2. amps-preamps
  3. 1179939807

MC TRANSFORMERS VS TUBE PRE PRE

Has anyone here had much experience comparing mc step-up transformers vs. tube pre pre amps? Several things conspired together to cause me to send my Counterpoint SA-5.1 to Alta Vista in order to have the Sowter 8055 transformers installed. I own a Counterpoint SA-2 pre pre amp which was simply magical with the SA-5.1. Unfortunatly, my SA-2 broke and then my listening room was flooded out (thus the conspiring events). When my listening room flooded, I decided to take the "opportunity" of my music downtime to send the 5.1 back to Mike and have the Sowter mc transformers installed as an "upgrade" and then not have to worry about having the SA-2 repaired. After all, the Sowters' were supposed to far superior to the SA-2 and it would remove a bunch of tubes from my system by replacing the SA-2. Well, my listening room was fixed from the flood and slowly my system came back together again. When I installed the SA-5.1 back into the system with the Sowters' now in place, I was bummed to say the least. The magic was gone. In its place was a homogenized, dumbed-down version of what my LPs used to sound like. Had I not known any better (i.e.; I didn't know what information was really on my records), I would think the Sowters' sounded really good. However, I do know better. My question to the forum is does anyone else have any experience going from a quality tube pre pre and switching to transformers? I don't mean to pick on Sowters' in particular, they are just what I have installed and Mike feels they are the best of breed. I am beginning to think that the problem lies in using any mc transformer. At this time my SA-2 is in route back to Alta Vista to be fixed. I am going to send my SA-5.1 back and have the Sowters' removed and my phono stage restored to the way it was. I want the magic back that I had. And the magic that I am speaking of is the difference between your system sounding like live musicans are playing in front of you with all of the dynamics that implies vice having a system that sounds very "nice" in the usual audiophile sense that would impress people who didn't know better. For the record, my system consists of the VPI TNT MKIII with the new 300 RPM motor, ET-2 tonearm, Denon 103R cartridge which replaced my Van den Hul MC-2 special which it simply smokes, Counterpoint SA-5.1 pre, and Quicksilver MS-190 amp on the main speakers. I have a DBX electronic crossover that feeds a pair of Denon POA 6600A monoblocks for the subs. My speakers are my own designs. They are all (main speakers and subs) 1/4 wavelength transmission lines. Bottom line is that before I ever take another blind alley on "upgrades," I want someone to come to my house and show me that what they have is better. For the here and now, I would step over all of the mc transformers out there in order to get my hands on a SA-2. And if anyone has heard another pre pre that bests the SA-2, please let me know what it is. One last tid bit. If you have a British copy of the Beatles lp Abbey Road, listen to the beginning of Sun King. Let me know if you can hear Ringo hitting the cymbals with a mallet, and if you can hear pressure waves coming off each of those strikes with differing dynamics. If the answer is no, it just sounds like cymbals being hit, you are in the "missing information" catagory which is where I am currently back to with mc transformers.
mepearson

Showing 8 responses by mepearson

mepearson OP
100 posts
 
Thanks so much for your response. I will check out the threads.
mepearson OP
100 posts
 
If I had a Counterpoint SA-9, I would not have mc transformers installed. What I find ironic about Alta Vista upgrades for the SA-5000 and the SA-9 is that Mike removes the SS components from the phono sections so that now they don't have enough gain anymore to run low output mc cartridges straight in. With both the SA-5000 and the SA-9, he is stripping them down which makes them more like the original SA-5.1. Even though some people may think the SA-5000 is a better preamp than the SA-5.1, I think it is only better in terms of ergonomics (two sets of outputs, cartridge loading on the front panel, lots of gain on the mc input). The SA-5.1 has a more sophisticated tube regulated power supply. Back to the main point, I think that active mc preamps sound better than transformers. Therefore, if I had a SA-3000, SA-5000, or an SA-9, under no circumstances would I have that phono stage altered to remove the J-FETs that give it the added it gain it needs for low output mc cartridges. Right now, I just want my SA-2 back and my 5.1 phono stage restored. Those two pieces are MAGIC together. Maybe the combo should be called the SA-10.
mepearson OP
100 posts
 
Michael,
My 5.1 has had the line stage upgraded, all rca jacks replaced, one set of tape outputs was converted to another set of main outs, the phono stage was upgraded, and the mc transformers were installed. Quite a lot of upgrades.

As for the SA-2, I am only having it repaired. It sounds GREAT as is. The reason Mike doesn't list any upgrades for the SA-2 is that they are very rare. If they were being made today, the price would probably be $3K. He has the comment "contact me for upgrade info" listed under the description of the SA-2. Knowing what I know, if I were you, I would keep my eyes out for a SA-2. I would consider having your phono stage upgraded, but I wouldn't add those transformers on a bet. If you want transformers, I will give you a good deal on mine when I have Mike remove them. I have the latest and greatest Sowter 8055 transformers and they were just purchased and installed in March.

As for the 5.1, most people don't realize how special the power supply is and how great the preamp really is. Not to mention the fact that it looks cool as well. Most tube preamps use cheap diodes for rectification and they may be followed by some SS voltage regulators. Some expensive tube preamps may use a vacuum tube rectifier, but most still use SS voltage regulators. The 5.1 uses all vacuum tubes for voltage regulation and rectification. The SA-2 also uses a vacuum tube rectifier and all tubes for voltage regulation. In fact, if you look at an SA-2 on the inside, it is very close to how the 5.1 looks. I had a CAT SL-1 Signature MKIII preamp and I sold it because I think the SA-5.1 is better sounding in a way that makes music seem live. That is the trait that Michael Elliot seems to have mastered with his better designs. They sound real. If the big knock against tube mc head amps is that they add some noise compared to SS or transformers, give me the noise any day because when the music starts you don't hear it and I would much rather have something that sounds like live music is being played in my room vice something that specs out great but dumbs down what is in the grooves and robs the life out of your system. Like I said before, had I not heard the 5.1/SA-2 combo work their magic and I didn't know what was really in my record grooves, maybe I could have lived with the transformers. Now I can't and won't.
mepearson OP
100 posts
 
Awesome responses guys! I can see a preference starting to emerge from those that love the sound of music that transformers can't compete on sonics with an active head amp, they only offer reduced noise. I would love to hear the MCP33 along side the SA-2.
mepearson OP
100 posts
 
Nkj-Curious as to the differences you hear between the IO and the ARC SP-8/SA-2 combo? If you ever want to the sell the SA-2, let me know. My brother is looking for one.
Mark
mepearson OP
100 posts
 
Darkmoebius-how long does it take for mc transformers to break in? I didn't like mine the first time I heard them. I probably have 50 hours at the most on them now and they sound the same-real "nice" if you don't know any better. There is a "jump" factor with the SA-2 that the Sowters' couldn't approach if they were wired to a defibrillator. I was really hoping the transformers would sound at least as good as the SA-2 because it would simplify my life by removing tubes from my system. The SA-5.1 uses 8 tubes, the SA-2 uses 8 tubes, and my Quicksilver MS-190 uses 15 tubes in lucky serial #7 (the very early MS-190s only used a single rectifier tube vice two in the later versions) and my "newer" Quicksilver MS-190 uses 16 tubes. I normally use lucky #7 only because according to Mike, the very first MS-190s sound better because of the single rectifer tube and better output transformers. The bottom line is that I am maintaining 31 tubes in my system. And of course the 4 69J8/6922 tubes in the gain stage of the SA-2 have to be very low noise tubes which means they are the most expensive grade to buy.
mepearson OP
100 posts
 
Cjfrbw-I don't agree with your defense of transformers, but then that is why we have this forum. I find the exact opposite to be true of your last two sentences. I find the SA-2 to be very natural by comparision to the Sowter 8055 transformers and it works very well "sonically" vs. the transformers that work "in theory." The SA-2 absolutely passes more information in a way that sounds like live music is being played in your room than the Sowter 8055s could dream of. In addition to soundstage abberations induced by the tranformers, the overall loss of information they cause homogenizes the sound of all recordings that pass through them. Mediocre recordings still sound mediocre, but unfortunately, really good sounding recordings also sound mediocre (in comparision to how they really are capable of sounding). Tranformers are a cheap method of stepping up the voltage of a low output mc (and when I say cheap, I mean they SHOULD be much cheaper than well made active gain stages-specially a tube gain stage with a tube power supply, but I know there are absurdly priced transformers just as there are absurdly priced wire and cables which is another discussion), but they don't sound like their active stage brethren. You may have less noise with transformers, but you also have less information and less music. I will trade a little more noise for a lot more music any day. Nothing is perfect in this wacky hobby of ours, but I will vote for more information from the grooves that is true to the source every time.
mepearson OP
100 posts
 
Cjfrbw-my system is all tubes, all 32 of them when everything is working. The SA-2 has 8, the SA-5.1 has 8, and the Quicksilver MS-190 has 16. So, my experience using the Sowter 8055s is through all tubes. The other point is, I have tried to be careful and relate my experience using the Sowter transformers. That is why I started this thread to see if my experience is an aberration or is there some commonality with my experience and others who have compared both tubes and active head amps. I can't speak for how many different transformers sound as my experience is limited to only two transformers. The first experience was so long ago that I can't compare that experience. It was in one of my first decent systems and I had a Denon cartridge that came with its own transformer in the same package. My equipment back then was far inferior to what I have now. We are talking around the 1980 timeframe on that system (maybe a Denon DL-302 cartridge?). Judging from the responses so far, it seems that people generally agree with my experience that well designed active head amps pass more music than transformers. I can see why the allure is there to use transformers because I bit on it. They are relatively cheap, they can be installed inside your preamp, and you can omit a pair of interconnects-all desirable attributes. It cost me just under $600.00 to have Mike Elliot purchase and install the Sowter 8055s in my 5.1. I looked at it as a good excuse not to repair my SA-2 when the power transformer crapped out and move "up" to the wonderful world of transformers. Now I know better. The magic I had is gone and that is why my SA-2 is back at Alta Vista to be repaired. I can't wait to get it back.
More to discover