MC phono stage without transformer?

Pleeease Doug!!You're too humble,here.Take the compliment,and leave it at that!-:)

Aw, shucks SirSpeedy! I've met some pretty knowledgeable people here, you included. Correlating what they say with what I hear isn't so hard. What I'm really best at is organizing a structured post. That isn't really knowledge, it's more like bookkeeping. ;-)

Throw in 25 years attendance at the University of Living with Paul, plus 5 years of correspondence classes with the University of Doshi and I realize I *almost* know something. (Neither of them would agree of course!)

Doug,at which University have you been studying?...An embarrasing wealth of knowledge,in the best sense!

Hans,nice to hear from another fellow hobbyist..from afar.

Best

Hello forum members ,
I built in the best Jensen xformer in my ARC PH 5 as the Dynavector Te Kaitora has to little output . This combination worked out very well in my system .The cartridge sees also a balanced input .
Sphinx PJ 6 ( Dutch brand ,DD with the same motor as the Goldmund studietto ) with Air bearing ET 2.5 arm .
Greetings from the Netherlands , Hans

Obviously a limited budget must make compromises. Even the best transformer, perfectly tuned, will reduce peak amplitudes, flatten waveforms and lose low level detail; it's an inevitable consequence of passing an electrical signal by induction. OTOH, a HOMC also reduces peak amplitudes, flattens waveforms and loses low level detail, but for mechanical reasons rather than electrical ones. (The third choice, an LOMC + inexpensive active gain device will also compromise the sound, though in different ways depending on the device.)

Which is least bad? As usual, it comes down choosing the sonic compromises which work best for your ears and system. You can do this the easy but potentially expensive way (buy different stuff and compare) or the hard but less expensive way (develop a strong internal sense of what sounds right, figure out why, then move continuously toward equipment that brings you closer to that goal for reasons you understand). There's no prefab answer to your question IMO. :-(

SOTA is a different matter. It cannot be attained with any transformer we've heard (5 or 6 in all). Core saturation is one audible problem, though it can be somewhat reduced with good materials. Ultrasonic ringing and its audible zone harmonics are another, though they can be tamed with a Zoebel network. What can't be eliminated are the reduction in peak amplitudes, flattening of waveforms and loss of low level detail. Once the rest of a system reaches a certain level these effects become noticeable, especially if you have a SOTA high gain phono stage handy to compare.

Doug, my question arose primarily because of the many posters to AA Vinyl Forum who are enamored by relatively inexpensive LOMC Denon and Dynavector cartridges in combination with inexpensive Cinemag step-ups. Though I have not tried such combos, I'm curious whether they represent a free lunch relative to higher output cartridges through all-tube phono sections with moderate gain.

Closer to SOTA, the question comes down to whether very LOMC are best served by step-ups, or by one of the few top SS or hybrid phono stages that can provide circa 70db gain.

Dgarretson wrote:

All things being equal in the phono section, are .1-.3mV MC cartridges inherently superior to .4mv and higher cartridges, more cost-effective, or both?

Inherently superior? Yes, if we're comparing two cartridges of otherwise identical designs (e.g., a high output and low output version of the same model). The LOMC will have fewer coils on the armatures, which means lower moving mass, which results in faster rise and decay times, better responsiveness to small modulations and greater peak amplitudes.

Of course actually hearing all this theoretically superior performance requires that the rest of the system be fast and resolving and dynamci enough to push the speed, detail and dynamics through the speakers.

That all sounds like good theory, but is the superiority real? No question about it IME. I've compared high vs. low output versions of the same cartridges from both Benz and ZYX. The differences are always audible, and the better the cartridge the more it seems to matter.

More cost effective? Tough question, and the answers depend not just on one's finances, but also on one's ears and sonic preferences. Those who love rockin' to the solid sound of a good MM might think it a waste of money. Those who get goosebumps from the shocking realism of a great LOMC will gladly spend the money if they can. I don't think anyone could answer this question for anyone but themself.

Dear friends: I come back on the RIAA eq subject because there is a subject of critical importance where almost no one ( and I say " almost " only because I don't read any single post on Agon but the true is that I never read nothing about. ) speaks on and that it is almost important as is the accuracy on the RIAA: inverse eq.RIAA interchannel deviation.

What this means?, well in a Phonolinepreamp or Phono stage we have the RIAA for the left channel and the one for the right channel. In a perfect world both must be exactly the same ( mimic ), any deviation between them degrade makes a signal degradation in many ways and yes you can hear it.
Take a look to some Phono stage measures through Stereophile on the RIAA subject and in all of those measurements ( SS or tube ) exist deviation between left and right channels RIAA curve of 0.1db ( for say the least ) and higher.

Now, we have to have not only " matched " inverse RIAA eq. curve channels but at the same importance level we must have both channels with the same gain, 0.1db of gain difference between channels well makes a " difference " in the performance and leave us faraway from the recording.

So IMHO are ( at least ) three critical areas to make justice to the recording through a Phonolinepreamp: inverse eq. RIAA accuracy, no interchannel deviation on the inverse eq. RIAA curve and matched gain in both channels.

As any one can see the Phonolinepreamp ( RIAA ) is truly a complex subject and a true challenge for any one that try to be near/truer to the recording.

Why am I posting about?, well because those subjects are IMHO of paramount importance and ( if the design take in count with care. ) make a great difference in the quality sound reproduction/performance .

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Hi Viper,
What's left over from my old system is a vacuum tube Supratek preamp with built in phonostage that will drive a MC cartridge with a output voltage as low as 0.2 mv WITH OUT the use of step up devices.

The Chenin model are quite good and would be very difficult to beat, if at all for the used selling price.

Keep an eye out for a used one, stock unit prefered, totally unmodified.
Their web site is still up @ supratek.biz/preamp.htm

The PS Audio PS II outboard preamp that I bought about 1980 is spec'd (and measured) with RIAA within 0.1 dB. So I guess that's not such a big deal. It uses a passive equalization network.

Lew, I would agree. If one wants value, look at the full function preamps. I moved away from separates and bought one myself.

Dear Plinko, To be truthful, I probably could not afford a new MP1, so some years ago I bought mine used at a rather low price, because it had been badly abused by a series of owners, but it had been originally built with many expensive extras, like an all-Vishay S102 attenuator. I then spent about a year completely rebuilding it back to the latest MP1 spec, with Atma-sphere assistance and with a few twists of my own thrown in in recent years. (Ralph is a really great guy.) I learned a great deal in the process. Nevertheless, I refer back to my first post on this thread: I think a new MP1 or Raul's preamp or the Vacuum State and a few other full function preamps at around the $10k price point are relative bargains, because you do get such high performance and versatility for the buck, at a time when there are some outlandishly priced separate line and phono stages on the market that go way over $10K.

The thing that puzzles me in all of this is in absolute terms, how much performance can be obtained with a very low-output MC cartridge that requires a step-up transformer and/or a high-gain transformerless phono stage, as compared to a medium-gain MC cartridge that's happy with a wide variety of medium-gain tube phono stages. All things being equal in the phono section, are .1-.3mV MC cartridges inherently superior to .4mv and higher cartridges, more cost-effective, or both?

As an aside, the best medium-gain MC cartridge that I've had in my system is a .5mV Helikon. I'm curious whether a high-gain transformer-less phono stage(with say 70db gain) can achieve similar or greater performance with a relatively inexpensive cartridge with output in the .2-.3mV range.

Plinko, I am in a state of confusion...still trying to wiggle my way out of the maze. Keep the thread going, I thoroughly enjoy the debates :)

Uh-oh!! Cable war alert. All hands to battle stations. All hands to battle stations. Cable war alert. This is not a drill. Repeat, this is not a drill!!!!

....and as Atmasphere pointed out, the more resolving your system is, the easier it is to hear the colorations of the transformer....

The more resolving your system is, the easier it is to hear the colorations of anything! A large percentage of highly-praised cables here are quickly shown to be poor performers in such a system long before any critiquing of SUTs comes into the scene.

Getting back to Viper's inquiry: "so if transformer is no good, I should really be looking for an MC phono without the tranformer? Do these exist though?"

Upon, examining direction that the thread has taken and the attention to various ultimate designs that is paid, it seems Viper should consider the high priced ultimate options for the ultimate in sound...Essential, Atmasphere, Doshi, etc....Perhaps this will work for Viper.

Perhaps not. Viper, what say you?

For lesser systems, I'm seeing a near consensus even among the proponents of transformerless stages that a transformer can be a viable option. What is not clear is where this boundary lies.

Raul you took my commment out of context and removed the most important bit. If you concentrate on the complete comment and context, I believe you will find that I am mostly in agreement and I respect both your view and Lew's comment. Thanks.

Dear Plinko: +++++ " then choosing say, a $10K phonostage is choosing the path of the audiophile and not the music lover. " +++++

As Lew point out both terms: audiophile and music lover can/could " live " at the same time ( like in many many of us ) one of them not exclude the other.
Of course that exist the 100% audiophiles ( many of them with very high price audio systems ) that are not a music lovers ( they only enjoy the " sound " but nor the music. ) and the 100% music lover that does not care about " audio hardware ".

José and I take the DIY route because we first are music lovers than audiophiles and we like/want to enjoy the music ( not only sound ) in the top way that we can.

I don't buy any audio item or build it just to have the the best and latest audio item, I only take that kind of decision ( and the money is not the principal issue about ) only if that item ( new or a modification of what I have ) can improve the enjoyment of the music. Take a look to my system: very " old " items that ( with the right mods and DIY like the Phonolinepreamp ) give me an enormous and wonderful enjoy of music and what music can make in my emotions/feelings.

I always try to enjoy the " software " not the " hardware ", the " hardware " is only a " bad necessity " and the best the hardware ( and your know how about ) the best your music enjoying.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Hi Raul, back at my level of sonic reproduction, I'm now switching between a DV XX-2/K&K step up and a Ortofon 2M Black thanks in part to your encouragement! Not sure if in my system it makes a difference but the 2M black is cheaper. Both cartridges have their benefits.

Shindo Aurieges Pre with MM ($4K)
Wright AU-15 2A3 push pull ($4K) or Scott LK-150 ($1K)
Devore Gibbon 8 ($2.8K)
Lenco/Rega RB700 (approx $1.5K with plinth)

Many more $Ks must be leftover for records.

Cheers!

lewm, no such inference should be made from my comments. big apologies! there are no hard and fast rules to defining a music lover. although, i would suggest that if your budget on equipment and music isn't in the stratosphere (90% of audiophiles), then choosing say, a $10K phonostage is choosing the path of the audiophile and not the music lover. additionally, one's system will also have to be comprised of similar statosphere products to achieve full benefit such a costly phono stage. without going the DIY route. and as Atmasphere pointed out, the more resolving your system is, the easier it is to hear the colorations of the transformer. logic would indicate that in most real world yet audiophile based systems, transformer less designs are not a priority. i would also say that $10K for a phonostage is not prohibitive to some. it is prohibitive to most.

i don't know original poster Viper, his/her price range, and whether his/her system is appropriate for one of those stages. did anyone ask?

thanks, I will check out that diy site.

btw, i have no allegiance to transformer less phono stages. in fact, quite the opposite. i have tried three highly regarded stages priced at what I would call the affordable range (less than $3K) and they all were sterile compared to the tubes & transformer sound. The Klyne was the best of them and I could easily live with that one. The others were ASR and Pass. Really nice equipment but not my preference. Both methods can bring great sound. i can't deny the experience of others with very pricey transormerless phono stages. i don't have that experience.

PS. i'm starting to think that if a tree falls and nobody hears it, it didn't fall. and if very few heard said tree fall, the sound it made isn't all that relevant or important.

Dear Plinko: +++++ " What a surprise! " +++++

You have at least one additional option named MM cartridges type that with the right set up could make wonders for your music sound reproduction and you don't need at all any SUT.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

I attended one of Roy Gregory's demos of (among other things) equalization issues and their remedy with the Zanden. The differences are not well explain IMHO by merely the vagaries of mastering. I also researched a bit the RIAA standard and when it was adopted, and though 1954-55 is the date the pre-emphasis curve was 'adopted', there are comments that it was not universally used by all until years later, perhaps in some cases more than a decade later.

It is also not implausible that some existing mastering suites were slow to use the RIAA curve, for reasons of cost and convenience. I'm speculating here, but given how well the alternate playback curves worked in improving timbre at the demo, I think these LPs were mastered with the older curves they were used to using. This contention is bolstered a bit by the observation that this isn't found on just a few LPs of the label, but seems pervasive with a label, e.g. DGG recordings of the late 50s and early 60s often seem 'muffled', with apparent roll-offs at the top and too much lower midrange which deadens string tone among other things -- when using RIAA de-emphasis that is. (At some point this changed.) Perhaps it was also assumed that few people would honestly hear the difference, or know why it was there, or there was a concern that loyal customers of the label were already using 'their' playback curve and they didn't want to disturb their customer base.

In any case, I think that for serious collectors who have many non-US recordings of the 50s and 60s, a phono stage with more de-emphasis choices is desirable. Tony Cordesman reached the same conclusion when reviewing the re-do of the Citation I preamp. This unit might be a good choice, though it may lack ultimate clarity and transparency which to me reduces its appeal. YMMV.

Jeff

There is so much more to it than just assembling the parts. I'm sure that Nick Doshi, Ralph, Jim Hagermann, Jose, etc., all started off as DIY'ers. So what are you really paying for (exclude any marketing for the sake of discussion) when you buy equipment from these folks? The answer is their invaluable experiences. I do agree that you can get very good results with DIY projects and kits. And, you can get very good results using quality SUTs. Maybe it won't be world class performance, but as long as the music it recreates sounds good to you what else matters?

Before we analogers get too busy wringing our hands over the cost of performance, take some time and read the digital forums about what is happening to CD transports. If you don't spend thousands all you get is a cheap, PC-style transport in a pretty box that may not be supported a few years after you buy it. I think that in comparison the future is very bright for vinyl.

Dear Plinko, Build it yourself, if you feel that strongly about expensive SUT-less phono stages. It can be done for far far less than $3K. There are schematics galore on-line. For example, check out the Vacuum State website. AW shows the schematics of many of his best designs there. But meantime, it's a bit unfair and very inaccurate to infer that those of us who use expensive phono stages cannot also be "music lovers".

Another long discussion on the viability of step up transformers and what is the conclusion? Spend big bucks on a transformer less design if you want the best sound. What a surprise! Any transformerless carrots for people who don't want to spend $3K-$10K on a phonostage and would rather spend that sort of money on records (ie 90% of audiophiles and 100% of music lovers)?

Ralph, what's your opinion on Roy Gregory's writings / reviews on "alternative" LP equalizations and the supposed criticality of adjusting this EQ to fit the label?

He might be on to something, but I wonder if this compensates for EQ differences or just "bad" mastering? Can all DGs be that poorly mastered?

The little known company Wavestream Kinetics makes a very nice transformerless tube phonostage with plenty of gain for MC carts. I own one myself and it's very quiet indeed. I use a low output Koetsu RSP with it.

Atma, Lots, if not most, of my fave jazz recordings are in mono, 33 rpm, and were made prior to the advent of stereo.

Yeah. Equalization should ideally be within 0.1db for RIAA, but also for "Columbia", for "LP", and for all the other equalization curves used by different companies at different times in history. That's the problem. I've got British EMI pressings of Ella and Louis that sound weird with RIAA equalization but are probably great when correctly equalized. Only a few VERY expensive products offer alternative equalization curves.

Sirspeedy, Once the stereo LP was introduced, everybody began using the same EQ curve, which was defined by the RIAA. That curve was nearly the standard in the mono LP era with very little exception. It was during the 78 period that every label had their own EQ curve. Older tube preamps like the HK Citation 1, Marantz model 1 and the like had EQ switches for these curves.

There were a number of manufacturers of stereo LP matering electronics, for example we have the Westerx 3D cutting system outfitted on a Skully lathe. The limiter module allows you to create high frequency reduction through a series of switches. These are often reserved for master tapes wherein the mastering engineer is allowed to exercise some judgment. In addition, every LP mastering system has a 'signature' sound relating to the mastering head and the sonic character of the electronics.

But they all are based on the same EQ. Changing the EQ to taste or the like has some advantage with LPs that are poorly recorded (in this case the majority of DG classical would be a great example). For me this is very much like the CD problem: if I want the music, and its only on CD, I deal with the CD colorations because I want the music. Dealing with poorly mastered LPs is the same thing.

In a nutshell, IOW, a properly mastered LP, regardless of country of origin or label will sound its best with the standard RIAA curve. If not, there is a problem in the recording process.

Establishing a proper reference in this area is a hefty problem; one that we had to face down before we were able to make any significant progress, one that every high end audio manufacturer faces whether they know it or not, and one that every record label faces whether they know it or not (and a lot of them don't!).

One thing that I can tell you about that process is that to get to a real reference, you **have** to remove any sources of coloration that will obscure the recording. To us that meant transformers, interconnect cables, and other compromises in the signal path, like Class A vs Class B. Having gotten to a point where these sources of coloration are minimized it becomes very easy to hear what something like even a decent SUT does to the sound. That puts us back on-topic right? :)

Err,well sorry!...I was just noting the clearly obvious differences observed,and thought some would be interested in this "feature laden phonostage".

I should have realized how well schooled some of you are.You got me!.....OK?

You got it, Eldartford. That is why I added the link to a prior discussion on this subject.

Sirspeedy...The label-specific equalization curves varied by several dB and the inflection frequencies were also different. Of course you could hear a big difference.
Raul is promoting 0.1 dB or better. Not the same thing.

I had a recent demo and comparison of three SOTA phono stages,with one of them having the ability to apply the correct RIAA curve for "specific" LP's on hand.

The first two non RIAA selectable Phono stages(Vac,and VTL)sounded fabulous,and I would have been totaly satisfied with the performance,had we left it at that....

Then the change to the Zanden phono stage was made,and a comparison between the correct RIAA curve,and standard curve was demonstrated,by the flip of a switch....

The particular LP's being used were superb original pressing Decca recordings(I have a "load" of these)....

UNBELIEVABLE!!!....There was a vast improvement in depth,and distance between instruments.This was the most apparent difference I heard!....However when we read about instrumentalists moving in position while playing,it was "really" apparent to me now!

I left the demo thinking that SO many of the subtle changes and subjects we all have our "pet peeves" about(as SO important) are insignificant,as compared to having the ability to "fotz around" with the RIAA curves shown in this magnifico phono stage.

Guaranteed to deliver a totally fun few afternoons of listening pleasure,and experimentation, for the lucky owner!!


From what I understand the Zanden has the ability to switch curves for Decca,EMI,and Colimbia Lp's (I "think" DGG too)...on the fly!!

I have a vast collection of these labels,along with the Deccas.Unfortunately I cannot afford the Zanden,but those having the opportunity to compare the before and after effects of such a feature will be very impressed!

Sorry Dan,I had to get that in,and realize your "proper" direction to another thread.

Best.

This thread seems to be veering down another path. I think it would be good for interested readers to go back and read this thread. Lots of good stuff!

What Makes a Good RIAA or Line Stage?

Dear Lewm: +++++ " is usually achieved by using gobs of negative feedback " +++++

IMHO is up to the designer know-how and I don't want to open a new " door " on this thread about, suffice is to say that you can do it not necessary with " gobs of negative feedback ".
Now there is nothing wrong with feedback, in many circuit stages, if you know how to use, how to apply, where to apply and in which quantity.

I don't think about " rules ", what I'm trying to say is that a low output impedance in any amplifier is a desired one for a miimum speaker/amplifier mistmatch and for a better quality performance but like anything we always have to deal with trade-offs.

+++++ " If I could do it, my "rule" would be that all speakers must have a flat impedance " +++++

I could agree with this part of your " rule " ( only this part that it is not what you are saying. ), this characteristic can help to a better sound reproduction quality performance.

Regrds and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Raul is incontrovertibly correct about RIAA EQ. **Anyone** who says otherwise is not only wrong, but likely trying to sell you something :)

If you want to hear the recording engineer/musician's intention, your RIAA EQ should be correct. Incremental differences of a fraction of a db are readily audible, as the EQ covers a spectrum rather than a single frequency.

Again, just as in the case of detail, the better your system the more profoundly you will experience this. BTW I do not equate the cost of a system with how good it is!

"...I don't think one should approach the problem by setting any arbitrary "rules" regarding..."

This is what this whole thread has become about. In this relative world we live in there are simply no absolutes. At the risk of this becoming an absolute, having first accepted this, we can have inteligent discourse about the effective relationships involved. I think that Lewm's impedance "rule" is a perfect example. Many of the norms in speaker design that have become acceptable are at least as compromised as deeming transformer use in phono stages acceptable. Having said that I think that Raul's point re: the implied messages to the industry we endorse is an excellent one.

Here we go. Raul, I disagree with you on amplifier output impedance, because an output Z of 0.1 ohm is usually achieved by using gobs of negative feedback, which introduces distortions across the entire musical spectrum that are far more objectionable than the imagined result of speaker frequency response anomalies due to higher output Z. Moreover, the goal you set eliminates most tube amplifiers. I think the amplifier/speaker interface is VERY crucial to accurate audio reproduction, but I don't think one should approach the problem by setting any arbitrary "rules" regarding impedance. If I could do it, my "rule" would be that all speakers must have a flat impedance curve at about 16 ohms across the audio spectrum, but it ain't gonna happen. In summary, your rule for amplifier output impedance raises a bunch of additional questions for debate.

Dear Piedpiper: That's right.

Anyway we can't do nothing about because we don't have any " control " on the recording process we can do things where we have some " control " on it and that is from the very first moment that we take a LP to play with it not before.

IMHO everything the same the more accurate system have a better quality performance.

I make " focus " on the RIAA accuracy and in the amplifier output impedance that IMHO has to be lower than 0.1 Ohms.: this " figure " give us confidence that almost any speaker electrical impedance curve can be handle with out any trouble on frequency inaccuracies ( mistmatch between speaker an amplifier. ), this means synergy and synergy in the right sense of the word not the " synergy " that many " professional " reviewers speak about like: " to use this amplifier you need a " warm " speaker ..., or " you need a soft high frequency amplifier for this speaker ", these kind of examples speak nothing about real synergy but trying to hide a " trouble/distortions " with another kind of " distortions/colorations ": incredible but this is the way those reviewers give us advise about synergy with out to find where are/is the main trouble for that system behaivor!!!

I don't like to accumulate distortions/colorations over distortions/colorations and the like.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Re: RIAA accuracy, although it is true that between room interactions and speaker inaccuracies most systems exhibit gross deviations from flat, the mastering process, not to mention tracking and mixing, typically involves tweeking the EQ as little as .2dB. The fact that most systems editorialize the engineer's work doesn't, and shouldn't, stop us (engineers) from working our art at whatever resolution we are inspired to.

Dear Raul,

"Dear Ron: As I posted I made a little of research on your audio items just to " imagine " what are you hearing but for what you told here your music/sound reproduction is far from what I can " imagine ", good."

To this posting I can only say, that I which to have your imaginary abilities. It would save me a lot of gas money while going for audio exhibitions or friends, since I could imagine the sound from my listening chair by getting the specs via email...;) sorry for my not so serious comment...

"Ron, I'm sure that you are enjoying your system's performance and maybe what I posted could help you to think and try to improve it."

Thanks for your advice ;)

" My experience suggests that, at an "affordable" price point a step-up transformer makes sense. " +++++

IMHO more than " make sense " : " you have no choice ".

I would rather say the opposit is the case...if you have to meet a affordable price region you have to go for a SS or even integrated circuit desing instead of a good step up...but thats my personal opinion. Some people even say that step up transformers came out of fashion when transistors could have been used with much reduced costs...

Dear Eldartford: +++++ " My experience suggests that, at an "affordable" price point a step-up transformer makes sense. " +++++

IMHO more than " make sense " : " you have no choice ".

I'm always against " mediocrity " and very special on music reproduction at any link/level on the audio chain. You know, José, Guillermo and I choose to design a Phonolinepreamp/tonearm not just for fun but because we think and our experiences tell us that the most critical links ( all links are important, no doubt about ) in the analog rig are the Phonolinepream and the tonearm ( other than the cartridge it self ) and what is out there don't fullfill my music reproduction targets/priorities in the best way.

I already posted that I would like that everyone could have the opportunity to buy the best Phonolinepreamp ( no SUTs ) ( SS tube or what ever ) at an affordable way but how all of us could " dream " with that when the message to the audio industry is that SUTs are ok.

Here I want to say that it is fully regrettable that many " professional " reviwers support that wrong SUT approach ( at least for me ).
I can understand that many of us are in favor of the SUTs but people like AD or MF or many other is out of question, these " proffesionals " are loosing respect ( like reviewers ) from many of us that with buying those magazines mantain it.
Today many of them ( IMHO )make more harm that good to the whole high end development audio industry and we all will be " paying " for it sooner or latter.
Many of us are only spectators where we can/could be protagonist in many ways other that buy audio items.

+++++ " but what is the reason that you put such great importance in exact RIAA equalization. There are no loudspeakers which have the kind of frequency response which you claim is essential ... " +++++

well, if I take that approach that " why bother for the RIAA deviation ( or other link accuracy ) when through the whole audio chain are greater ones " then my and your system were full of " colorations/distortions " that put us not closer to what is on the recording but far away. I try to put at minimum the distortions/colorations/noises in every single link in the audio chain and I think you do it the same or at least you try it to do it like everyone that cares about music reproduction in an imperfect audio systems environment and analog reproduction medium.

IMHO we have to take care that the cartridge signal " suffer " the less degradation ( looses that you can ever recover. ) at any single link on the audio chain and at the same time that has the less " additions " , we have to try to preserve the signal integrity in the best way we can in our own system environment.
I can tell you that those all efforts about are well worth for say the least.

Other that some designers almost no one take care about RIAA deviation eq. where accuracy is a must to have by any quality performance audio standards reproduction.

Things are that that inverse RIAA eq. accuracy is maybe the great and more challenge in a Phono stage design/execution and very hard to achieve it and that's why almost no one " speaks " about.

Regards and enjoy the music.

Raul.

I, for one, did not read Raul's comment as implying that his way was the only way. I believe, as he states above, that he was simply hoping that something in what he said would lend some perspective that might render some future improvement.

Obviously, there are innumerable ways to approach a high gain phono stage, all of which present significant challenges and trade offs. IMHO, rather than concluding a king of the hill design approach, the value of this wonderful thread is in shedding light on the many roads to Rome.

Raul...Slightly off topic, but what is the reason that you put such great importance in exact RIAA equalization. There are no loudspeakers which have the kind of frequency response which you claim is essential. How accurate are the RIAA networks that are used when records are cut?

Dear John: +++++ " No doubt Raul genuinely cares for everyone here to enjoy the music but such a comment implies that his way is ultimately the only way to improve the system. " +++++

Certainly not, there are many " roads " to arrive Rome ( this is what the people here in Mexico say: something like a " slogan " I don't know the right word. ).

As you can read in this thread an else where different people have different aproach for the very same target ( who achieve in a better way? that's up to you after hearing those different " approaches ". ). I read ( in deep ) everything about Elliot's WV designs ( I owned the SA-2 and heard many times even in my home the 9/11 designs. I respect M. Elliot for its contribution over the years to the audio high end industry, no doubt about. ) where I can't find nothing that can/could tell me that the SUT solution is the right way to go, what I read is that he chooses that " road " that he must to believe on it against other " roads " ( something curious: in the website we can read everything including almost all design specifications but the must critical: RIAA eq. deviation, that is IMHO of paramount importance and one of the reasons why the Phono stages exist. ). Btw, one thing that will be important on that website is to tell us with which audio system ( better yet: on which different audio systems. ) he made the SUTs voicing.

Any " road " you choose has trade-offs ( till today nothing is perfect ), many times not because inherent design but for limitation performance on some parts ( either SS or tube devices ), the better you choose those trade-offs the better quality performance you can achieve.

M. Elliot speaks about the problems ( trade-offs ) to design with Jfets/tube ( input ) devices ( that's why he goes for SUTs. ) but other people ( like Ralph ) find out and fix those troubles ( from his point of view ) in its whole balanced/differential approach very different from Elliot's one.

I ( we ) decided that the best " road " to make justice to an MC low output cartridge ( and inverse RIAA eq ) is SS way and not only that but the best amplifier devices ( here ) are bi-polar transistors ( not Jfet/ Mosfet. ), we take a very " hard " road ( and the people with the in deep electronic design know-how could understand what I mean about. ) to do it: bipolar are a " pain in the ass " surrounded with a lot of operation issues ( that's why almost no one choose them on this particular item designs. ) but if you fix those " issues " IMHO is truly very good road for a whole Phonolinepreamp design.

I respect any single design out there and the fact that I don't agree with their designs whole approach does not means are not totally valid for other people.

There are many " miles " to go on in the Phonolinepreamp whole future designs, the good news is that there are some people/designers who cares about quality performance on music reproduction and this could means that we have to wait for real improvements about.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Ron, I'm sure that you are enjoying your system's performance and maybe what I posted could help you to think and try to improve it.

No doubt Raul genuinely cares for everyone here to enjoy the music but such a comment implies that his way is ultimately the only way to improve the system.

I have read many A'gon threads where a few regular members have politely bashed SUT's with the claims of distortions, clipped dynamics, marginal capability to correctly load a cartridge, etc., etc. Having little experience with SUTs, I put this in the back of my mind until I would get the opportunity to hear an SUT. Actually, the BAT VK-P10 that I owned a few years ago had an internal SUT and it did indeed clip the dynamics a little bit but otherwise it sounded mighty good. I did not need the extra gain so I kept this switched out.

Recently I took delivery of the Aria WV preamp. This is designed by Michael Elliot the designer of the famed Counterpoint SA-9 and SA-11. In the SA-9, he used JFET's on the MC input and then drove this into a tube stage. Later on he provided SUTs, first Jensen and more recently Sowter 8055's to replace the JFET input. Gain here was 20db.

Michael Elliot has written that he will not go back to a JFET input as they have their own set of problems. And in his opinion, tubes are just not appropriate for the MC input stage due to the noise issue. Like all the designers discussed here, he has taken his own road here and has clearly achieved much success.

The WV uses the Sowter 8055. This was chosen after comparing several others in a blind shootout. He discusses this here.

This is an internal implementation with some optimizations in the WV for this device. One advantage too is the elimination of an IC which I have found to be very significant and an often overlooked link in the chain. Any claims that one can not optimize cartridge loading are dismissed here as the WV provides a pair of RCA jacks for cartridge loading to any desired value. No internal toggle switches or jumpers or soldering is required.

I have been listening with the WV for 3 months now. As a preliminary report here, I have concluded that the negative generalizations about SUTs by many people do not apply with the WV's implementation. Compared to an Aesthetix Io Signature, the WV with the Sowters does not constrain dynamics at all. In fact the WV exceeds the Io in this regard. But this is not an Io strength anyway. If I use a highly modified ARC MCP-33 (a top-performer in the dynamic contrast scene) into the WV's MM input, the WV's SUT MC input easily holds its own against the ARC in dynamics.

As well received as the ARC was 20 years ago, it had a captive power cord, was used with an interconnect that nobody would tolerate today, and had a circuit board of mediocre passive parts. With much of this updated, this MCP-33 is in a whole new world. And still, the WV with its lowly SUT is mighty impressive with the dynamics. As for distortions, low-level resolution and noise level, the performance here is at a level the MCP-33 does not come close to achieving. And yet there is an appeal to the MCP-33's sound in how it portrays harmonic textures, particularly piano. A return to the WV's SUT input and there is a loss of some of this "bloom" and yet the significant level of clarity and openness with the WV makes one quickly forget about it.

To go throw my stash of 6DJ8/6922/7308 tubes and find the lowest noise tubes, I can get the ARC's noise level quite low. And with a hand-picked quad of 12ax7's for the Io's input stage, I got this mighty quiet too. But the noise level with the WV's SUT's is a whole new world as well. There are clearly compromises in any of these options.

Once I get the Counterpoint SA-2 updated with the same parts as used in the WV, I will have another data point on how a tubed MC compares with the WV's SUT MC input.

The WV's experience has educated me that much of the generalizations that I have read here about SUTs is just not true. I kept the Io and the rebuilt ARC and the older SA-2 just in case. But in the final analysis, the internal SUT option at $200 might end up being the greatest value, other than the $25 pair of Amperex 7062 pinched waist tubes for the WV, that I have found in a long time.

It's been a long time that I have heard a solid-state based phono stage. All that I heard, Spectral, Klyne, Threshold and Krell years ago were simply too sterile and dimensionally flat. No doubt this is not universally true for many solid-state phono stages of today, so I'll try to keep an open mind here. But for now, I'm very impressed with the implementation of the Sowters in the WV.

John

Hi,
I think this MC phono uses just tubes for gain. "Die Voll- Röhre stellt völlig rausch- und bummfreie 62dB Verstärkung zur Verfügung und das realisiert mit nur drei Röhren!"

TW-Acustic Raven Phono

I spoke with Mr TW and he has high hopes for this stage. I haven't heard yet - has anyone else?

Dear Kirk: Good luck and success with your design.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.