing your thought processes.
I wish that I had a schematic for this Luxman C-1010 preamp. I
recall that when I opened it up to inspect it, it appeared that
doing explorative surgery on the input circuitry is too
difficult. The product also has variable "impedance" on one of
the two phono inputs (this must be Japlish for "resistance"), so
this might factor into any measurement scheme, too.

The computer and the listening room are on two different floors,
so applying the computer is out for the time being.

I've got at least five test records with RIAA tones, (but not the
late British one).

What do you think of applying these tools?
- I've got an old moving-needle Simpson 210 meter with a dB
scale. It was recently serviced, but I don't know how it does
with the audio range.
- How about using the meters on a cassette deck along with a test
record? I've got a Nakamichi BX-100 (2-head) and a high-end Sony
K707ES (3-head).

Finally, this preamp was designed during the late 70s by Tim de
Paravicini. I wonder if he used a "standard" phono load.

Hmmm.

Richard
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In <ycYDc.19371$Fo4.255407@typhoon.sonic.net>, on 06/28/04
at 05:04 PM, "Richard Steinfeld" <rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS@sonic.net>
said:

>Finally, this preamp was designed during the late 70s by Tim de
>Paravicini. I wonder if he used a "standard" phono load.

He did.

As an academic exercise one can usually find some small quibbles with
phono set-ups, but making valid measurements is very difficult.

If you have choice on the phono input loading use "50K". Check the
capacitance of your turntable (without the cartridge connected). If it
is in the 200pf range, I don't think you have anything to worry about.

I'm not impressed with any of your meters. While the Simpsons are
popular and rugged, few were designed for audio. (I don't recognize
your model) I do have a high end Simpson (sorry, I can't remember the
model) analog meter that has a very flat response, but it is not a
typical Simpson.

If you want to learn anything about your set-up, your meter should have
flatness and resolution to at least 0.5 dB over the audible range.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Barry Mann" <zzzz@zzzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:40e0fecd$1$avgroveq$mr2ice@wcnews.cyberonic.com...
| In <ycYDc.19371$Fo4.255407@typhoon.sonic.net>, on 06/28/04
| at 05:04 PM, "Richard Steinfeld"
<rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS@sonic.net>
| said:
|
| >Finally, this preamp was designed during the late 70s by Tim
de
| >Paravicini. I wonder if he used a "standard" phono load.
|
| He did.
|
| As an academic exercise one can usually find some small
quibbles with
| phono set-ups, but making valid measurements is very difficult.
|

I've learned that.

| If you have choice on the phono input loading use "50K". Check
the
| capacitance of your turntable (without the cartridge
connected). If it
| is in the 200pf range, I don't think you have anything to worry
about.
|

Total capacitance of turntable -- including headshell with
twisted leads, and Belden 9454 pigtails out to RCA sockets, is
129 picos per chanel, measured with the phono chassis ground
connected in order to simulate working conditions. This leaves
146 pF for the combined "interconnects" and the preamp input to
equal the spec cartridge load of 275 picos.

I know that di Paravicini provided the standard 50k ohm load in
the preamp (switchable to other values), but what I don't know if
he used any standard capacitance load. My fantasy "standard"
capacitance loads would be
- A Luxman standard
- Paravicini's personal standard that he put into all his phono
stages
Knowing this would make life simpler.

I can't get an answer from Luxman these days from any of the
three different sites in Hong Kong, Australia, and Japan (will
the real Luxman please stand up!). The reason for this exercise
is to get it standardized; then measure and deviate for the real
world.

| I'm not impressed with any of your meters.

A curious turn of phrase? What?
I'll quote you to my capacitance meter (my meter is known for
being "sensitive," you know -- we don't want him to get too
upset; it affects his touchy 200 picofarad range), you may expect
him to reply with indignation! You could find yourself in an
argument with the meter (I can already hear him in the basement
yelling about prejudice -- I can't quite make out the words).

While the Simpsons are
| popular and rugged, few were designed for audio. (I don't
recognize
| your model) I do have a high end Simpson (sorry, I can't
remember the
| model) analog meter that has a very flat response, but it is
not a
| typical Simpson.
|
| If you want to learn anything about your set-up, your meter
should have
| flatness and resolution to at least 0.5 dB over the audible
range.
|

Thanks. That's sobering. Sounds like I should invest in a better
meter.

Richard


| -----------------------------------------------------------
| spam: uce@ftc.gov
| wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20
dot 3 15
| 13> (Barry Mann)
| [sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
| -----------------------------------------------------------
|
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In <SnaEc.19503$Fo4.258943@typhoon.sonic.net>, on 06/29/04
at 09:12 AM, "Richard Steinfeld" <rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS@sonic.net>
said:

>| I'm not impressed with any of your meters.

>A curious turn of phrase? What?

I don't think they are appropriate for this application. You should
question the frequency response of the Simpson (I don't have specs for
it), and I don't think the resolution of a cassette meter is good
enough for this application. The cassette meters are designed to help
set tape levels, not measure flatness.

[ ... ]

> While the Simpsons are
>| popular and rugged, few were designed for audio. (I don't
>recognize
>| your model) I do have a high end Simpson (sorry, I can't
>remember the
>| model) analog meter that has a very flat response, but it is
>not a
>| typical Simpson.
>|
>| If you want to learn anything about your set-up, your meter
>should have
>| flatness and resolution to at least 0.5 dB over the audible
>range.
>|

>Thanks. That's sobering. Sounds like I should invest in a better
>meter.

Don't throw your meter out, Simpsons are an excellent choice for
industrial processes, but most aren't designed for audio work. It's a
design and purchase decision, not a fault. I have some (other brand)
audio level meters that, while being excellent for that purpose, would
be duds on an industrial shop floor. (and my particular Simpson would
also be a dud on the shop floor)

I mention the poor frequency response issue because it sneaks up on you
and this forum's users have wildly varying levels of experience. I have
seen very good audio technicians (and engineers), in a momentary lapse,
use an unfamiliar, garden variety digital meter to measure audio
levels, then scratch their head at the unexpected results. Always check
the specs on your meter.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam: uce@ftc.gov
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Barry Mann" <zzzz@zzzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:40e0154f$2$avgroveq$mr2ice@wcnews.cyberonic.com...
> Others have suggested measuring the frequency response of the system
> using a test record and tune the result for a flat response. This
> sounds like a good idea, but I think you will find enough variation in
> different test records to frustrate your sense of accuracy.

I think you will find most test records are better than anything else you
are likely to play on the turntable, so it hardly matters IMO.
Vinyl is simply not a high accuracy source to begin with. What you seem to
be saying is that the measurements should be much more accurate than the
records. Why? (other than feel good factor)

>Also, be
> very careful to duplicate the temperature during all test runs, then
> operate your turntable at that temperature.

This is also a trifle obsessive, but sure, the measurements should be made
at 20 - 23degC.

>Finally, cartridges,
> typically, are not very flat. There are peaks, dips, and resonances.
> You may have to scratch your head a bit to decide when things are
> "flat".

A good cartridge will not have serious peaks dips or resonances in the
20-20kHz band. If it does, get a new one :)
The two main resonaces should occur below 20Hz and above 20 kHz.

> As you measure the frequency response, keep the response of your
> measuring device in mind. Most DVM's are not flat enough for audio
> work.

Usually the case, but easy to check.

TonyP.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Barry Mann" <zzzz@zzzz.zzz> wrote in message
news:40e2df69$1$avgroveq$mr2ice@wcnews.cyberonic.com...
| In <SnaEc.19503$Fo4.258943@typhoon.sonic.net>, on 06/29/04
| at 09:12 AM, "Richard Steinfeld"
<rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS@sonic.net>
| said:
|
| >| I'm not impressed with any of your meters.
|
| >A curious turn of phrase? What?
|
| I don't think they are appropriate for this application. You
should
| question the frequency response of the Simpson (I don't have
specs for
| it), and I don't think the resolution of a cassette meter is
good
| enough for this application. The cassette meters are designed
to help
| set tape levels, not measure flatness.
|

Oh yes. I figured that's what you meant; the words were good
fodder for a joke.

Then, of course, it occurred to me that a wise designer would
measure the VUs -after- preemphasis! Hell, I sure would. So, no
matter how accurate, not a good representation of a flat
uncompensated spectrum.


| [ ... ]
| >Thanks. That's sobering. Sounds like I should invest in a
better
| >meter.
|
| Don't throw your meter out, Simpsons are an excellent choice
for
| industrial processes, but most aren't designed for audio work.
It's a
| design and purchase decision, not a fault. I have some (other
brand)
| audio level meters that, while being excellent for that
purpose, would
| be duds on an industrial shop floor. (and my particular Simpson
would
| also be a dud on the shop floor)
|

Not to mention just the sentimental appeal of the things.

| I mention the poor frequency response issue because it sneaks
up on you
| and this forum's users have wildly varying levels of
experience. I have
| seen very good audio technicians (and engineers), in a
momentary lapse,
| use an unfamiliar, garden variety digital meter to measure
audio
| levels, then scratch their head at the unexpected results.
Always check
| the specs on your meter.
|

Thanks for the heads-up, and will do!

Richard