Recommendations for MM Phono ~ Tube or Solid State

@lewm 

Thank you for your recommendation on DSA. I will read up on its potential in my system. No offense but I will never consider buying a one off product due to my past experience. I lost over $11K in one such product :-( 

Was it stolen, or did you lose $11K between buying it and later selling it? If the latter, as I am sure you realize, audio gear is not a good way to invest. Also, if you choose carefully and like what you buy, you will keep it for many years. Those many years of listening pleasure are compensation for any long term cost of ownership. In any case, you cannot lose $11K, if you pay $4K (what I paid for mine) or less (if you believe Pindac) for an Essential 3160, and a DSA phono III can also be had used for less than $11K, I would think.

Wait! I thought of a third possibility for how you could have lost $11K.  The unit malfunctioned and because it was "boutique" or a one-off, you could not get it serviced.  Is that it?  If so, neither the 3160 nor the phono III fall into that category.  Good service is available on both.

@lewm   :  Obviously I know the owner who offered the 3160 for 3K in USA. He is avery kind Asian Deargentleman who all his life was and is accustomed  to certain kind of color in MUSIC LP reproduction ( not the natural color that comes in live MUSIC. ) and with a way of thinking a little different from non Asian audiophiles.

Yes he had tube electronics but 17 year ago he was in " shock "/surprised by the Essential 3160 that's a " non-signature " quality level performance other than the natural color of what's in the LP recording. He was waiting for a deep transistor signature that could be to agressive to his like but was not that way and he had the unit for several years and yes it has today tubes. He never mentioned to me that could exist some kind of quality performance characteristics where he dislike and when I talk with him about he just told me that the new phono is what he needs.

 

Now, just from the begining with the Essential 3150 till today our alternative to handled MC cartridges gain stage needs to be through bipolar devices because it satisfied best the MC electrical needs as MM are better served by FETs, this not means that we can't use FETs in the MC stage because we can do it but our choice about it does not changes yet over time.

 

You are rigth when posted that soliid state active electronic devices ( other than OP-Amps. ) that over the last 20 years in true there were  really no high improvements especially with bipolars used in phono stages, FETs has some " news " in this regards.

The major changes in the solid state electronics designs came with the SMD passive parts  that permits lower noise levels and circuit boards " size " but the SMD has a limitation against the true hole passive parts and is its temperature limits where can works.

 

When designers/manufacturers as the ones top Phono Stages has a NEW model in reality ( this is our experiences with FM Acoustics, J.Curl Vendetta Research, Boulder and the like. ) is not a totally new design because the units designed before where really " statements " of product and in the " new " ones the foundation of the design came and comes from that first unit and only change the approach in the new unit design with some design improvements " here and there " that the customers can hear: the overall new unit has ( not and day differences. ) better quality level performance with out losted the main design characteristics from where it came/comes. The  Blowtorch  unit is an example of those: the whole design of that Phono Stage were made by 3 different and touted designers where the " job "  of J.Curl was the phono electronics design where he took as design foundation his Vendetta Research  he did not " invented " a totally new design.

Yes, as in the began the 3180 still is a PhonoLinePreamp ( 2 independent active phono stages and 1 line preamp. All fully balanced and true dual mono. ) because if in any part of a home system we need a very special kind of sinergy/harmony/in sync/in tune is just there between the Phono Stage design and the Line stage design along its active/passive parts.

There we don't want a MIX of different " colors " between Phono Stage and Line Stage because is not good in anyway ( in a good designs ) to the MUSIC and the MUSIC reproduction.

LP reproduced MUSIC must and has to sound as the MUSIC score that was recorded in the same VENUE to achieve the same kind of instruments Transients Response.

That and no matter what can't be  acomplished  with separate Phono Stage and Line Stage coming from different " manufacturers/designers. We need to take care of that cartridge signal extreme fragility to avoid at maximum its degradation. We care of system hardware where really matters.

Yes, for us both units most be integrated but this is only us and other gentlemans have their own way of thinking and MUSIC enjoyment.

 

R.

 

Btw, @lewm   : Do you think that the DAS parts and box can have a price of 19.K as is its price tag?  I know you don't and

Certainly not, maybe 5k and the other 14K-!5K where are?. Obviously inside the designer/manufacturer knowledge levels and skills and if you open  the FM Acoustics you can say: hey where are the 120K that I paid for both units ( phono and line )?  because not you but no-sense gentlemans could say no more than 10K down there but it's the Manuel Huber knowledge/skills who puts him There and between other unit/design characteristics " things " like these:

 

""" 

• Ultra linear balanced line drivers: no more matching problems of cables and electronics.
• Entire unit uses discrete circuitry of proprietary enhanced Class A design: no signal-degrading IC’s, transformers, hybrid circuits, tubes or op-amps.
• Hand-selected, high-precision matched components of DIN, IEC & MIL standard secure accuracy and long-term stability.
• Performance without equal. The technology, circuitry and manufacturing methods are proprietary to FM ACOUSTICS.
• The ultimate solution for restoration work, mastering studios, libraries and dedicated record collectors.  """"
•  

 

R.

@lewm stated "I see that there was one on US Audiomart for $3K and sold".

Nothing incorrect in that statement.

As for the follow up Posts looks like the referencing a Phono Model has flung the door open for plenty of very Biased Sales Spiel. Nothing new to be discovered on the 'Gon', this agenda lurking in the corners.  

I think Raul here quotes the words of Huber from FM Acoustics, not touting his own products. So relax.

Thank's @lewm   .

 

R.

For MM use with a SUT, I would consider the EM/IA LR phono corrector and the Ypsilon VPS100.

Another Product was referenced, with a cleverly worded description of a design intent, which is undoubtedly Market Spiel, as the Preface to bringing inro the writing and mentioning the Product the Author has a Vested Interest In.

I’m relaxed.

How abouts, I am involved in the supplying of a New Phonostage that is coming to the Market. This New Model Supersedes an earlier Model which I also had a Vested Interest In.

I very much doubt I'll be getting a Thank You Pindac 

I am open to inquiries, please contact me for further information.

Certainly much more too the point than looking for the opportunities to slip in through the Back Door, to keep finding ways of announcing the Model being referred to,

 

What would anyone here thank you for, Pindac? In most cases, you reveal nothing about whatever it is you are praising, as above, and by revealing no names or details of the product, no one here can benefit from either knowledge of it or the purchase of it. Perhaps the audiophiles in your immediate circle in the UK do benefit and would have reason to thank you for bringing a phono stage, a tonearm, a cartridge, a speaker, or whatever it may be, to their attention. I do see that you invited inquiries. OK. I am hereby inquiring. Please tell me more about the new phono stage. If there are proprietary secrets, just tell me, and others, as much as you can without violating any confidentiality agreement.

Nothing New is such a reply, the same has been met in the past. 

I see no reason to change my answer. 

Individuals who's designs I reference know my Forum Names and Forums I use. 

Occasionally I am corrected on a content I have posted

I don't remember ever claiming to be EE orientated. 

Individuals who's designs I reference don't piggy back on posts made by myself. Who best to divulge the IP but themselves. 

More importantly by their silence I am not part of a Covert Advertisement Strategy or hoaxed into a Product Shill. 

I stand proud knowing that. 

Funny how the regular references to the Essential 3160 and very speedily follow up references to the Essential 3180 appear in Threads with quite a few hits on the Thread itself.

Strategic Product Placement comes to mind with the help of a friend or two. 

 

“Strategic Product Placement comes to mind with the help of a friend or two.”@pindac 

I couldn’t agree with you more, it certainly appears that way! 

There has been speculation in the past on this forum about the individual doing Covert Placement of products they have a Vested Interest In.

I find it very easy to discover within the 'Gon' Product Plugs from the suspected Head of the Sales Team, especially making claims on a selection of occasions the device is comparable to $60K designs.

I also find it quite easy to discover the few who come forward to underpin the shameless promotion, by encouraging the dialogue to expand into further marketing spiel being spewed.

Similar claims are also able to be discovered, where claims made for a Tonearm Design are slipped in as a Covert Placement. Where the spew on these occasions are the claim, the comparative Tonearm to the Model is a model costing $55K. 

As stated for myself " I am not part of a Covert Advertisement Strategy or hoaxed into a Product Shill ". 

"I stand proud knowing that". 

    

Yes, you got me.  I am in cahoots with Raul to tout the Essential 3160, of which there were maybe a dozen ever made and which were all sold out 5-10 years ago.  Lalitk, I am surprised at you. I brought up the 3160 in response to your own question asking whether I/we knew of any other phono stage that incorporates separate discrete circuits for MM and MC cartridges.  Furthermore, you are engaged in a quest for a new phono stage by virtue of this thread.  To accuse one who responds to your thread of "product placement" (parroting one of Pindac's tortured metaphors) by naming one candidate unit, which you correctly noted is perhaps too unobtainable to be considered, is kind of a double-cross. I also named the DSA phono III; was that also a cynical example of product placement?

Pindac, you wrote, "As stated for myself 'I am not part of a Covert Advertisement Strategy or hoaxed into a Product Shill' ".  You are certainly not either of those things. You are usually blowing smoke instead.

@lewm

Perhaps, you’re reading too much into this. I made it very clear that I’m not interested in one off bespoke products. Frankly, I did not quite understand the value in suggesting a product that pretty much unobtainable. My last comment was directed towards what ensued afterwards. A series of posts about 3160 / 3180 that has nothing to do with discussion on hand.

Please enlighten me how’s your back n forth banter with @pindac relevant or helpful to discussion on hand?

 

There are quite a few years gone by where a pile of damp leaves can be copy/pasted to clearly show where the source of the Smoke comes from. 

The 'tortured metaphor in this case being' There is no Smoke without? '

It is easy to work out the Essential 3180 predecessor. being the Essential 3160 is gone, it is 'dead in the water' and in the current market, has proven to be able to be discovered as a sale item at a substantially deprecated value when compared to the original retail value. An approximation of 80% depreciation is seemingly with accuracy. 

What is very evident is that the mention of the Essential 3160 on the 'Gon', will very speedily be followed by the referencing the Predecessor Essential 3180 by the Sales Person for the product.

Using the various accounts of the volume of sales referred for the 3160, it can be assumed the Gross Sales Figure was aprox' $250 000. I'd be happy to speculate using as a guidance, an offer I had been made in the past, to be a representative for a Audio Product, that $50000 may have been the remuneration for a individual instrumental in the accumulation of sold 3160 items. 

The same percentage or even an increased percentage of the cut of profit, for remuneration for sales achieved, may even be available for Essential 3180. 

Using an interpretation of the history and the currently available evidence for the 3160 when found in the used Market.

There is the strong suggestion a 3180 could share a similar experience as a 3160 as a Marketed Item. 

The 3160/3180 when referenced by the Sales Person, are also purported to be comparative to $60K Phon's of which a few Brands are referenced. Are the $60K Phon's Models to be found for less than $3K in the current used sale item market?? 

As stated "At £1.2K. I would be quite happy to have the experience of the Phon' and put it out for Longterm Loan, enabling the Local HiFi Group to assess it. That would be very very interesting. 

 

 

I can’t think of anything nice to say to either of you but particularly to Pinhead. So I will say nothing.

I suggest considering Whest Audio. The 60se pro is phenomenal. Also the lower tier model. Hard to bit for the price. I’m not sure how much they would cost in America. 

@ricco275 

Thanks for your recommendation. Whest Audio is now added to my audition list.

Don't be fooled by the low cost, my CORNET MM is high performance and plays nicely with SUT because input capacitance is under 10pF. 

@lalitk   " in one off bespoke products."

 

Some way or the other at some time all audio products are " bespoke ", some through audio distributors  some as direct sale.That's why exist the customer testimonials of all audio products.

 

" suggesting a product that pretty much unobtainable. "

 

Not really because is obtainable and through it the Etsuro signal could goes " directly " to the Accuphase amplifier with no single " curtains " in between but only the MUSIC cartridge signal.

Just for curiosity you can achieve information here:

 rauliruegas@hotmail.com.

 

R.

 

 

Hi @lalitk  :  I could think that you have very good reasons ( foundation. ) in favor of the MUSIC reproduction quality sound levels to look for a MM phono stage + SUT main/prefered alternative.

 

Which advantages comes with that alternative ?  what , some of us, are not seen down there or what are we missing about quality level reproduction?

 

Thank's in advance,

R.

 

 

@rauliruegas

That’s a great question.

Pursuance of a high-quality MM phono stage paired with a customized SUT can offer unique advantages in sound reproduction, especially if you’re aiming for transparency and musicality without coloration.

I am not saying, you can’t achieve transparency and musicality with a phono that offers both MC/MM option. There are lot of phonos with MM/MC options that are capable of high performance.

I am currently using a phono board in my Accuphase SS Integrated, which offers a pretty darn good sound. This phono board has set the bar pretty high, one may attribute its gorgeous sound to the shortest signal path and/or its natural synergy.

The next thing in my journey is to experience what others have experienced; elevated level of high performance that can come from integrating a customized SUT + MM phono stage.

Firstly, MM stage typically has lower gain requirements compared to an MC (Moving Coil) stage, which can lead to a quieter noise floor. By using a quality SUT, the low-level output of an MC cartridge is boosted passively, reducing the reliance on active electronics in the phono stage. This can result in a cleaner, more refined signal that’s less prone to noise and interference.

Secondly, a well-designed SUT provides natural impedance matching between the MC cartridge and the phono stage, which can preserve the cartridge’s dynamic range and transient response. This often translates into a sound that feels livelier, more dynamic, and musically engaging, capturing the nuances in rhythm and tonal shifts. With a good SUT, you can potentially achieve a seamless synergy that may be challenging to find in a typical active MC phono stage.

Lastly, I don’t want our conversation to turn into a tiresome debate so please keep in mind, this is my journey and I would like to explore and experience the two most prolific ways to get that sensitive MC signal to the phono stage.

Someday when you have a moment, read up on the trade-offs associated with using a transformer to increase signal voltage. In this thread alone, others have alluded to colorations related to the choice of wire used to wind the transformer, bandwidth limitation particularly in the bass which is just in the nature of an audio transformer, and distortion due to hysterisis and core saturation, not to mention the issues of impedance matching.  There is no free lunch. If SUTs were perfect, they would all sound the same, and there would be no need to spend big bucks for a well engineered one.

@lewm 

SUTs are far from perfect, and each introduces its own unique set of compromises. Transformers too come with intrinsic limitations, and the choices in materials, core design, and winding configurations have significant sonic impact. 

This is probably why well-engineered SUTs command high prices—they attempt to push their physical limitations as far as possible. In a sense, every SUT’s design is a balancing act between trade-offs, and some listeners value the character that each transformer’s unique “flaws” can bring to the sound. 

Dear @lalitk : " explore and experience the two most prolific ways to get that sensitive MC signal to the phono stage. "

I know the issue is not a " tiresome " debate however what you post and posted technically is not true it’s false or have severe misunderstood. Example:

 

" customized SUT can offer unique advantages in sound reproduction, especially if you’re aiming for transparency and musicality without coloration. "

Look customized or not has no single advantages and be customized is another

disadvantagedue that you can only play with that cartridge or some extremely similar cartridge.

 

Other example:

 

" what others have experienced; elevated level of high performance that can come from integrating a customized SUT + MM phono stage. "

 

Elevated level of high performance, this statement is false too or untrue along that what others listened is/are in way different room/systems and with different MUSIC/sound priorities and some in reality don’t cares deep on MUSIC and its reproduction as you want it.

 

Other example:

 

" MM stage typically has lower gain requirements compared to an MC (Moving Coil) stage, which can lead to a quieter noise floor. By using a quality SUT, the low-level output of an MC cartridge is boosted passively, reducing the reliance on active electronics in the phono stage. This can result in a cleaner, more refined signal that’s less prone to noise and interference. "

 

Technically those information is untrue too. Maybe 10 years ago and depending of the SS whole design phono stages the differences in noise floor were around 6db between MC and MM not today. In our unit and at high gain ( yje worst scenario ) difference between MC and MM noise level is lower than 1db and the noise level is way over 80db: you can’t detect or be aware of that kind of dead noise levels and in any way affects the cartridge signal in the active SS units.

 

Now I will try to explain additional information we need to know:

 

Do you know why exist the SUT even that it’s not the optimal aternative for a LOMC cartridge’? :

 

When MC cartridges started to be offered to the analog market just does not existed SS Active High Gain phono stages even all the LOMC manufacturers offered the cartridge and their SUT as its couple and that’s why exist so many vintage good SUTs designs as : Ortofon, Fidelity Research, Audio Note, Pioneer, Entré, Technics, Final, Audio Technica, Excel, Denon, Yamaha, Koetsu, Supex Micro Seiki, Luxman, Dynavector and many others and some of them not only compete with any and I say any today SUT but outperforms it.

In those old times the SS phono stages came with integrated SUT in the circuit board till started to appears the SS and a few tube active high gain phono stages but the audiophiles were accustom to SUT not because were better but because were just accustom too and I have to say that the first Active High Gain phono stages were not at today very high quality levels.

 

 

" the low-level output of an MC cartridge is boosted passively, reducing the reliance on active electronics in the phono stage. This can result in a cleaner, more refined signal that’s less prone to noise and interference. " "

 

First the SUT is really an active unit because " react " to the cartridge input signal it’s not passively as you think.

 

Reliance on active electronics? really? that’s not exactly true but a mistake for your part and NO the SUT been active the its signal IT IS NOT CLEANER AND NOT MORE REFINED than an SS active high gain designs.

In those all is common sense and I already posted more than one time that the true short cartridge signal path in active SS unit is way way superior to all the added obstacles with external ( any ) SUTs.

 

Again any additional link to the cartridge signal CAN NOT NEVER IMPROVE THE CARTRIDGE SIGNAL IN ANY WAY AND ONLY CAN DEGRADES THAT LOVELY CARTRIDGE SIGNAL.

 

This is not rocket science. Please only think in this post, is all what you need.

 

Yes, I respect what you want and I’m only trying to help you. If you accept this kind of help is up to yoo and remember that this is not about me but about to favor the cartridge signal MUSIC.

 

And please remember the true technically and pragmatic severe frequency response range LIMITATIONS where against an active SS unit you can't have more transparency, nuances pr complete signal because those severe FR LIMITATIONS in any SUT dedicated or not.

 

R.

 

 

 

I think I posted earlier that the first time I became aware of MC cartridges was in the mid 70s, when the Supex cartridge came into the US market. The problem was that few of the existing phono stages had sufficient gain. Within no more than a year of the introduction of the Supex, Mark Levinson (and John Curl) introduced the first ML product, the JC1, which was a pre-preamplifier or "head amp". It was a little solid state box that simply added gain to boost the output of the Supex and I suppose other LOMCs that may have already been available. In my memory, living in Connecticut at the time, I had not yet heard or read about any SUT, but I am sure that the Japanese were ahead of us in that department, at that time. ML was just a kid then based in Woodbridge, CT, outside New Haven where I grew up. That’s the way I remember it. The Supex was highly praised by TAS and Harry Pearson. When later I heard one, I thought it was mediocre at best, certainly not as good as my favorite MM and MI cartridges, at that time.

I have never owned a SUT, but I have heard some systems of very high quality that incorporated SUTs, really good ones designed and built by Dave Slagle of EMIA, that were very satisfying. Nothing to criticize there.

I'm thinking of selling my Modwright PH9.0 and going with Aric Audio's MM stage.

Simplify the signal path and all that.

I have a Hashimoto SUT.

“I have heard some systems of very high quality that incorporated SUTs, really good ones designed and built by Dave Slagle of EMIA, that were very satisfying”

@lewm 

Thanks for your sharing your experience. You obviously have been at this game longer than me, so your opinion matters to me. In upcoming months, I am going to decide which approach yields the best possible sound within the scope of my system. No matter what I end up keeping, it’s going to be lot of learning and I hope to have some fun along the way. 

Right now, I am anxiously waiting to take possession of a MM/MC tube phono from Japan. It appears to be well built, uses my favorite tubes (12AX7 or ECC803S) and have an option to select between Low and High gain for MC Cart.  

@theflattire 

I hope you get a chance to audition Aric Audio’s MM before committing to buying. 

@lalitk 

Little chance of that.  Just going by what I read and some youtube reviews.

I got his Custom 2A3/45 and really like it so I'm going by that also.

Lack of head to head comparisons is holding me back.

Maybe Aric can talk me into it.

 

Keep in mind that I have chosen to use high gain phono stages for LOMC cartridges, but not based on principle, based on listening to the particular phono stages I've chosen.

flattire, I am not sure what is your point in saying you will choose an MM phono stage plus SUT over your Modwright as a form of "simplification".  Were you using the Modwright with no SUT previously, owing to its high gain?  If so, I fail to understand why the conversion to an MM phono stage plus SUT can be viewed as a simplification.  You may prefer it, and all that, but why is it simpler?

It maybe true that well-made high-gain MC phono stages outshine an SUT. All I can say is that an SUT sounds better than the MC phono stages I have at hand. So unless I win the lottery (more unlikely than ever since I do not take part in the "tax on the mathematically impaired"), I'll make do. Your ears will tell you if you are in the same boat as me.

The farmer and the cowhand can be friends.

“Your ears will tell you”

@dogberry

I couldn’t agree more…at the end of the day, your ears, your system and listening skills should be the ultimate arbitrator. There is no shortage of gear to choose from and there is more than one way to skin a cat.

It’s best to ignore people with a mindset …my way or the highway.

I think that's a direct quote from "Oklahoma", music by Rodgers and Hammerstein.

@lewm 

Have you seen what's inside the Modwright compared to Aric's MM stage?

Always trying to simplify the signal path which is why I run SETs.

Never seen a Modwright phono stage, inside or outside.  I am guessing you think it is more complex than an Aric MM stage, about which I also know nothing.

Guys who favor SETs often use SUTs, in my experience.  Maybe it's about the similar acronyms. Anyway, I apologize for questioning your logic. I started 50 years ago by realizing I love ESLs, then worked backward from the speakers to what amplifier drives them best, and etc.

I think that's a direct quote from "Oklahoma", music by Rodgers and Hammerstein.

Almost - the song says "should be friends." And my reply (It's a scandal! It's a outrage!) is another song from the same musical.

Dear @lewm : All SUT's have more or less the same " problems " and all degrades de cartridge signal including the EMIA because all needs those additional IC cables, input/output connectors, solder joints and the like.

 

Your Supex cartridge in those old time was designed by today MSL Matshudira.

 

@dogberry   active high gain phono stages/phonolinepreamps have a price tag range from 3K to 90K+ ..That's is a wide price range for you or any one else. Btw, our ears are the worst tool to make precise comparisons, that " your ears will tell you " is full of subjective with no objective single parameters it's only: " I like it " and that's all.

First you have to have the best cartridge signal reproduction you can and the you will listen it and to achieve that " best " signal reproduction you need objectivity a bout and common sense if not then you have the " I like it ".

Many of us are in the analog/digital audio world because we truly love MUSIC and achieving the best reproduction not only gives us a very high MUSIC enjoyment but a lot of added fun. In the other side there are the gentlemans that mainly does not cares of quality reproduction of MUSIC but mainly only just for fun even if that you ask to them they will tell you that are " music lovers ".

R.

dogberry, "I'm just a gal [guy] who can't say no", so I will acquiesce. I was going strictly on my musical memory of that show. Actually, this morning in the twilight of wakening, I wondered whether the lyric was "cowhand", rather than "cowman".  Cowhand is more likely correct. Curly had issues. Anyway, the corn here is as high as an elephant's eye.

Raul, I never owned a Supex. I heard it at my neighbor’s house when he first bought it, probably in 1974-5. I was not impressed, and it was a few more decades before I ever bought an LOMC cartridge, after having experimented unhappily with HOMCs. By the time you initiated your thread on MM cartridges, I was operating in the belief that LOMC cartridges were tops. Thanks for stimulating me to re-think the cartridge issue.

In fact, the bipolar transistor that Raul et al use in the MC gain stage is out of production and was not replaced by anything as good or better for the purpose, probably because transistor evolution is not motivated by the design and build of phono stages.

@lewm to be clear, Raul had nothing to do with the engineering.

IMO, the one thing that SUTs bring to the table is immunity to the RFI that LOMC cartridges otherwise generate. SUTs simply don't have the bandwidth so they block the RFI. If your phono section has troubles with RFI being injected directly into its inputs (and many do, judging by all the phono sections out there with 'cartridge loading' switches on their front panels) The SUT seems really nice.

But I've found that if the phono section is immune to the RFI and otherwise has the gain needed, it will simply be more transparent. Transformers inherently introduce distortion and bandwidth limitations, usually having less bandwidth than the LP itself.

Btw, our ears are the worst tool to make precise comparisons, that " your ears will tell you " is full of subjective with no objective single parameters it's only: " I like it " and that's all.

We shall have to agree to disagree. For what shall I have gained if I have a system that is "perfect" in theory and I don't like it? I listen to music for pleasure, and any equipment I use is in the service of the music. If that makes me a music lover rather than an audiophile to you, so be it. I still appreciate your contributions here.

Atmasphere, I know that Raul is not the engineer of the Essential phonopreamps, I never felt the need to point that out. But I think he is the motive force behind their existence and the design philosophy (dual mono, balanced circuit, very clean PS, etc).  Nor has Raul ever claimed to be an EE or a designer of the gear.  I also "feel" that the 3160 is the first SS phono/linestage that ever made me forget I am listening to SS. Dare I say it's very similar in SQ to my modified MP1 (which might upset Raul but which I mean as a compliment). I love them both. As you know, this is coming from a tube OTL guy. This is purely a subjective judgement made driving my modified Atmasphere amplifiers into my modified Sound Lab PX845s. Granted also that I have never had an uber-expensive SS preamplifier in my home system.

@lewm  : Btw,I I know that SUT's sounds good ( I never posted that are really bad. I still own SUT's. ) but what I'm saying is that SUT is not the optimal solution for MUSIC cartridge sound reproduction, active high gain phono stages are way better.

 

R.

“active high gain phono stages are way better.”

@rauliruegas

While I understand your preference for active high-gain phono stages and recognize the strengths you’ve highlighted, I believe it’s important to acknowledge that audio reproduction is highly subjective. SUT’s may not align with your experience of optimal sound, but they can offer unique qualities that others might prefer.

“optimal solution for MUSIC cartridge sound reproduction”

Our choices in gear and music are deeply personal and rooted in individual preferences, which doesn’t make us less capable of determining how music should sound—it just reinforces the idea that music reproduction is subjective. ‘Optimal’ is not a universal standard but rather what aligns with our personal vision of musicality. Some prioritize detail and accuracy, while others value warmth and emotional engagement. In the end, it’s about what moves us, not adhering to a singular definition of perfection.

While I appreciate your willingness to contribute, but I often find your approach a bit rigid and leaning heavily on the same perspectives. When someone seeks guidance, it’s crucial to explore diverse perspectives rather than defaulting to familiar responses.

When you post next time, keep in mind; encouraging exploration and informed decision-making helps everyone find what works best for their individual systems and musical preferences. A more open-minded approach could foster richer discussions and help others discover the best solutions for their unique needs.

I also "feel" that the 3160 is the first SS phono/linestage that ever made me forget I am listening to SS. Dare I say it’s very similar in SQ to my modified MP1 (which might upset Raul but which I mean as a compliment). I love them both. As you know, this is coming from a tube OTL guy.

@lewm One of these days you might want to hear what happens when you parallel more tube sections at the input of the MP-1 phono section, and then give the gain stages a better CCS circuit.

While I understand your preference for active high-gain phono stages and recognize the strengths you’ve highlighted, I believe it’s important to acknowledge that audio reproduction is highly subjective. SUT’s may not align with your experience of optimal sound, but they can offer unique qualities that others might prefer.

@lalitk Raul is right on this one. I hate to put it this way, but what you’re talking about has to do with what you’ve heard and also what you’ve not heard. SUTs, like active electronics, are not all the same. But if you hear an active phono section that has the gain and is really competent, its a pretty good bet you’ll change your thinking.

What is probably poorly understood in general is how wide the LP bandwidth really is. Its wider than analog tape even at 30 i.p.s. and wider than digital. Its also wider than most SUTs. Its not wider than a competent phono section. Bandwidth can be really audible due to a phenomena called phase shift, which occurs at the top and bottom limits of any audio device. If the device is passive, as in the case of an SUT, phase shift components can occur up to 10x the lower cutoff frequency or down 1/10th the upper cutoff frequency if the device rolls off on a 6dB/octave slope.

The ear converts phase shift over a range of frequencies to a tonality. So subjectively you hear the limits of an SUT as a lack of bass (even if its flat to 20Hz) and a bit of a darkness in the highs. This is of course highly variable with each SUT! Something to keep in mind with SUTs is that they are transformers, and so transform impedance. What this means is that if you change the cartridge, the correct load to prevent the transformer from ringing (distorting) changes too. BTW if the SUT is ringing, it will sound brighter despite not having much bandwidth past 20KHz.

Its that last bit that means that a lot of SUT setups are not optimized!