2. analog
  3. 1278350882

SUT shootout

Over the past six weeks I have had the chance to finish a SUT "shootout". I thought I would post my impressions.

My system config for the shoot-out consisted of the following:

TT: Nottingham 294
Tonearm: SME 312S
Cartridge: Koetsu Rosewood Signature Platinum & Benz Ebony
Preamp: Shindo Masetto
Amp: Atma-sphere S30 and Tube Audio Lab 300B
Speaker: Hawthorne Trio (Biamped Open Baffle Speaker)

Music listened to covered multiple genres (rock, jazz, classical) in both 33 and 45 rpm formats. Because of the different turn ratios of the products I used a SPL meter and tried to listen with volume at roughly 80-85db.

My subjective ranking is as follows:

1. Hashimoto HM-7
2. Auditorium 23 "Hommage"
3. Hashimoto HM-3
4. Modified EAR-834P (Upgraded parts and tubes)
5. Sowter
6. MC from Shindo Masetto (Lundahl based transformer)
7. Cinemag
8. Altec (DIY)

The good news is that all of the above are extremely musical. There were no poor performers. I think most people would be happy with any of these products on their own. It was only in direct comparison where some of the differences became apparent.

The top three (Auditorium Hommage and both Hashimoto's) were a notch above the rest because they had both huge soundstages and the ability to dig deep into the music in regards to detail. The Hashmito HM-7 and Auditorium further distinquished themselves from the HM-3 by being more nuanced and textured. The Koetsu's warm tone came across better with these top 2. The tone using the HM-3 was more neutral in character. In comparing the HM-7 to the Hommage, I felt the HM-7 had a slightly better ability to separate instruments in complex musical arrangements and had a slightly lower noise floor.

The EAR and Sowter were very good at showcasing detail and texture but the soundstage was smaller than the top 3.

The internal SUT from the Shindo preamp had the most unique sound of the group and was the toughest to grade. It had the lowest noise floor and really shined in certain types of music (intimate vocals or small scale jazz/chamber music). However, the soundstage of the Masetto (Lundahl) was the smallest of all the products and when it came to larger scale music (symphonies especially) it had a harder time separating instruments.

The Cinemag and Altec were, not suprisingly, extremely similar considering their common heritage. The soundstage was larger than the Shindo, Sowter and EAR but smaller than the Hashimoto's and Hommage. Where I felt they came up a little short was in the area of musical detail. Of these two products, I placed the Cinemag higher because I thought it was slightly quieter.

It is interesting to note that the pricing of the products ranged from a low of approximately $350 (Cinemag based SUT) to a high of roughly $5000 (Hommage). My "winner" (HM-7) is priced at approx $1600 for a finished product.

Finally, I am aware that the performance of the products in question may differ substantially with other cartridges and systems so my ranking is a subjective opinion within the paramaters of my system, room and musical tastes. None-the-less, I had a fun time doing it.
sibelius

Showing 3 responses by dougdeacon

dougdeacon
3,338 posts
 
The shoot out results are more about the cartridges likes than the actual transformers abilities.
Exactly right, and Vinyljh only mentioned half the issues. As fun as this shootout was, there was no mention of impedance loading of any of the SUTs, whether on the primary to match the source (cartridge) or on the secondary to control transformer resonances (Zoebel network).

Based on the OP, it seems unlikely that any of these cartridge/SUT combos was optimized. The outcomes therefore, while valid and interesting as an exploration of listener preferences, demonstrated little about the components themselves.

To perform a meaningful shootout would first require identifying the optimal primary and secondary side load for each SUT/cartridge combination. Balancing even one such combination is a work of several hours, at least. It's also not inexpensive, since multiple sets of high quality resistors are required. I've done this for one SUT and two cartridges. It required $1,000 worth of resistors, which I've still got lying about if anyone wants to repeat it. It's not a task for the fainthearted.

Optimizing sixteen cartridge/SUT combos would take weeks (and many more resistors than I've got). Only after optimizing each combo could we begin meaningful A/B comparisons.

Not trying to rain on your parade, but your shootout only scratched the surface. Using SUTs properly is difficult, time consuming and sometimes more costly than expected. It's less costly than top class active MC amplification, so SUTs remain a viable path into LOMC for those on a budget, but not managing all the factors involved can lead to inconsistent outcomes.

dougdeacon
3,338 posts
 
Al, a few quibbles (it's what I do!)...

No normal cutting lathe could cut a square wave and no playback rig could trace one. You certainly wouldn't find me trying with my $4K cartridge! A square wave would be useful but perhaps it's not essential, though I have zero experience with oscilloscopes.

I believe RIAA pre-emphasis or its lack would be irrelevant. An SUT's function is to amplify voltages across all frequencies. To the extent ringing could be detected with sinusoidal waveforms, it should be detectable regardless of the incoming voltage (amplitude) at any particular frequency. Most SUT's operate before the RIAA de-emphasis anyway.

Quibbles aside, that method might well work. It would take me a while at first, since I haven't a clue how to operate a 'scope, but it might indeed be a quicker path into the right ballpark. Signal analyzer software instead of a 'scope might work too.

I stopped using SUTs several years ago, so further developments are up to you!
dougdeacon
3,338 posts
 
Obviously hearing a wide soundstage from a mono recording would indicate a system problem. Further, only a fool would expect any sort of soundstage from multi-miked recordings made in 15 seperate booths, in takes spread over three weeks, all mixed onto a single LP. GI/GO

Soundstage is a viable consideraton only when the original performance had one and the recording at least attempted to capture it. It's a fair bet that any Kenneth Wilkinson recording of any orchestra started with a real soundstage, and that he intended for us to hear it. The fact that he and other skilled recording engineers generally used the barest minimum number of mikes was critical. The more mikes, the more phase confusion. The more phase confusion, the harder it is for ears to identify the size or direction of any particular sound source.

As for quantifying, that's an obsession in itself, but accurate soundstage reproduction requires, at least, a very low system sound floor. The lower the level of detail a system can reproduce, the more soundstage information you'll hear. Phase clarity and lack of distortion also help, since any problems in these areas will confuse, mask or slur directional cues. Very fast, very clear HF response also helps, since our ears are most sensitive to HFs for direction and distance information.

Accurate soundstaging is a byproduct of accurate reproduction. To the extent it exists, it's an indicator of system health. To the extent it's missing, it's an indicator of problems to be investigated and resolved.
More to discover