Dynavector XV1s loading & phono


Hi.

For those of you that have owned the XV1s, just curious as to what phono stage you are using with yours (or have used) and what loading you are putting on it to make it sound great!

I have got a XV1s at the moment, but with the Cary PH301mkII tube phono stage, have never got it to sound great. I was using the XV1s on LP12/Valhalla/Ittok II/rignmat anniversary. The default loading for MC on the Cary is 680 ohms. I modified it to make it about 150 ohms which did make a substatial improvment, however, sound was still very dull, undynamic, muffled, very unexciting.

I have heard the TeKaitorua (next model down) on a Oracle/smeIv setup going thorough a very modest solidstage phono/integrated setup and that gave extraordinary results! Likewise with the Lyra Titan, used through a solid stage Lyra Connosieur phono stage was absolutely amazing. Some people have replaced their Titan's with the XV1s! I don't think I'm hearing anything close to what the XV1s is capable of at all.

I think it is something with my front end analogue setup as my CD playback sounds spectacular, WAY better than the XV1s/Cary combo in every way. Since I have blamed the Cary for the poor match with the XV1s, I have since replaced the unit with the Kondo M7 phono - but as this is just a standard phono stage, I have had to revert back to my very modest MM Linn K18II cartridge. The Linn/Kondo setup is better than the XV1s/Cary in every respect - probably equal to that of CD playback in my system. To use the XV1s with the M7, will require step up transformers.

Question is:
1) What sort of loading are you guys out there using with the XV1s and on what phono? Tube or solidstate?
2) Is my deck/arm/PS combo the main cause of the poor sound from the vinyl?
3) What stepup transformers would one recommmend to match with the M7 - there is obviously the Kondo SFz ... any other worthy contenders?

Thanks a lot for all you guys help.

Regards
David
linnmaster
Raul, in your links, I don't see much that I would ackowledge as being "facts."

To address your comments one by one, yes, distortions will be generated at the core of an SUT, but distortions are also being generated in any MM or MC cartridge (both in the signal core and in other places). In your recent posts you have noted a preference for cartridges that measure to be poorer than normal in terms of distortion. If you clearly can like cartridges that measure to have higher-than-normal levels of distortion, why are you afraid of distortion in the SUT?

Bandwidth of an SUT may not go down to DC, but I have a test transformer on my bench that measures dead-flat down to 10Hz, with a -3dB roll-off of 1Hz. The top end is dead-flat to at least 30kHz (the top-end response after that depends on the load). Far better than any loudspeaker, for sure.

True, an SUT has a reactive electrical component, but so does any cartridge that has an inductive output (all of them) when you use it with an interconnect cable that has capacitance (again all of them). The audibility of the resulting electrical resonance is directly related to the inductance of the cartridge (high inductance plus cable capacitance means a resonance that may be close to the audible band and can be measured and heard directly, while low inductance means a resonance that remains at RF frequencies, and shouldn't be directly audible unless your phono stage has linearity problems at RF frequencies and IMD subsequently allows the electrical resonance to fold down into the audible band). At least with a stepup transformer, you can physically place it close to the phono stage and keep the interconnect cables ultra-short (thereby reducing capacitances). With a high-inductance cartridge like an MM, you need to keep the cable long (therefore meaning high capacitance), and this will give you an electrical resonance that is far more likely to be directly audible and also measureable in the audible band. This is why, although high-inductance cartridges like MMs make life easy for many phono stages due to the high signal voltage, many audiophiles still prefer low-inductance MCs, even if they need to use stepup transformers into low-gain phono stages. FWIW, every MM that I've listened to and thought sounded acceptable had low inductance.

Mind you, normally and by preference, I also prefer to design with and use fully active amplification when it comes to phono equalizers. However, I know from first-hand experience that it is possible to design a stepup transformer that at least measures pretty well and sounds reasonable. And let us not forget that there are many phono equalizers that audiophiles like and already own that would benefit substantially from some extra gain with small noise penalty (and also in some cases, benefit from judicious band-pass filtering). Both of these are attributes that a stepup transformer can easily provide. Let's not insist that audiophiles throw out their existing phono amplifiers just to satisfy a technical argument which doesn't appear to be on such solid foundations.

regards, jonathan carr
Raul you are certainly entitled to your opinions but it is disingenuous telling anybody else they are wrong. Their opinions are equally valid.

You may have more toys than most of us but it does not mean you are smarter than some of us.
Raul please lay off your dogmatic opposition to step up transformers. We all know you have a vested (commercial) interest in your Essential design (which uses solid state for MC gain).

I have heard Thom's system for something like 40 hours, and if the theoretical disadvantages of SUTs that you state are audible, they were not apparent in Thom's system.

My view is that whatever phase anomalies are introduced by a SUT, they are orders of magnitude less than the phase havoc wreaked by the average speaker crossover.

I agree with Thom, that it's futile to generalize about topologies - it's all in the execution. There are good and bad MM and MC cartridges, tube and solid state amps, horn and open baffle speakers, ad infinitum.
Dear Raul,

I take issue with your incessant proselytizing about the evils of step-up transformers.

The fact that you embrace a particular architecture means only that after years of dedication, you have arrived at a solution which works well for you and certainly for many others. This is something to be proud of.

Your fine product however, in NO WAY invalidates alternative system architectures.

There are many of us here - the great unwashed - who in our holistic view of musical reproduction can best connect with music by using vacuum tubes as a conduit to Nirvana.

If the "compromise" in using a vacuum tube based RIAA involves using a step-up transformer, we are fine with that, because in the end, we are making a connection, and this is what it's all about.

Surely, there are some very fine hybrids circuits which minimize our exposure to silicon and dispense with step-ups.

In the end, it's not the architecture, but the end result - connecting with music.

I realize that you are trying to be helpful to the original poster, and I respect your sincerity, but please, please, please ... don't speak in absolutes. Reality cannot be mapped in a linear manner.

Thom @ Galibier
Dear Jonathan: +++++ " To address your comments one by one, yes, distortions will be generated at the core of an SUT, but distortions are also being generated in any MM or MC cartridge (both in the signal core and in other places). " +++++

My point is that I don't have to tolerate additional SUT distortions if exist a better way to go. I don't want to add unnecessary distortions, I'm to mantain at the lower possible level all kind of distortions/noises coming from everywhere. I can't do nothing with the own cartridge distortions ( other than a precise set up ) but I can eliminate the SUT distortions that are really bad.

+++++ " In your recent posts you have noted a preference for cartridges that measure to be poorer than normal in terms of distortion... " +++++

Jonathan, you have to hear the MM Technics cartridge ( maybe you own? ) to understand why I appreciate so much its very high quality performance.

+++++ " Bandwidth of an SUT may not go down to DC, but I have a test transformer on my bench that measures dead-flat down to 10Hz, with a -3dB roll-off of 1Hz. The top end is dead-flat to at least 30kHz (the top-end response after that depends on the load). Far better than any loudspeaker, for sure. " +++++

The issue is not if is better than a speaker, the subject is that it is not enough bandwidth against an active design and the active design has a lot lot lower distortions than the SUT any one including this that you own.

+++++ " Mind you, normally and by preference, I also prefer to design with and use fully active amplification when it comes to phono equalizers. However, I know from first-hand experience that it is possible to design a stepup transformer that at least measures pretty well and sounds reasonable. " +++++

Finally we agree: your preference is through active amplification, this is all about and this is my subject: well designed high gain active amplification!!!!

+++++ " Let's not insist that audiophiles throw out their existing phono amplifiers just to satisfy a technical argument which doesn't appear to be on such solid foundations. " +++++

I can't understand you, first you told me that you prefer active amplification and here you told me that " there is no such solid foundations ".

I know that your first statement ( active amplification ) is what you prefer because I could not understand that a very well respected cartridge designer can " think " in favor of SUT's, certainly not because you and us ( customers ) want the best quality performance from those beloved cartridges.

The subject here it is not if you or any one ( including me ) has the " right " point of view, the subject is how any one could take out the best of a low output cartridge: through an active amplification or through a SUT. It is obvious for you and for me that it is through active amplification.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.