SUT - electrical theory and practical experience

I have an experience of listening to a minimum of approx' 10 SUT's in my own system and have been demonstrated somewhere near this quantity again in other systems.

Along with the above, I have listened to, in my own system, a Head Amp, Amps with a built in MC Stage, as both Valve Hybrid and SS.

It is the extended usage in the home system of configurations for devices, that really helps with understanding the impact of a device and enable a reasonable evaluation on the influence during comparisons. 

My most recent experiences of encountering New Devices that have left a very good impression are only a few months past.

Outside of my system, I have listened to too many to count Phonostage configurations, using Phono Pre- Amp > SUT or Head Amp, Valve Hybrid MC and SS with the most expensive dedicated design having a £10K price.   

I have spent numerous years learning about how the designs and configurations for a Dedicated Phono Amplification can impact on the presentation on offer from a Vinyl LP Source.  

I am not prejudiced; I have heard very good performances from a SUT in use, or a Head Amp in use. A SUT does inject a Colour to the presentation, but there are SUT's that in comparison to another could be described as having a Transparency.

Put a perceived as Transparent SUT in use alongside a Head Amp as a comparison demonstration and the SUT will quite quickly have a detectable colour in the presentation.

I see the SUT > Head Amp in use, as real bonus to the user who does not prejudice against the devices, as there is a huge scope to fine tune a system to one's unique preference, the cut off point for detectable colouration is the end users choice. This is achievable, in all Phono Amp Designs, Valve Input/Output, Valve Hybrid and Solid State.

I have pursued the perception of Transparency for a long time, and as a result, have found it difficult to accept an undeniably transparent presentation as attractive. With this in mind, my investigations have shown it is hard to discover SS designs that really appeal, (there are a few that I have appraised with a positive evaluation, as a Brand Soulution is presenting in a way that is very agreeable.)

As a means to achieve the perception that a presentation is attractive, for my own preference, a little detectable colouration is welcome, even though easily able to be overlooked, is the presentation that is very attractive for me. As always each to their own, based on the influences made as a result of their own experiences.

Most recently I was demonstrated SUT's with a design that uses a material referred to as a Nano Crystaline Core. Two different ratios were in use and a Copper and Silver Wire was in use as well. I was shocked (definitely not expecting ) how the devices were able to impress, these are top of the list for a home demonstration, alongside a Solid-State Phon' I have been impressed with, when my system is once more assembled. 

At the same demonstration one of the SUT's with a Ratio to perfectly match the Cart' in use was to be used in conjunction with a Brand-New SS Phonostage with a value of £4000, that was a loaned device being demonstrated. The SS Phon's MC Stage was attractive for a New Device, with an allowance being given for further settlement through usage, there was without doubt, potential projected for the device. 

With the SUT being used in place of the SS Phon's MC Stage, the impression made was notable, it was a much improved presentation, and all attendees listening were in agreement, even the SS Phon's owner. 

The most difficult Phon' design, I have struggled to reconcile with is a common design, from an affordable range, from both Brands and a DIY approach, where using a circuit that is Valve Hybrid with a JFET for the MC Stage, usually if bought through a Brand comes with a pricing from £1500 - £3000. There seems through the consistency of the Sonic I am able to detect, to be an indicator typical parts are used for the circuit. In my evaluation there has been seemingly identical presentations, and not the most attractive of ones heard, that appeal to my preferences.

My experiences pretty much break down into the evaluation, that there are options on the configurations to produce a Phonostage.  A Phonostage does not necessarily need to be a one box affair only, using off board ancillaries are totally worthwhile trying out.

An end user can be quite creative in how they are able to produce a presentation that has a very positive impression on them. 

Add to the permutations, the trying out of different umbilical's and with Valve Designs the option to try out alternative Valves and the opportunities for creativity really 'gets it freak on'.

Why limit oneself, when numerous options are available without the need to be adorned with any great skills to put them in place.

 

Your XP 27 Phono Pre, has quite a value attached to it.

'Hats Off ', to you for trying out something new in conjunction with it. I'm glad you found value in the encounter and the experience.

With a short duration demonstration, especially as a comparison, usually the most noticeable differences are detected and not usually the subtle ones. The subtle differences, when detected can be perceived as a betterment or slightly lesser/different to the other device/devices in use during a comparison.

Discovering a variation in the perception of Transparency between a SS MC Stage and SS or Valve MM > SUT Stage is in keeping with my experiences. Additionally, a Valve MM > Head Amp is noticeably able to be perceived as Transparent in comparison to a SUT in use, for the same role.  

I have two SUT's retained for my use, one is seemingly without a Colouration when compared to other SUT's I have used. The other sits about 3/4's around the dial to being perceived as Transparent, when compared to other SUT's I have used. I like a little noticeable colouration with my Chicago Blues Music.

I can declare, I have a colour in my music, even though generally not detectable and easily overlooked. A SS Device has proved its value at showing where there is Colour to be detected in the SUT's I have chosen to retain.

Your report, making it known the Transparency suffered just a little, would suggest to me, the EMIA is a SUT that can be referred to as Transparent in comparison to other SUT's and will only reveal it has a Hue of Colouration, when compared to a SS Designs MC Stage. 

It would have been good feedback, if the other Cart's could have been used, as said previously, the permutations on offer by using an off board ancillary can be quite vast.   

Resulting from my discussion had with designer/builders of Amplifiers, there are considerations and preferences in place for the Core Materials to be used and the optimisation of the Windings for specific designs for a Transformer.

I have Power Amp's with Hand Wound Optimised Transformers for both the Power Supplies and Output.

My Valve Input/Output Phonostage is with a Hand Wound Optimised Transformer. 

One of the SUT's in use is a Hand Wound Optimised Transformer.

The SUT's I am keen to experience in my system at a later date are also with optimised Transformers.

Not all Tranx's are equal, I have this info' supplied from valuable resources.

There are those that have a design that will perform a role, and meet a broad spectrum of requirements, these are not optimised to a be used for a Specific role. There are those optimised through design, to perform at their best when used to cover a limited role.     

In Japan, I have even seen the Winding Material taken to the extremes, where it is a material used with a proven progeny, i.e such as removed from a Submarine built from a particular decade prior to the Millenium and used with a specific type of steel as a Core material. Not known, but I would assume, these are used to produce an optimised design for the Tranx to be produced. 

A friend last year, designed and built a Direct Coupled Phonostage, based on the Model I own. Each Transformer in the circuit has a Hand Wound Optimised Design, produced from a certain type of wire for each unique role within the Circuit.  

Within my local HiFi Group, there are Three Systems regularly used over the past years for HiFi Demonstrations and other Systems are used infrequently as Group Gatherings at the homes are not always achievable.

In recent years one of the regular systems has adopted an earlier generation VAC Integrated Amp', with Built in MM / MC Stage.

A newer member to the Group has the latest Generation of VAC Amplification Imported to be used in their system.

Within this Group, there has been numerous permutations put in place for Cartridge Signal Amplification. Working with Vinyl has proved much more satisfying to experience than the Digital Sources and Ancillaries that have undergone demonstrations, but that is also relative to the quantity of the turnover of Vinyl Source Devices put forward to be compared against the quantity of Digital Source Devices. (For the record I have encountered very attractive Digital devices during demonstrations of the type described above)  

There is a massive amount that can be learned by taking Phonostages and supporting ancillaries to other systems for a demonstration. It is certainly worthwhile making an arrangement, if possible, to try out the XP-27 at the friend's home. 

@mulveling again through your descriptions of how you like to support your Vinyl usage, I can easily identify that we share a similarity in our preferences for managing a Vinyl Source Signal.

I myself prefer a SUT for a LOMC. I also like more than one SUT at hand to suit certain types of replays.

Where we differ at present is that I have not been too focused on reducing the Cable Length between the SUT>Phon', I have usually worked with 70cm (28 inches). From your descriptions I do feel I can get more if I were to shorten the Cable.

Shortening a Cable has not been an unknown to me as being beneficial, it is just that I have toyed with an idea that has run parallel with the idea of cable shortening.

Due to having certain Devices Bespoke produced, I have not been able to get a Chassis RCA Socket Configuration to suit my producing my idea, yet to be realised. I am pretty much limited to the designers Topology for the Parts to be used for the Signal Path, and I am not the one to challenge their design, I am there looking for optimised, and will not suggest a compromise to this being produced from the design, to suit a preference for an RCA positioning on a Chassis.

Here is the idea I have had in mind; it is to use Low Eddy Chassis RCA on the Phonostage and have a New SUT produced with Low Eddy Chassis Connectors. The Chassis Connectors on the SUT are to be positioned on the SUT at a centering to perfectly match the Phon's Chassis RCA Centres.

The SUT will also have the Chassis RCA's mounted on the Chassis in a way that enables the RCA's on both Phon' and SUT to touch without any encroachment from the SUT Chassis and causing impediments, the RCA positioning will also allow for the SUT to be adequately supported.

This type of alignment between the RCA Sockets will enable a Male/Male Low Eddy RCA to be used, to directly couple the Phon'>SUT without a Cable.

The unknown at present is if a Low Eddy Male/Male RCA is offered as a part. Alternatively, if a Low Eddy Male/Male is not to be found, a Male/Male connector using Two Low Eddy Male RCA's can be produced using a wire of choice to connect them and create the functioning part.

This is obviously not a common approach but does create a very short signal path.

When the system is set back up, I will be changing all connectors to Low Eddy, so the idea of the connectors is to stick.

I would be interested to receive any comments on the idea of directly coupling a SUT to a Phon' on the external side, as this gives flexibility in maintaining the exchanges of a SUT's that I like to experience, as well as allowing for something to be experienced a little less usual.   

 

  

@intactaudio "I find core material, dielectric choice and winding wire to be far more dominant factors in the final sound". 

The words used above by Dave are ones I have been party to over too many years from various contributors, who all say a similar thing. Which is basically the construction materials and skill set of the constructor, when it comes to Transformer Design and Production are critical.

I sense from all that I have come to learn about intactaudio, not just through my owning a design of Transformer produced by them, that within this establishment there are skilled individuals who are doing their best to maintain this very rare practice, by producing products that have detailing that has an emphasis on where the little things really matter.

I have yet to discover a design incorporating a JFET that has the same impact on a SQ and creates an attraction through use, that a well thought out design for a Transformer can 

My experience has been to date, if something is wanted to be produced that shines out for its attractiveness, much of what is discovered will owe much credit to the design for the Transformers that have been selected. 

In my discussions had for the producing of devices I have in use, Enclosure Environment, Topology, Schematic and Component Selection are the considerations. All are equal considerations if an optimised performance is the end goal.  

From my end, no dispute, each to their own, on what type of Topology and Components are used/not used within a Schematic for a device selected to function within a system.   

 

In all subjective evaluation, one individual's selection of a Top Five is potentially the reject list of another individual.

It is the wonderful reason why the owners of systems that have built them up over time with selections made to meet each's unique preferences, are mainly all different assemblies of devices to perform quite similar roles. 

Pumping Products are just that, products being pumped, they are not answers to what an individual is really attracted to and can quite easily prove to be a repellent to an individual.

This thread and many others within multiple forums are testament to how diverse the selections are that make up a system, which basically means Budget, Experiences, Attractors and Repellents are very much at play.

Experiences are where I encourage an individual to grow, with these under one's belt, the Budget required is beginning to be realised, the satisfaction that can be had through committing to a design/build that is an attractor, will certainly produce a customer who stands sure in their choices.      

In other cases, there are individuals who already have the selected Cart'.

In some cases, there is more than on Cart' in the collection of desirable models.  Again, in some cases, the users of the Cart/Cart's are expectant that their Phono Signal Path is optimised for the Cart'/Cart's to present at their best.

To assist with my experiencing a Cart' used in various operating conditions, I have a Phon' with a Very Good Quality Bult in MC Stage, that allows the Cart' to be used in multiple configurations in relation to Input Capacitance, L+R Channel Gain, Input Impedance. This device pretty much allows for a Cart' to be used, whilst subjected to a reasonable number of operational parameters.

 This same Phon' is a loaner Phon' and has been used with Ortofon's up to Windfeld Level, Miyajima and an AN IO.

The Phon' is not a lacking in SQ device, it is quite impressive, it has been used as a loaner in other systems for lengthy periods of time.

With a Head Amp attached to the MM Stage in my system, it has presented certain types of music with a Jaw Droppingly good account of itself.

In comparison to other Phon's using a SUT, it does not Wed to the SUT used, in a way that is as notable for the impression being made as with another Phon' > SUT in use

All the Cart' owners of the ones listed above have their own Designs for the Phono Signal Path, and each have their own unique configuration for the Phon' > SUT or Phon' > Head Amp. A Phon' with a Built-In dedicated MC Stage is welcome but not the preferred end game device.

The outcome being referred to, is one sharing similarities with the one that is seemingly the most prevailing within this Thread.

It does look like the difficulties with reconciling the math for the electronics and the rabbit hole leading to oblivion, commonly referred to about using SUT's only causes concern to those who want to Cudgel and Beat the methodology of the signal path being produced with a Technical Challenge.

The other side of the fence on lookers, especially those who have adopted the method of using a SUT or Head Amp, are using the reports made, looking to be quite pleased with the at hand option, to have a simple to use device, that is quite effective at offering methods to fine tune a particular presentation via a SUT or Head Amp, that is producing a presentation that has an attraction.

It is this, that is certainly one the motivators to avoid the usage of a device that is with limitations in how it can be configured, especially the type of limitation that is on offer from a dedicated MC Stage as the only option to be used.

The attraction to the method of using at hand options for working with electrical interfaces within the Phono Signal Path, is as satisfying as the ones used by myself for working with the Mechanical Interfaces required to produce a much improved environment for the LP Album to function in and the efforts made to use a Vinyl Material that is as purified from contaminant when in use as I can achieve.  

 

   

I am not educated enough to answer your question, these are the types of question I would take direct to my Third Party Cartridge Service I depend on.

Third Party Cartridge Services from what I have discovered through investigation and discussion with the Technicians does suggest there is a Channel Imbalance being checked and corrected as part of the Serice on offer.

There are Third Party Services who are happy to show evidence of their work, and some will put out photos of the Readings that are being achieved as part of the refurbishment work.

 My reasoning for the purchasing a Phonostage with a L+R Channel Gain Control, is to do with my totally trusting the Designer /Engineer and accepting the options incorporated into the device to deliver as per the designer's intent.

Additionally, as I am usually working with Dual Mono Volume Controls in the Pre- Amp's used and will one day soon have a my New Design Balanced / Single Ended Pre-Amp' Built, to be used with the Modified Power Amp's, which will have a Balanced / Single Ended Input, the option to tweak a loading on a Channel was to me a worthwhile tool, as the conversion to a Balanced Signal Path as the additional option has been projected for a very long time. 

I am avoiding the subject of Phon's and Balanced Signal Paths at present. 

In a earlier post within this thread, I made it known, I had not given too much attention to using a shortest length cable between SUT and Phon'.

As said in the earlier post, I use a cable of approx' 70cm (28 inches) 

My memory got Jogged and I recollected a few things previously learnt.

The Capacitance for the Cable I use is 57pf per metre using Manufacturer Spec.

A friend, prior to my acquiring the 70cm Cable measured an identical cable with different RCA's in a 1.2mtr length at 90pf (Memory Jog Moment).

Maybe I was focused on creating a improved Capacitance art the Interface and purchased the 70cm length to attempt to achieve this.

Ihave detected minimal differences between the Two Cable lengths in use, but this attributed mainly to the Cable RCA's.  

I would like to think that a 70cm Cable, even with a different RCA Plug is near optimised with the required 'pf' at the interface.

I hope this assists with adding a little extra support for the usage descriptions given with the owned and in use SUT's and the occasionally introduced Head Amp.  

"Assuming an appropriately / ideally matched SUT and MC, What are the inherent advantages or disadvantages of inserting a SUT after the MC in the audio chain?  Does the SUT theoretically enhance or degrade the sound quality?  What does the SUT actually do to the sound quality"? 

It does seem from the descriptions supplied from certain individuals who have taken the time to check for an appropriately / ideally matched SUT > MC, set up as an optimised interface, that there are attractive presentations that can be discovered, and in comparisons, to other interfaces using a different SUT or Cart', that are again an appropriately / ideally matched SUT > Cart', that there are discoveries made that are not so attractive.

Being Wed to one type of Phonostage and its MC Input will not allow for the discovery to be made, that the Cart' in use is able to present in manner that has increased appeal and attraction.

Through using a method that restricts the experiences to be had with the Cart', where it is to be used with limitations to the interfaces that can be produced, is an OK method, but certainly a method not embraced by all.

To add ancillaries to work in conjunction with a Cart' and Phon', the method when chosen can prove be quite valuable as well as limiting, the experimentation required to discover the ideal interface and optimisation is a process and requires time to finalise the ideal set up. 

Again, as a method it is OK and not embraced by all. Where it has merit, is that the permutations that can be put in place are certainly expansive in the introducing of new discoveries of how the Cart' can present.     

The OP made it known that they are inquiring about a Specific usage of Ancillaries used in conjunction with a Cartridge and Phono-Pre-Amp'.

They made it known there were limits to their knowledge on the subject.

I can only assume the request to offer a description of whether a SQ is Improved or Degraded through the methodology is to be attained from a Subjective Evaluation and reports being offered from individuals who are familiar with methodology.

Receiving feedback from others who were or had optimised this method and who could offer a extended description as a result of the various permutations that can be produced will have shown, that certain permutations don't work for some and are rejected.

SUT's are usually met with the alternative being the Head Amp, and informing the OP of this as an option is an off-route diversion from the initial inquiry, but does have relevance.    

Another Older Thread has resurfaced with the SUT as the main Topic, and this will have proved to be an excellent read for the OP if they have visited the Thread. 

I hope the OP has been able to keep their eye on the prize and not get to bogged down in the noise that has been Trebuchet Launched into the discussion in an attempt to Siege the Castle.

Seeing as it has a Rock Mounted at its furthest point of Cantilever, it is only really lacking a Bearing Assembly at the Anchoring Base.

Can one imagine the end of the days siege, when the oppositions meet down at the local Tavern. The Groups are slurping away and making bold claims about the who had the better day and end up having a bit of banter and head of to fight another day.

Remaining in the Corner is a member from an opposition, who is not so usual a type, who has intruded on a couple who are nothing to do with the conflict, and who were having a romantic moment.

The 'not so usual type' has entrapped the couple, so they could not vacate.    Where throughout the whole evening the couple have been exposed quite unwanted, to the 'not so usual type' incessantly going on about why their sides Trebuchet is better than the others. Where the designs are being drawn on Flagstones to show where theories are 'so called' proof of a design superiority.

That poor couple, I really feel for them when bombarded with such drivel from a very narrow minded, obsessive, 'not so usual type of individual'.     

Jumping forward a few Centuries, I'm glad that as diplomacy evolved, the Trebuchet developed into a Device for extracting embedded recorded data from a Disc.

The Heat of the Battlefield is still quite prevalent, in the P***ing Matchs, that are regularly encountered, where the endless drivel is constantly resurfacing and spieled out "My Twentieth Century version of a Trebuchet is better than Yours"  

@o_holter Whilst there is an inquisitiveness to discover if there is more to be offered from the Cart' when used in different permutations with additional ancillaries, your first experience has served to support some of the experiences reported on here, that there are Ancillaries that can be a little underwhelming once experienced within the home system.

There are ancillaries that can be used that are quite capable of taking up the position permanently and supersede the use of a Dedicated MC Staged.

The ideal outcome might be an ancillary is discovered that is very attractive to yourself and one that extends your enjoyment of your Cart' allowing for two different approaches to how it presents with an equally good impression being made through the use of each configuration.

As said, previously within this Thread, I have had experiences with a Head Amp > owned Phon', that has been Jaw Droppingly Good for certain Types of Music, but the Head Amp has proved, to be a little difficult to recreate this on the other owned Phon'. The SUT's work better for me with this both owned Phon's and when one Phon' has been out on loan, the users of it have opted for the Phon' to be used with a SUT or Head Amp in place of the dedicated MC Stage.

The SUT's work with the colouration of Valves to various influences, richness and a Loose Low Frequency can be perceived as increased, through to, Transparency is seemingly being presented with a Tight Lean Low Frequency and accentuated Mid's and High Frequencies are seemingly projected.

My experience of the Head Amp has been to perceive the presentation as quite Transparent, much increased over the SUT's that can create this perception. The Bass Depth available from certain designs of Head Amp can be visceral on the body and way beyond what one might have expected. 

As a suggestion I would encourage a range of SUT's and Head Amp's to be tried, as you have a Dedicated MC Stage there is no rush, but the new experiences are enjoyable and in general are very easy to be put in place, hence the Jaw Dropping experience. 

The EAR 834p is a Phonostage I have been encountering for many years.

I have been demonstrated it when it was first released and was listening to it in use on system using other EAR Amplification in the late 90's on regular occasion. 

At various events and Bake Off's I have attended throughout the past 10 years the Model has been demonstrated in both Original Build and the Clone DIY Version.

The Phon' in my assessment has a very noticeable richness and bloom at the lowest frequencies.

I find it hard to think of any SUT that will reduce this presentation to a condition where it is difficult to detect. From experiences encountered, a Head Amp' might be the most successful in reducing the perception of richness.

A better description of what was wrong with the SQ for your tastes, that encouraged the changes of a SUT, might help with understanding what your ideal presentation could sound like.

When my Bespoke Built Phon' was being built and I was experiencing it at different stages of Design, Topology and Circuitry, I rejected the prototype on more than one occasion, due to the detectable Richness and Bass Bloom that was being perceived. It took a careful organisation of the Topology and Circuit to use Boutique Cap's and Resistors, that were selected through component rolling to tame the ECC 83's. I use this with SUT's or occasionally a Head Amp with Ortofon Cart's.

One Treatment that is not suggested within this thread, is the use of a Degauss Device on a LOMC or SUT.

During the demonstrations carried out of SUT vs Head Amp vs Dedicated Built-In MC stages, when the Degauss Device is used, there is a notable audible improvement to the presentation when compared to the presentation that has not been degaussed. In very few cases the difference in the presentation is almost perceivable to the point it is seeming that a new Cart' is in use.

 

@dover Current Sensing Unit? - Can there be a more expansive description, I am all ears. Bespoke Built is even more of an appeal.

I would assume that many things can be demagnetised, the reasoning for demagnetising would be the more difficult reason to comprehend.

I am happy to leave the Math to those that fully understand it through creating the equations and not just merely quoting it.

The Clever Types can produce devices that cut to the quick and do what they say on the Tin.

A Degauss Device is quite affordable in some cases cheaper than a Device to control Anti-Static on a Vinyl Album and is especially cheaper than some of the SUT's and Head Amp's that can be purchased.

I have heard the positive outcome of a Degauss being administered and as stated in some cases the improvement heard has been quite notable and definitely worthwhile.

It really does not make sense to have multiple Thousands of £'s invested and not give the full electronic support to the critical devices used in the Phono Signal Path. It is not uncommon to see a Phon' Pre- Amp' set up costing close to £/$ 5K, to be used with Cart's costing upward of £/$ 2.5K.

A mechanical device to support the Cart' and serve as a conduit for a Signal Path can quite easily be seen as a cheap option at £/$ 4K.

Spending £/$ 200ish on a Degauss Device does not seem to be the purchase that is a ninth-degree approach.    

 

 

The Coil on the Cartridge > Cartridge Connections > Internal Wand Wire > Pillar Connections > RCA Phono Cable and Connectors are all able to have an impact on how the Signal is sent and the SQ of the Signal is to be perceived.

A Dedicated MC Stage is one that in many cases, might not be able to compensate for upstream influences on the signal and create a presentation that has an attraction that is on parity with the attraction that can be created, using separate ancillaries that can have an influence that compensates for upstream influences on the signal path.

There is no doubt that the option to influence the SQ and presentation with the use of an ancillary that bypasses a use of a Dedicated MC Stage and creates a MC Stage through adapting a MM Input to take on the role of a MC Stage, is one that has won over many adopters of this as their chosen method.

The Math behind the differing options is only one part of the equation.

The interface chosen and the impact it has on the end listener is substantially more important, as this is where the satisfaction in enjoyment of the Vinyl chain is to be found. It is hard to convince most that the Math should be their end goal behind their choices made. 

Trusting in Designers and their Skills to produce a Device that is a correct interface as an inclusion in a Circuit and Signal Path, is the most typical and successful route to finding the methodology that offers the most attraction.

@dover is testament to this, his route to have an ancillary that satisfies has ben realised through his trust in his EE and their design for a Bespoke device.

I'm glad it is revealed as I am keen to learn more and will approach the subject with my most trusted EE Designer, to see what I can learn about the concept.   

@alexberger I have no criticism of the 834P (Original) and in (Clone Build Versions) I would say a few Clone Versions were built to a high spec' as I know one of the builders and who they take their influences from on DIY Projects.

As said the ECC83 is a hard Tube to tame and can be overbearingly rich and bloat the lowest frequencies.

I learnt this more than 25 Years ago with a Valve Pre-Amp'.

I also learnt I am repellent to discernible Rich Tones and Loose Bass.

There are humungous music enthusiasts who are very satisfied with this type of presentation, and I am genuinely very pleased they have discovered the Sound Quality that offers satisfaction.

The SUT as already referred to within this thread is capable of adding richness and in some cases with a quite discernible and notable impact on the SQ.

As said, it is difficult to imagine a SUT in use with an EAR 834P that would be capable of reducing the perception of richness, the pairing would seemingly create a richness, but to what degree of being noticeable, and perceived as an attraction or repellent is with an unknown outcome.     

Rothwell Audio is a Trusted Service.

Their layman's technical descriptions on offer are very well worded and comprehensible. They are a reference point for all levels of knowledge in electronics relating to HiFi, and for some the first knowledge gathered when curiosity about the technical side of a particular device is being sought to be understood further.  

@drbond Making the Rothwell info' available in the extended version as presented is quite fitting. This thread is certainly a place worthy of their descriptions being found.

As providers of a Design for a Step-Up Transformers along with their Head Amp Design, they do provide very useful information for any level of understanding to consider. I am sure the presentation from them wins favour with customers.

As seen in various posts, not all are using Step-Ups from the same Brands, and Step Ups are to found ranging from £$200ish through to £$3000ish and maybe upward if the Ikeda and MSL models are of interest.

The next SUT's of interest for me fall into the £500+ area depending on Spec and Coil Wire, I don't see over the £1K being of interest, but a bespoke built from the Brand will comfortably surpass this. 

It does look to be a very competitive market to maintain the greater slice of the Pie Chart.

@intactaudio has already stated "In fact assuming the frequency response safely covers the audio band, I find core material, dielectric choice and winding wire to be far more dominant factors in the final sound. I find extending bandwidth (particularly at high frequencies) is simply more icing on an already delicious cake".

I have no issues with this Statement, I have had specific type Transformers Hand Produced for owned devices and have been involved in the dialogue between the EE Designer/Builder and their supply chain Tranx producer. There is indelible recollection of use of the construction materials as well as the Math involved.  

"if Intact Audio and Rothwell are in conflict, go with the former authority".

There is more than one road to Rome.

Rothwell are seemingly ubiquitous in their support and have available devices that can be used in conjunction with a Typical Cartridge Design, at reasonable/competitive cost to enable an interested individual to get on board and share in the experience.

Intactaudio are quite different, the device on offer is Bespoke Built and Designed to be an Optimised Interface.

The end user is quite sure about the choices for Cartridge and the supporting ancillaries they choose to use in conjunction to create the Phono Signal Path.

Additionally, the end user is quite sure who's experience they want to assist with producing their Bespoke Built devices.

I get the idea of approaching Intactaudio, it is not a strange approach or a pursuit of a luxury item. The approach is made with a intention to have the best support put in place for the Luxury Items. If one has a TT>Tonearm>Cart'>Phonostage at approximately £$20 000. If a further ancillary is attractive to be used in conjunction with the System, why would a Bespoke Built device not be a consideration. 

I've been having Bespoke Built Devices produced for 25 Years+, where I have relied totally on an EE's Experience and Skills and their supply chain, to bring the idea to a realisation. I do not feel short changed in anyway.

In the earliest days, if I were to also include a Design Service and have a Blingy Encasement produced, I may have started to feel a little out of pocket. There are many nice enclosures 'off the shelf' on offer today, so this is not an issue of concern anymore. 

 

 

@intactaudio Your last response is what I would call an IP reveal and very generous as an offered information. 

I carry info' like this from my Bespoke Designs I own,but have always felt my liberty was best constrained when the opportunity arose for sharing the Designer/Builders IP.  

I once had an awkward conversation with a not very well known to me EE at an event where I was demonstrating a device, they were keen for me to allow them to remove a Chassis bottom plate and let them see inside. I was adamant that that would be quite a betrayal to the designer with whom I have developed a close to 30-year friendship.  

This Thread with the content on SUT's has served as a very valuable and relevant thread for anybody with a curiosity about the method to be used with a MC Cartridge.

There has been very valuable Posts contributed to this Thread and if read in Conjunction with the SUT Thread that resurfaced as this thread has developed is potentially a reference place for subjective evaluations and guidance on how a inclusion of a SUT might be perceived.  

For the record,

I have been influenced by Copper Wire over Silver Wire, for all interface cables s and Transformers used in my system.

I have had a period of using a Silver OCC Wire Phono Cable, but this is now Superseded with a Copper Wire Cable.

I even had two very heavily modified CDP's trialed where the main differences were that one model was with Bespoke Produced Silver Tranx's and the other Copper.

I was quite impressed with the Copper, and it was this design that was instrumental in my consideration of a CD source in my system.

More recently I was being demonstrated Two SUT's in another system, one with Copper Wire Windings and produced to be an ideal match for a Miyajima Cart'. 

The other a usable match for the Cart' with Silver Wire Windings.

I thought I was done on the SUT front and was where I wanted to be, with the EAR TX4 (The Head) being the Holy Grail to aspire to.

What was experienced was beyond what was expected.                                            I was blown away by the demonstration of both SUT's, as were the other attendees, of which a few have the opportunity to receive demonstrations of (The Head) in the system in use. Their assessment being there are similar impressions being made and it would be great to hear The Head and these Models A/B compared. Not many models would be considered as a contender.

A SUT that is an ideal match for a Cart' is quite something and to have the Brands Models demonstrated in my own system in a winding ratio that is a match for my Cart', along with the Silver Wire version is the Top of the List for when I have a Vinyl Source back in action.   

Ah! I forgot about being shown a Square Wave by the EE producing the Phon'.

From recollection this Scope Reading was shown in conjunction with the 'mv' output per channel as a valuable reading to be assessed.

I don't get too bogged down in such a presentation, I am trusting in the EE and their abilities, if they are claiming there is something present that is impressive and of value to the electronic function of the device, who am I to nit-pick at their explanation.

The follow up listening has always been where I do my evaluations, and decide how much monies are to be removed from one's account, to achieve the experience permanently.

Propa P***ing Match now in the making.

It's all about the Bass about the Bass is knocked well out of the Ballpark, and the next Pitch is "What about Me, I don't like SUT's", I want to ruin this discussion with my usual BS.    

What a waste of a Good Thread, SUT Discussion well and truly of the rails for a while, I'm out of here. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know any individual that is a Tube Lover.

I do know individuals who have come to the conclusion that a HiFi System with devices built with Tube Circuits have found a device that is deeply satisfying and is a preferred experience over other experiences.

This can be discovered through the use of an individual device such as a  Phonostage, DAC,  Pre-Amp', Power Amp'. It is also available through a combination of Valve devices used. In many cases the combination is produced as Hybrid, being SS and Valve Devices to produce the System.

Those who take seriously finding a presentation from a system, to be one that is totally satisfying and able to deliver to their unique preferences are willing to take steps to increase experiences of differing permutations of available equipment.

Very few do any Math whilst on this journey, they are use their senses and stimulation created to settle the outcome of a assessment.

I am fortunate to have still have an interest in Live Music and on many occasions, can be at a close proximity to a performance, never ever have I used this type of  encounter to make a decision on a Tube vs SS Circuitry as being the superior, even if a see a Valve Amp in use, along with SS Instrumental Equipment. Never ever have I heard this as requirement to make such a assessment.

I was out of this thread, but such a huge BS Statement is not of any value in this thread. 

If one wants to talk about a Bass Notes Impact at a Live Performance being quite different from a Bass Note Impact produced by a Home System, then there is plenty to 'chew the cud' about.

      

It is now within this thread, having evolved from a useful supply of information, that most visitors would like to take something from, to a very unusual concern, where a minuscule quantity of individuals concern themselves.

The presenting of a Math as the reasoning to impose the notion that another method is lesser and not the optimised circuit is really starting to taint a well presented thread, as result of its former contributions.

The thread now is grounded with ones intention to attempt to impress their Mathematical Preference as being the better over another.

This attempt to hold centre stage, is being met by others, with a countering of this  very obvious intention at large, especially where the Math has been used as the support for the notion being proposed.

The Mass of Users of Devices as a Listener, do not care for such a Topic of Discussion.

As said many times, the Judgement made on a device is commonly born from there being an attraction toward it, either through Clever Marketing, Word of Mouth, Aesthetic appeal, Cost, Discounted Cost, Gifted, Impact Made During a Demonstration, Stimulus Created, Attractive Experience Worthwhile to Maintain.

Somewhere behind all the above that coming together in one permutation or another is Math. It is quite difficult to see where the individual place much care on the Math that is not the commonly used criteria for matching a Device to another Device.

The Topic of Math most recently under discussion and now dominating as a Spoiler, is as far to the extremities and circumscribed in content, as can be imagined, when comparing the content to the OP's original request for information. 

I do agree, it is for the OP to steer a thread, if the content of it is developing into a discussion beyond their needs and seen to be best kept as a separate topic.

The Topic makes a lot of sense when maintained in a area where the Science in use has a Audible to the Human Ear function.

It looks like Bats are being catered for in the frequencies being presented and being a outcome of a Theorem presented.

This Thread is now about Theorem and whether one version is able to be proven superior to another, even thought the condition under discussion may not even be audible to the Human Ear, and certainly most unlikely to be audible to the individuals Spoiling the Thread with the attempts to maintain the Math as the important area of discussion.   

If I was a visitor to this thread, my first thoughts would be to question the understanding of the Theorem being presented by those who are enforcing the subject to the forefront.

I don't trust many views presented on Math, as there are those that can read it and comment on it, as their interpretation, and there are those that produce the Math. The producers of Math that has become Theorem, are quite a different being to a interpreter of a produced Math.   

@rauliruegas As you have kindly made a direct contact with myself, I have chosen to read the content of your post.

I usually avoid your posts, as I do not like what I read,  and when a Thread has a value to me, I copy and paste the valuable info, into a Draft Email. This method has been very useful and has been learned as a result of individuals like yourself bombarding a Thread with pointless crap.

From the off-set your attempts has been to knock the use of the Device being inquired about by the OP, where yourself and your cronies have even gone to the extent to derail the made inquiry and insult the OP as suggesting their intention for the thread was to act as a 'Troll'. This early attempt at manipulation of a Thread, and is my opinion the earliest entries to the content that is an attempt to,

" tell us what to post or not? " - Your Words not Mine

I am pleased as a "no one special" -'non ego centric' forum member, along with the multiple thousands you seem to have a similar disregard for, to be one, who has whilst visiting the analog section of Audiogon, have discovered a usable way to avoid having to be caught up in seeing the drivel from yourself and those that are in Cahoots with you. 

It is the Season to be Jolly and during this season there is a acceptance of the odd Preach.

As a Preach, as said before,

"I can easily forgive your outbursts, in the same manner I reserve for Friends, Family and especially my young Grandchildren, who are doing their best to find their way.

I can see your sickness to be recognised as a authority loud and clear, in the same way I see my Grandchild stand in front of a TV when not getting the attention they crave. It does seem this personality trait does manifest most noticeably during the Festive Period, it looks like this same trait comes to fore with @rauliruegas at this same period as well, along with all the others unashamedly displayed throughout the year.   

@rauliruegas I wish you and all Forum Members in equal measure,  the very best for the Festive Season and hope for a Prosperous 2023 to be met. Period.    

@drbond A well rounded assessment of your created thread to date, and I do agree the Rothwell Info' provided, has been very valuable entry, as well as, a very worthy point of reference to be found within this thread. It assisted with your own requests for further information and certainly will assist to others as well. 

I also feel @mulveling has offered a useful input to those showing interest, and looking to gather a understanding of the usage of the SUT as a Device. 

The Rothwell Info' certainly presents in a manner where the information is approachable by multiple individuals (where like yourself ) have a developing interest in the subject matter. I have also been pointed to this Rothwell Info' in the past, by a very adept EE who designs and builds. With this Info' on offer from Rothwell being suggested to be visited, I can only presume it has a content that lens itself to being accepted on this section of Electronics.

In your most recent post, the last paragraph, is the area where this thread has caused a concern for myself, and the one that is the encouragement that has prompted me to avoid the evolving discussion. 

This attitude to avoid, is due to the fact the countering from differing parties to the developing discussion evolving, is already convincing enough to suggest the Thread is now on a route of Conjecture/Theory and the outcome will be as far from a Theorem as can possibly be. There is nothing seen to substantiate the avenue of investigation as having a end result that can be relied upon.

I have no desire to see inaccuracies spewed out, that are already evolving into a topic that is quite confusing, especially to how the value of the extension of the subject will be beneficial to anybody if loaded with inaccuracies, as the counter presentations are highlighting. It does seem a contribution is supported by outsourced information, as means to help substantiate the meaning within the post. There is nothing being presented to stimulate a desire to learn more, as the endeavour is seemingly to come to nothing.  

Questionable content, is only going to achieve one outcome, which will be to taint a very good thread, especially one that in my view, serves as a reference point for the future to others.

Theorem, Theory, Conjecture, Ideas. I know which I am leaning toward as the foundation of the majority of posts in the last few pages of discussion in this thread.       

@holmz I have seen how your investigation has evolved and how you are attempting to discover an information that is valuable to your requirements, and hopefully beneficial to your needs, there is no reason to suggest any different is expected, I have many enjoyable experiences spending time with others who have shown a similarity to this type of investigation.

I don't believe I have expressed any negativity (or keeping it Seasonal 'Nativity' towards your endeavour 🎅🤶). I do believe I referred to a experience of having been shown by an EE a Square Wave as a Signal on a Monitor and the shaping of the Signal was of importance, but at the same time, I made you aware I don't get too bogged down with such things.

Adding an extension of context to my comment. I am commissioning a Service and am glad the evidence is on offer for myself to witness, but I am trusting in the Service Selected to deliver the end product and seeing the EE Data is something of a EE's concern and not for me as a customer. From my perspective, with my limited experience, if I was on a DIY route to create a build, or seeking out a discovery, as you are, I am sure I will need to value the data shown in the Oscilloscopes Signal, and work out how to use it to my advantage.

There is no secret that you are being investigative in your route undertaken, and the average on-looker showing an interest will be wondering what will be your discoveries.

Unfortunately there are others as on-lookers associated with the duration of this thread, using your investigation as a means to continue their own agenda and find further ways to reinforce their viewpoint that a SUT is an inferior device to be used in conjunction with LOMC and MM Stage.  

The posts over the last few pages by those trying to derail the idea of selecting the  SUT to be used with a LOMC, are being met with very comprehensible countering and it is certainly a 'standout', that the Info' being touted at the present by the Parties attempting to derail the thread are Conjecture and Idea, not Theory with any element of a Substantiation and certainly not Theorem.

As said previously, nearly all read here has been liked, a small amount has been not so liked, and an even smaller amount certainly not liked.

To discover what is 'Likeable', Not So Likeable, Not Likeable, I do have to read the content. There is one help in deselecting posts that would be a waste of time to be read, and that is to use the Moniker at the head of each entry to see what id worthwhile avoiding. If only the Mod's would give a tool to block members posts getting into their account, how different an individuals personal preference for the structuring of a thread would manifest.

  

    

The following Bracketed Teext can be found on Page 4, it won't be difficult to see who posted it.

It looks like the references to the Sugden Model fell flat, and this has been the next arrows pulled from the quiver, as an attempt to collapse the Thread.

" trolling " especially demarcated. Passing the Buck 'isn't cricket old chap'. 

( Maybe just maybe drbond is just " trolling " in his latests posts. )

As said, a indicator of a collusion being in place to derail the Thread, seemingly a reignition of a previous slur and a attempt at accusing the OP of being disingenuous.

The OP has been present throughout the thread and shown appreciation of much that has been shared in support of their made inquiry. 

In relation to the Thread Title '   SUT - electrical theory and practical experience' drbond is the antithesis of a " troll ".

As said in a previous post and one said with sincerity, as a result of my interaction with the analog forum.

" I wish you and all Forum Members in equal measure,  the very best for the Festive Season and hope for a Prosperous 2023 to be met. " 🥂

Adding the SUT that is most attractive to one's unique preference is more the discovery to be made than the adding the right SUT.

Matching the SUT to the Cart' is only one sector to be a consideration.

SUT's add a Coloration to a presentation, it is a case of how 'Rich in Tone' is ones threshold able to entertain before it becomes a repellant and how much of a compromise to the overall performance is the presence of Richness to have.

Lovely Deep Rich Tones are easily able to suppress Upper Mid' and High Frequencies and completely paste over the details in a recording. 

My preferred SUT's only add a hint of a Rich Tone and are not too far from the effects a Head Amp can have.

The Link has a Thread which is produced by an individual I trust, and have direct dialogue with via email on the subject of SUT's quite a few years past.

Not too long ago, I learnt that this individual favours the Ikeda Ist-201 as their 'go to' SUT, (this may have changed in recent times).

The Ikeda is able to be acquired for a similar price as the Luna, the Ikeda is also seen as a used item occasionally, so a few ££££'s can be saved. 

SUT's are a voyage of discovery, I wish you a safe journey.

 

My experience is that I can use a LOMC direct into the MM Stage, the Volume needs to be maximum, but the presentation to my description is very Rich and not as I like it.

I can also use a In-Built MC Stage and have lots of adjustment from the controls offered on a much liked MM/MC Phon'.

I can also use a SUT or Head Amp' on either of the Phon's in use.

I have found a SQ that really appeals, and can play around with it a little, the flexibility is also part of the attraction.

A SUT or Head Amp' is also a option on a SS Phon' with both MM/MC Inputs.

I have heard the MC Stage bettered or able to produce a SQ more to my liking on a SS Phon' with a SUT and Head Amp' used on the MM Input.