SUT - electrical theory and practical experience

Holmz, you ought to visit the Jensen Transformer website. There you will find erudite discussion with schematics and other data regarding how to load a SUT. Plus the engineers there are nice guys who might help with your specific questions, if you call them in California. 

@holmz 

I am only trying to find a way to load the cart for my 1:4 SUT.

This seemingly simple statement is the basis for much of the confusion that exists around SUT's in general.  People feel the need to lump similar things together hence the discussion of transformer and cartridge loading in the same breadth.

This seemingly simple statement is the basis for much of the confusion that exists around SUT's in general.  People feel the need to lump similar things together, hence the discussion of transformer and cartridge loading in the same breadth.

From a cartridge loading perspective, people consider the transformer to be ideal, at which point a simple calculation nets a "nice clean" load for the cartridge.  The problem with this approach is that transformers are far from ideal and varying both the source and load values has a profound impact on both the measured and sonic behavior of the SUT.  This gave rise to the engineering approach as shown by Rothwell, Jensen et al focuses solely on the behavior of the transformer for a given situation.  The goal here is to set the source impedance to that of the cartridge and then adjust the secondary termination (load) to get the "best" response.  The problem here is this method provides a singular "load value" for a given cartridge impedance.

What is one to do when the two approaches listed above push you in opposite directions? Menno Van Der Veen acknowledged this and noted that after the proper secondary termination is determined, the load the cartridge sees can be further increased by placing resistance across the primary (ie to the cartridge directly).   Since this only lets the load be modified to a lower value, it is a step in the right direction (and the method I suggest for additional load) but does not represent the simple solution everyone craves.

When these two lines of analysis which use all the same terms are co-mingled in a discussion like this, people tend to form "technically correct" opinions which sit on a solid foundation of bad data.   

dave

@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.

Holmz, Make no mistake, Dave (Intact Audio) knows more about this subject by far than I ever will. So if my advice to check out the Jensen website seems counter to or only partially correct in view of Dave's insight, go with what Dave says.