Well this consensus is remarcable because it is between two opposite SUT's philosophies. According to Raul the amplification of the signal is what counts by the SUT's while according to Thuchan (and Dertonarm) the matchng of inductance and impedance between the involved ''parties '' is crucial. The later mentioned philosophy was the primary reason for me not to mess with SUT's. But I was not able to resist the temptation and bought (at last) two samples for cheap ($500 and $650) : FR- FRT 4 ($500) and Denon AU-S1 ( $650). Whatever philosophy is right or wrong I am very happy with my Denon which I use with all my MC carts. However I use this SUT in combination wth my Jasmine LP 2 phono-pre. My other phono-pre the Basis Exclusive does not need a SUT.
|
Wonderful Raul! I see our exchange was helpful. Now you may have some support for your sales activities. Enjoy the good music 🍻 |
Dear @thuchan /friends: """
and use the MM input with appropriate SUTs.
You will be surprised what results you will hear and maybe you will change your opinion quickly. """
Perhaps no so quickly but I need to say that all over my posts in this thread I was looking almost only what happens in my system with out leave my " eyes " to see the overall audiophile world.
Yes, the active high gain phonolinepreamp alternative could be or is the best way to go but those kind of units are really rare in the market especially true and real good phonolinepreamps designs and the few that exist has a way huge/high tag price that almost no one can pay for it.
So the SUT alternative is the real alternative either as an external option to a MM only phono stages or integrated in LOMC phono stage designs.
This is what almost all of us can find out/buy in the analog whole market and I think is the market mark for the years to comes.
In all my posts here and elsewhere I never said SUTs sounds wrong because it did not as a fact a PS + SUT sounds good and some times sounds very good and I can live with if necessary.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
|
As you can see all belongs to audio devices kind level of design.
In the output level cartridge subject it's the same. You can listen to the Lyra Etna with 0.5mv against the Ortofon A95/Anna that has 0.2mv and I'm sure that you will happy with any one of them it does not matters its output level differences and this means that is the overall design what really counts. I don't buy or prefer LOMC cartridges because its low or very low output but because its overall quality performance level.
I own cartridges coming from 0.05mv to o.6mv and I like all of them.
I hope you can find a top ( really top ) active high gain SS PLP and forget about SUTs. Yes is " fun " to play/tests with but no more than that.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear @thuchan : This is what you can read in the Lyra cartridge site:
"""
Most users (and phono stages) will benefit from the regular Etna with much higher output and considerably more energy; resulting in a much better signal-to-noise ratio. If you are in doubt about which version of Etna that will work best in your system, please go with the regular Etna.
The Etna SL may provide extra pure and pristine sound from an audio system that is optimized for a low-impedance, low-output cartridge. However, this may be accompanied with a lesser level of energy and power. """
That is what J.Carr said for all his 3 " low output " models ( Atlas, Etna and Kleos. ) that in reality are not so low output: 0.25 mv. The reguklar versions: 0.5mv.
Look what he said:
""
may provide extra pure and pristine sound from an audio system that is optimized for a low-impedance, low-output cartridge. However, this may be accompanied with a lesser level of energy and power """
Could exist some exceptions depending of the PLP design but more gain in a PLP design makes " compromises " too and not only to deal with noise but other kind of distortions coming many times for the necessity to use additional gain stages in the PLP design as in its power suply design and some other factors.
Things are not so easy as you posted. Yes, a 0.20mv cartridge ( everything the same ) can performs ( in theory ) better as the same model with 0.50mv but JC noted that the system must be optimized for! I think that 95%+ systems did not even JC statement.
So, in my example about is better to buy a higher output cartridge or spend a lot of money for the right PLP that can handle with high quality level the low output cartridge.
In the other side, I posted to you several tiemes ( in this thread. ) that what we need to match is the rigth SUT gain with the PLP and not to the cartridge that is not sensitive to changes on impedances and capacitance because the LOMC cartridges has very low internal impedance and inductance so cartridge does not cares about the SUT in that regards.
A LOMC cartridge could be sensitive to impedance/capacitance changes when these values are extremely high/low but with the values usually happens in an audio systems the cartridge is " non-sensitive " to those changes and if not sensitive then where comes the quality level changes some of us can hear.
I already said it: comes from the internal interactions in the PLP design. I posted that for every single evaluation before/after the SPL must be evenly because our ears are really sensitive to minute SPL. Changes on impedance can drop/high SPL with the same cartridge and if the PLP is a good design what we listen as " changes " are not really a change in the cartridge quality level performance but only changes in the PLP SPLs.
Btw, I like almost any good LOMC cartridge design, vintage and today. With my PLP I don't need to use a SUT because it can handle any LOMC cartridge directly with no single trade offs I posted. I tested several SUTs and as a fact I own several ones because I just want it to try and compare against active designs.
Again, a very good active high gain PLP design always beats a PLP with a SUT in its design or using an external SUT.
Regards and enjoy tghe music,
R. |
Dear @thuchan : """
tuning the SUT by changing the capacitance I would not recommend .."""
this is what @halcro posted:
"""anywhere from 10K Ohms to 60K Ohms and the cartridge responds in the same way that a MM does. """
he did not talks about capacitance.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear @john_tracy : Yes, mi mistake. I was thinking other thing and out of focus.
Anyway, increment in noise means lower dynamic range and noise is a kind of distortion too that we don't want it in any way. We don't want chage the original characteristics.
In the other side normally PLP manufacturer gives the unit specs at certain " levels " and almost no one gives specs/characteristics at full output and the manufacturer normally try that active and passive parts on his units stay at " safe " area and problem is that not all manufacturers takes provision of this and its parts instead to stay at 50% of the active/passive part manufacturer specs works ( normally ) at 80%+ of its intrinsec capacities and this is a problem against: " distortions at minimum " and for the PLP stay on manufacturer specs.
Yes, a designed PLP ( Phonolinepreamp ) for cartridges with at least 0.3mv can handle cartridges not even with 0.2mv but 0.15mv or 0.1mv but we have to " pay " for it: higher distortions. This is the real subject not only those numbers you are talking about.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Raul, I am a little puzzled. You are stating in this thread:
> > "I’m not an expert on SUTs I’m still learning about and what I find out is that the most important subject is to match the SUT ..."
and also:
> > "in my case I experimented for more years than you with the best vintage and today SUTs and with today and vintage top PS, either SS and tube designs.“
Which statement should I follow? Anyway maybe we shouldn’t care so much about these two statements.
Regarding czarivey`s suggestion why not going for higher output MCs? In general he is right, when you are using weak phono stages (are you ? :-) this may help to get more dynamics.If you are running a phono pre with 60db gain you will not go very far with 0,2mV LoMCs – In this case you need going for higher output Mcs. But - and this is the downside: The effective mass is much higher, you have more coil on the cart carrier. Unfortunately this hinders the dynamics!LoMCs are always the spearhead of dynamics but with low output! There is no free lunch.
You are asking me why I said: " facing two coils looking at each other, the one of the cart, the other of the SUT. You need harmonizing both .... "where did you learn this because in your opinion it is " false " too. Raul, this is the basic principle of SUT matching. What should be false here? This is what you are dealing with when you are matching a SUT.You need trying to harmonize the specifications of the coil of the cart with the coil of the SUT. You described it very well when stating it`s not only about impedance matching.
If you do not accept this given fact you should not start dealing with this matter.
Anyway, I remember you asked me why I said some days ago „it is not an easy job matching LoMcs and SUTs“. Hope you understand better now.
Deciding which SUT is appropriate is a matter of personal taste and careful matching!
What were your favourite SUTs and LoMCs when you did your matching experiences?
We all want to learn from your experiences. Don't be shy too...
|
Dear @thuchan : So have you answers to all those simple questions that coming from what you posted and where you did not any explanation?
My question here is: have you specific answers or not ? and if not its ok, no problem but just tell us about one way or the other. Don't be " shy ".
regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
The design philosophy of my Basis Exclusive is the opposite of the design of Halcro's Halcro. My MM stage can be only used in unbalanced mode while except the input capacity for 100pF and 320pF there are no other adjustment possibilities. The MC adjustments possibilities on the other side are ''endless''. There are the 12 fold Dip switches for the resistance and 6 fold switches for the ''gain adjustment''. The min (basis) gain is 32 dB the max 70 dB. The added gain (to 32 dB) can be adjusted with + 4 dB, 8, 12, 18, 24 and 32 dB. The (obvious) recommendation is to chose the lowest possible gain in order to get the lowest possible noise. Ergo: for the LOMC's is the question if +.-70 dB amplification produces more noise than an well chosen SUT. |
Dear John_Tracy, what you are describing is an unbelievable but a not rare seen (and heard) phaenomenon. A planned mismatching! I believe you that it sounds fantastic in a way. I did some experiments as well. In the end when you put a matching SUT in front of the MM stage you win quite some deep and dynamic soundstage. |
3.5dbs means that the PLP needs to double the power and if the PLP was designed for at least 0.3mv output cartridges then its specs/overall characteristics could change in dramatic way. We're talking voltage gain here, not power. If a phono pre is designed to handle 0.3mV cart. it will handle a 0.2mV cart. just fine. The only "cost" is a 3.5dB loss of S/N ratio when one supplies the extra 3.5dB of gain with the following line stage using the volume control. The phono pre does not have to double its power. Now if that extra noise is enough to kill a quality listening experience for you then you are entitled to your opinion. As far as changing "characteristics" (its not clear what you are referring to here), if this were the case then your theoretical phono pre designed for 0.3mV cart. would not be able to play quiet passages without changing its overall characteristics. Presumably it should be able to handle from 0.0mV - well over 0.3mV so why should a cart. with less output change its "characteristics"? Like I mentioned, I played a 0.4mv cart. on a MM phono pre designed for 4.0mV cart., a 20dB difference. Other than the extra noise, no other changes. BTW, I have read the whole tread and some of the posters here remind me of medieval clerics sitting around arguing over how many angels will fit on the head of a pin. |
Dear Halcro,
Regarding your question of tuning the SUT by changing the capacitance I would not recommend doing it. You are creating a somehow high pass filter similar to a loudspeaker X-over. |
Dear @john_tracy : The example per se was not the subject and only a reference to know which explanation has the gentleman that posted:
"""
Using higher output cartridges you are facing several disadvantages you need to tackle at the matching process. """
Maybe you need to read again some of the posts in this tread to understand it better.
In the other side you can't diminsh in any way those " only 3.5 db down " because we are not talking here to listen " only sound " but about top quality level sound reproduction.
"""
compensate with the volume control .. """" but this is not the main subject ( again. ) because at the performance level we are talking here we don't want higher noise/distortions but to stay at minimum.
3.5dbs means that the PLP needs to double the power and if the PLP was designed for at least 0.3mv output cartridges then its specs/overall characteristics could change in dramatic way.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
|
Please let me know, if for example: I own an active high gain PS designed for MC cartridges with at least an output of 0.3mv and things are that I own a cartridge with a lower output ( say: 0.20mv. ) that I really can't use it with.
Maybe you should pick a better example. The 0.2mV cart. will only be 3.5dB down from one with 0.3mV output. This should be well with-in any system capability to compensate with the volume control. I doubt that the 3.5dB increase in noise would be noticed. E.g. I recently assembled a phono pre for a customer that was MM input only. My TT has a cart. installed with an output of 0.4mV. To test the unit I ran my low output cart. into its MM input. Other than some extra noise noticeable when the music was not playing, it was an enjoyable listening experience. BTW, the MM unit I was testing was a tube design. |
Dear @halcro : All of us have to deal with each one audio system distortions, this is the real " name of the game ". I mentioned in my last post only because @thuchan gives no facts/explanation to his statements.
Additional @thuchan posted:
""" personal conclusion is you need an excellent phono stage like the EMT JPA 66 or the Boulder 2008 avoiding SUTs .. """ after this he posted SUT alternative is a better one but even if he did not posted this he gave two PLP that he took as his references on active high gain designs and for me that I listened one of them neither is a real reference. One of these units is all tube design and with several other negative factors too.
I prefer by a wide margin the unit you own that I know very well.
He posted too:
""" I found quite some limitations with ’active’ phono stages that ’passive’ SUTs overcome. """
with out explain those limitations and he told me that my comments are theoretical, go figure!
In the other side @thuchan is talking about the use of external SUTs. Coming from him this makes no sense to me.
Makes sense to you?
I insist on an explanation from his part because I think he could have something really new in his hands that my ignorance level can’t understand and as always I’m willing to learn especially in an analog subject so critical, sensitive and important.
I’m sure that he can put some true light here in benefit of all of us music lovers and audiophiles. Tha’s all.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
PS.: Btw, I’m not against SUTs per se ( even I’m using now. ), things are that I’m in favor of MUSIC. Nothing else. |
But Master....it sounds so much better with the SUT. Grasshopper.....it only sounds better because of the colossal distortions.
You need to eliminate all better-sounding equipment and insert ’finer’ pieces elsewhere in your system. But Master....how will I know I have reached Nirvana? You will know Grasshopper, when you have inserted enough ’fine’ equipment to give the foulest of sounds. And then Master, will I have eliminated these ’distortions’ of which you speak...? Only then Grasshopper......only then...👼🏼 |
Dear @thuchan : """
sounds simple, but isn't. Using higher output cartridges you are facing several disadvantages you need to tackle at the matching process. """
your statement makes no sense to me or at least makes no sense till you have a real explanation about.
Please let me know, if for example: I own an active high gain PS designed for MC cartridges with at least an output of 0.3mv and things are that I own a cartridge with a lower output ( say: 0.20mv. ) that I really can't use it with.
Which are those several disadvantages you name it if instead of the low output cartridge I buy and use one with 0.35 mv?
"""
looks also like a simple solution but isn't too. Otherwise we would have seen designs yet.
I am getting the impression this a lot of theoretical talk rather having experimented with excellent MCs and perfect matching SUTs. """
totally false. Nothing of those is only theoretical and in my case I experimented for more years than you with the best vintage and today SUTs and with today and vintage top PS, either SS and tube designs.
In the other side we have not more SS high gain active Phonolinepreamp because it's not an easy design task and this is the main reason not you " theoretical " take.
"""
A perfect matched SUT is not only able to provide the gain one needs, it also gives a more profound, stable, dynamic and deep sound structure,
in comparison to some Phono pres which provide thin air. """
with all my respect to you another " false " statements and no-sense ones.Thin air? that could be because a not first rate active high gain PS design.
What seems to me is that you speak for your own experiences that tell me for sure that you never experimented with a first rate active high gain PLP and that's why you are " hidden " between a bad PS alond SUTs. Believe me tehre is no " magic " down there but that you like those higher distortions.
As always, at the end we can't kill distortions.
"""
facing two coils looking at each other, the one of the cart, the other of the SUT. You need harmonizing both .... """
where do you learn this because IMHO is " false " too. That's is really a simplistic point of view with no facts. Where are those facts?
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
|
"If phonostage gain not enough, investing to higher output cartridge is wiser than to SUT. That's where math easily replaces all the science behind."
- sounds simple, but isn't. Using higher output cartridges you are facing several disadvantages you need to tackle at the matching process.
"What we need for LOMC cartridge is way better active high gain Phonolinepreamp designs and that's all."
- looks also like a simple solution but isn't too. Otherwise we would have seen designs yet.
I am getting the impression this a lot of theoretical talk rather having experimented with excellent MCs and perfect matching SUTs.
A perfect matched SUT is not only able to provide the gain one needs, it also gives a more profound, stable, dynamic and deep sound structure,
in comparison to some Phono pres which provide thin air.
|
Btw and for all those audiophiles that like to modify/upgrade by it self electronics like a Phonolinepreamp could be interesting that all them can check with a printed diagram the today RIAA eq. deviation after their modifications and compare it vs before those changes along today distortion levels and its changes.
I'm sure they will find a not so nice " surprise " .
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear @czarivey : Agree with.
If for example an active gain PS was designed for cartridges over 0.3mv and has no MM stage and we want to listen a 0.20 mv cartridge then we need to change, either, the PS or the cartridge with higher output level.
As I posted, with LOMC cartridges what we always need is to match Phono Stage gain not impedances.
I think that existed and exist a misunderstood ( including me. ) not only on SUTs but in the overall subject.
Many vintage SUTs and even today ones comes with the possibility to choose different " load impedance " ( normally a selector switch: 3 ohms and 40 ohms or 20 ohms or whatever. ) and where the selected " impedance " has different gain( 34 db, 26 db or 20 db or whatever. ). Other SUTs only said: 3 ohms to 20 ohms.
ALL those created the misunderstood because in a SUT we don't have to match the cartridge impedance with the SUT impedance that as a fact does not exist as we could think.
Again, only match gain with the phono stage.
Phono stages that comes with a selctor switch for MC load impedance ( normally at th first input stage. ) or/and different gain levels goes against the quality performance level of the cartridge signal: it performs a signal degradation.
Overall interaction of all these and the PS design generates several anomalies/distortions even could affect the critical/delicate equilibrium in the passive RIAA eq. frequency response deviation on both channels and certainly we can hear it.
@thuchan posted: """
Good systems deserve using SUTs! """
i disagree with. What we need for LOMC cartridge is way better active high gain Phonolinepreamp designs and that's all. I think this is still the real challenge for all designers.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
|
If phonostage gain not enough, investing to higher output cartridge is wiser than to SUT. That's where math easily replaces all the science behind.
|
Dear @halcro : Please read very carefully here: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/can-i-use-a-step-up-transformer/post?postid=1342503#1342503because those changes in quality performance level comes from the very complex interaction that produce impedance/inductance internally in the phono stage that can’t handle with aplomb it, not comes from the cartridge that is non-sensitive to those load impedance changes. Problem is in the phono stage that comes with some kind of " faults " by design. Obviously that in an active high gain PS this kind of design is not for use with external SUTs so it’s not a design faulty, the designer made it to use it in the active high gain and not the other way around . The designer in your unit never imagine that some one will use the MM stage along a SUT, so there is a " problem " in that MM stage. The designer of your unit knows very well what I'm explained in this thread and that's why he left in the active MC high gain stage a fixed 220 ohms impedance that you can't change it because is not need it to do it. Please read it. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
The fact is that, say, Ortofon and Fidelity research, made SUT's for nearly each MC they produced. It is also a fact that the most tube pres use SUT's for the added amplification (to the MM stage). The question is if the later ''transistor pres'' compensated for their weakness in the 80is. Anyway a good MC is expensive while an combo of MM pre and SUT is not or need not to be. My assumption is that a good MM pre is not difficult to produce and should be consequntly not (very) expensive. BTW I have two systems in one of which I use Basis Exclusive without SUT's and the other , Jasmine LP 2 with improved MM stage for which I settled on Denon AU- S1 (3>40 Ohms). I am very happy with this Denon and feel no need at all to switch to the MC input . |
One advantage of using an SUT (which I've never seen mentioned) is the ability to now alter the loading just as one can do with a MM cartridge.
Because the SUT plugs into the MM input of the phonostage, I can dial in a Resistance anywhere from 10K Ohms to 60K Ohms and the cartridge responds in the same way that a MM does.
Now I don't understand the science behind this and hope that others here can explain what is actually happening......but it works a treat on taming an aggressively bright LOMC and conversely, one which may sound slightly recessed or shy?
|
Investing in SUTs depends on how good is your phono chain and of course the system at all.
Using high efficieny speakers is an add on in my opinion as well as a good reproduction of high but also low frequencies.
Let me state in a somehow provoking way: it makes no sense using SUTs which allow you to harmonise the sound but also push it in the more stable and deep sound producing way when you have a mediocre table and phono stage.
The good news is: today not so many real audio afficionados stick to a mediocre phono line and system. Good systems deserve using SUTs! The more excellent MCs you are using the more you understand the importance of SUTs.
I like my MMs too. I am sure I will never convince someone of SUTs who is running MMs most of his listening life.
There might be some exceptions 🤗
|
Of course there are pros and cons to both sides of the argument.
I was happy with the inbuilt phono-stage of the Halcro DM10 (which was compared favourably to the Boulder 2008 in Stereophile) and never contemplated an SUT until I had the opportunity to hear the Kondo KSL-SFz in my home system with a variety of cartridges.
Now there was not an overwhelming difference in the overall presentation of the two methodologies (in my case at least) that anyone could say was immediately apparent and it took a great many listens to a variety of music for me to become convinced that the Kondo offered just a smidgeon more transparency on most cartridges.
On the Sony XL-55 (0.2mV) there was the slightest hum audible (only between tracks) and thus I prefer to run that through the active Halcro MC stage.
The Kondo is one of the priciest SUTs available, totally wired with silver and with silver RCA interconnects so perhaps a lesser SUT might not outperform the active Halcro phono- stage?
As with most things in this hobby of ours.....it's hardly advisable to proclaim the superiority of a single universal direction.
You pays your money and makes your choices 😎🎼 |
Dear Raul,
Your position is quite a theoretical one: "the best SUT is no SUT".
Of course you always have to deal with compromises.
The weak point in matching is - and you are talking about it too - the phono stage.
When you have experimented with so many MCs and SUTs (and also phono pres) as I did and still do my personal conclusion is you need an excellent phono stage like the EMT JPA 66 or the Boulder 2008 avoiding SUTs. The funny thing is that the quality of the resistors you put on the personal cards in the Boulder is decisive for the sound. Such a small little thing!
You don’t need need investing a big sum on a phono stage when e.g. you go for a Manley Chinnok and use the MM input with appropriate SUTs.
You will be surprised what results you will hear and maybe you will change your opinion quickly.
Manually wiring of transformers is the best way you can do. Of course they are using small machines when doing so. 10 years ago I saw it at DaVinci Audio Labs when Peter Brem was still alive. I think in Japan some high quality producers like Hashimoto use it too. |
Dear @thuchan : Over the years I made it and still do several tests with vintage and today SUTs and with different phono stages and cartridges in my audio system and other well know friend's systems. I'm not an expert on SUTs I'm still learning about and what I find out is that the most important subject is to match the SUT , NO that's not the whole word but I have no other, to the phono stage and not mainly to the cartridge as almost all we can think.What we are looking here is for enough additional gain to play LOMC cartridges with no " noise " levels. LOMC cartridges are non-sensible to impedance and capacitance and its has very low inductance. We use a SUT because we need gain that our phono stage can't do it by it self. Changes in impedance affects that gain/SPL and when we make changes on impedance and we hear changes in the frequency response range those changes comes not from the cartridge directly but comes from the interaction between the phono stage/SUT impedance/inductance. Sometimes those changes in what we listen comes too because we are not even the SPL before and after any change we do and our ears are extremly sensitive to minute SPL changes, this issue is critic on any evaluation/comparation we do on audio. Look here what Ortofon recomend to his customers about impedance subject where you can read is almost totally OPEN the impedance range because they know what I said above. Here too can you read the Lyra recomendation with his SL models : http://www.ortofon.com/hifi/products/hifi-cartridges/mc-anna/technical-dataLyra: """
Recommended load directly into MC phono input: Determine by listening . """ Sometimes those changes in what we listen comes too because we are not even the SPL before and after any change we do and our ears are extremly sensitive to minute SPL changes, this issue is critic on any evaluation we do on audio. The real problem on those changes on tonality or balance in the quality level performance comes mainly because the phono stage design is not really a good design that can't handle the complex impedances/inductances generated when we make changes about. It's not a fault from the SUT or that the cartridge likes or does not likes the changes. As I said is a trade-off coming from the phono stage it self. Is it the SUT a perfect device?, no it's not: it generate its own distotions, it has limtations at both frequency ranges, it's suceptible to takes electro magnetic pollution, generates its own noise levels and some other trade-offs. Then why exist the SUTs as a gain external or internal to phono stages? externally because could be that our PS can't handle LOMC cartridges, we need additional gain that comes with additional distortions including the ones generated by the IC cables and input/output connectors. internal SUT comes because for almost all tube designers is the easiest design way to achieve the cartridge needs gain and in SS designs because that PS was designed thinking on MM cartridges and not LOMC ones or just was what the designer likes it. Now, if we want the best " perfect " quality performance level on any LOMC cartridge then the best SUT is NO SUT. Here we need a good designed active high gain Phonolinepreamp that has not or at least are at really minimum all the SUT limitations that per se goes against that sensitive and critical very low signal that comes from the cartridges. Yes, everything belongs to the quality level design, selected design ( active and passive ) parts and quality level on the design excecution. Btw, the right active device for LOMC cartridges is bipolar one that we don't see it often because bipolars are a " pain in the ass " for this kind of unit designs. Designers on SS and tube designs that don't use bipolars they choose for JFET or the like because is more easy the whole Phonolinepreamp but exist a detriment in the quality levels against the use of bipolars. No, this is not an additional window to " discuss " in this thread. In the past Lyra designers had a Phonolinepreamp with no internal SUT but was an active high gain Phono Stage. JC had very good reasons for that. So, SUTs exist and will exist because something of what I'm posting here. Btw, your sentence: """
. The windings are manually done with enough space """ IMHO this kind of work with a transformer must be achieved by a machine noit manually because manually there is no human been that can stay always not only with the required distance but tension too and other subjects. Anyway, here is my " take " about and of course that I can be wrong but till I learn something " new " from the real experts that's my point of view. Regards and enjoy the music, R. So, if your quality sound level change when using a SUT don't change the SUT but your Phono Stage!.
|
Dear Thuchan, I am a novice in this field and also very cautious because of mentioned Dertonarm's ''theory'' reg. matching relationship. So I started with FR-FRT-4 which has 3, 10, 30 and 100 Ohms possiblities. I wanted to ''cover'' as many of my MC carts as possible. The result was such that I wanted ''more'' so I bought this Denon AU-S1 which got many praises. So far I am very happy with the results. I am also aware that I can't compete with you or Raul. Anyway I am aware of my financial bondaries and this was the primary reason to avoid SUT's for a long time. |
Dear Raul,
I guess you know dealing with parameters in this matching process that we are facing two coils looking at each other, the one of the cart, the other of the SUT. You need harmonizing both in the best way. You know how to do it Raul as you are working in this special field. You also find good descriptions on the web (e.g. Rothwell). What makes it an experimenting job is the different quality of the coils and the windings. I found that good silver like from Silvercore or Kondo do contribute to a fine sound. Also the Jensen, the Joergen Shoe, some of the Ortofon, the Neumann BV 33, the Hashimoto are of excellent quality. Here again the careful winding and production process are of importance. At my Western Electric 618B SUT pure copper of the 30ies of the last century was used, not the reworked industrialized copper some other design come with. The windings are manually done with enough space.
Despite the frequency band is not as high as with modern designs the sound is overwhelming.
|
Dear @thuchan : For the second time in the thread you posted:
"""matching MCs with the appropriate SUT is not an easy job. """
first time you said:
""" use perfect matching cart/step up combinations thus precisely align the two facing coils you may enter into a different musical experience . """
and I posted: ""
what to do to " enter in that different musical experience? ""
I think not only me but some other gentlemans are still waiting your " light "/explanation. Could you do it?, it's a critical analog audio subject.
Again, thank's in advance.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Humand,
matching MCs with the appropriate SUT is not an easy job. If you are using SUTs and they do color the sound, are loosing the low or high end, you definitely have a mismatch. And the result will be like you described.
Working with many phono stages and SUTs I found quite some limitations with 'active' phono stages that 'passive' SUTs overcome.
|
You can certainly try a step-up but in my experience they color the sound too much and lose the low end. I've had Sony, Denon (2 kinds, they where the best IMHO), Dynavector, & Fidelity Research, they were great investments, I sold them all for more than I paid so I've not heard everything but I just find a well designed solid state phono preamp much more transparent. I use a Monolithic PS-1 with the PA-1 upgrade power supply, $1100 new with my Dynavector 17D Karat and Grace Ruby FE9+. I've heard better RIAA preamps but only over $4k. I'd love to try a tube preamp but too much money for me right now.
|
Dear Thuchan, How could I know; I own only two? |
Dear Nandric,
25 is enough :-)
or?
|
Hello.
K&K audio sales Lundahl transformers.
They have a kit that can be upgraded to their silver transformers.
I have one and a friend has one.
I don't think you will find anything that sounds better at any price.
But the cost is just over 1500.00
This is the best audio purchase around.
|
I don't think you need to spend that much to get results. .check out Bob's device but before you do that i notice that you are using a McIntosh power amplifier. .i had a 7270 for a few years likedit a lot. Mine had a switch on the back to increase the gain.not sure if your model dose but if it is the case perhaps try that and see what results you get.best of luck. |
Dear Tuhchan, the reason of my reluctance to mess with SUT's was Dertonarm's description of matching the impedance and inductance of involved carts and SUT's. I own + 40 MC carts with impendance variations from 2 Ohm till 48 Ohms. From the pictures of your carts which you posted to me I think that you own + 100 MC carts. How many SUT's do you own? I own FR- FRT- 4 with 3, 10, 30 and 100 Ohm but also Denon AU-S1 with 3> 40 Ohms. I prefer Denon which is more ''puristic'' made. No switsches and (many) soldering points between all the wire but direct connection between transformers and input/ output connectors. This Denon obviously contradicts Dertonarm's assertinon as well as your ''precisely align the two facing coils''. Assuming that my guess about the number of your MC carts is correct you should own at least 25 SUT's (grin). |
|
Dear @thuchan : I understand your first sentence. Could you be more specific in your second part of your answer? what to do to " enter in that different musical experience?
Every day is a learning day and I think I'm missing something very important down there.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Raul,
Basic means using the settings (and ranges) the phono preamp comes with. If you do not stop here but use perfect matching cart/step up combinations thus precisely align the two facing coils you may enter into a different musical experience. |
Dear @thuchan : Could you explain a little: What do you mean with: """
matching carts and phono stages.. """ and """
should not stop on a basic level. """
Thank's in advance.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
|
Regarding matching carts and phono stages if you really want to see what they can deliver you should not stop on a basic level. This matter is not plug & play or just connect two units or avoid using cables and connections. Here it starts to become a really exciting adventure. It's a pitty that some audio afficinados never will cross the bridge...but this is the way it is. |
Mattmiller,
Ive auditioned the Chinook not long ago. Using a .5mv cart, I couldn't figure out why I had to crank the volume past 12:00 o'clock for a listenable volume, and I heard zero life coming out of the speakers.
I realized I didn't check to see if the dip switches were set for the high gain 60db setting.
Whilie I'm no audio expert, I can't imagine a .2mv difference making that much difference as your preamp also provides a couple of DB's of gain as well.
Just another thing to check before throwing in the towel and opening your wallet.
I found the Chinook to be a nice sounding unit. Quieter than my tubed Fosgate, at louder than normal listening levels-past 12:00 o'clock. The Foz however, edged out the Chinook with a more "realistic" presentation.
|
There is some downside to some step up transformers.
They may be susceptible to hum, due to magnetic interference.
Also turning the volume way up (without a step up) may increase the noise level.
|
Thank you all for responding. I knew I would learn some things by asking this question and I sure have from these responses. I really like the idea of not adding an additional component and more cables. Also, Things are dead quiet right now at these volumes ( I hate to inject anything that would impart noise). I like what Al and Yogi are saying about the volume knob being no big deal. To be honest, I play mostly everything around 12:00 position and pushing to 3 is really more than adequate, I guess i’m just being a little paranoid. Thanks again for putting me at ease.
Matt M
|
Thom,
Just on the contrary. When I am using the Chinook with matching step ups this phono stage really starts to blossom.
|
What yogiboy and Al said. The ideal gain structure lets you run toward the end of your line stage's range - all things being equal (which they never are).
Now, from a noise floor perspective, it's possible that a step-up may help, but you'll be dealing with colorations (even with the best of step-ups) that are very possibly a trade-off you won't like. You will be getting into yet another area where component matching will be critical.
One overlooked attribute of a step-up transformer is that it works against you from a cable capacitance perspective. You will have 100 (for a 1:10) or 400 (for a 1:20) times increase in capacitance (the square of the turns ratio) which may or may not matter, but is something to consider when selecting an output cable for your step-up transformer.
So (to equivocate further), it depends ...
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier Design
|
Matt, I agree with the others that there’s nothing wrong with having to use the volume control in the upper part of its range, as long as you never find yourself wanting to turn it up higher than it can go.
Also, I looked at the specs of all of the components in your vinyl playback chain and I don’t see any way that you could overload anything at any volume setting, aside from possibly driving the amp into clipping in the unlikely event that your ears or the speakers don’t overload first.
Increasing the amount of gain that precedes the line stage from the present 60 db to say 71 db, which could be done by using a 20:1 SUT (26 db gain) into the Chinook’s 45 db MM input would probably result in your using the volume control at not much more than 12 o’clock, rather than at the 3 o’clock setting you mentioned. However it would also result in the possibility that on extremely high volume dynamic peaks on some recordings you might exceed the Jumbo Shrimp’s maximum input spec of 5 volts. (Based on the specs, overloading of the Jumbo Shrimp’s input would occur well before the Chinook would be overloaded). There’s no point to introducing that kind of marginality into your system, IMO.
Regards,
-- Al
|
