Dear Doug: Maybe you are right: it is out of place and no I'm not mis-stated your SUT position: " if you want an active gain phono stage that outperform any SUT you have to pay the price $$ ".
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Gregad: Our Phonopreamp is in no way a Vendetta clone ( with all my respect to JC. ), is is a very different design.
Stay tunned.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Shane: I forgot. About that guy on TNT I can tell you ( with all respect )that he has many misconceptions about SUTs and high gain phonopreamps, I almost can tell you that he does not has experience on HG PP designs. The Accuphase that he named means nothing, but take a look to the pictures of those SUTs ( where he is " very experienced " ) and look for those kind/quality of the wires and the kind of RCA connectors that he is using: Incredible!!!!!
+++++ " . Bass lines are muddy then and drum players seem to play like if they are drunk. " +++++
This statement confirm what I think: that he has very little experience about!!!
Do you trust in his opinion?
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Downunder: +++++ " Besides providing gain, are good quality MC transformers transparent to the signal they are providing the gain to. " +++++
In absolute terms the answer is: NO!!!, it does not matters design or price.
Thom posted that this subject is very contentious one and I think that it is because the people no know-how and because they never had the opportunity to heard the right active gain phonopreamp.
Next are some issues about step-up transformers SUTs:
The SUT is an old patch for bad SS phonopreamps designs and for the inherent limitations on tube phonopreamps for handle low output MC cartridges. It is a " cheap/easy solution to a complex problem ".
Any SUT has many inherent disadvantages like: distortions generated at the core ( it does not matters if is: air core ), heavy phase discharge ( landslide ), high apt to take hum, the wide zone ( band ) can't go down to DC, severe roll-off at high and low frecuencies, the reactive impedance on the SUT is incompatible with the cartridge impedance: this cause that we never could have flat frecuency response when we are using SUT, this mismatch between the impedances promote that the signal that pass through any SUT will be equalized.
Any time with any of you we can make the tests and prove all those disadvantages and others like the additional cables that you have to use, additional connectors, the SUT is an additional ( filters ) link in the analog audio chain.
I want to let clear that there is no single advantage, in any way, using SUT's, any of them.
The SUT always be a : wrong PATCH.
In the past and for many years I was thinking that the SUTs were the best way to go till I learned about. I try almost any SUT out there, in my system or in one that I knew very well, and always corrupted the signal that pass through it, that's why in the last 10-12 years we design and active gain and perfect a phonopreamp with out SUTs: we try every single technology: bipolars, fets, mosfets, tubes, combinations, etc, etc ( btw, Doug: bipolars for MC and fets for MM cartridges ) and this self design is what I'm using for and its quality performance is far away ( very far ) from SUTs design and far from any SS or Tube today comercial design. In our design there are no trade-offs.
There are not many good phonopreamp out there ( and are expensives ) and this is because it is a great challenge to design a good phonopreamp that can achieve targets like: accuracy on RIAA eq. ( inverse ), deviation no more than 0.05db between 20 to 20Khz, enough gain with out noise and distortion free.
The challenge is too big for some phonopreamp designers and they choose the " easy path ": SUTs and you people have to suffer. That's not fair, for you and for the music reproduction.
Regard and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: +++++ " I think Raul should build a prototype and send it to me for evaluation. " *****
I'm thinking very serious about and I think that I will take the " Gregad word " for build a prototype of the Phonopreamp and share/send with some of you this unique experience. Interested??
It is an expensive prototype but I will do!!! Yes.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear David12: +++++ " . There are still compromises with the "ultimate", design, such as the boulder. Perhaps its more interesting to discuss which way you would design the best stage you could build, at any cost, would that be active or transformer based? I don;t know the answer. " +++++
I don't want to speak about Boulder, but you can read the review on Stereophile and if you read it in deep, both parts: subjective and objective/measurements ones, you can see that maybe it is not the " ultimate ". Certainlly by price it is, the phono/line preamp it is only: 46K.
Now, if you take a look around phonopreamps: what do you find?
FM Acoustics, Boulder, Rowland, Pass, Klyne, Levinson, Krell, Aesthethix, Supratek, Gryphon, etc, etc.: all these people choose active gain stages not SUTs Do you think that these " facts " are a good answer to your question?
Do you think that we take 12 years of work with our self active gain design just for fun?
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Swampwalker: +++++ " One additional thought or question I would throw in the mix is this- are there certain upstream or downstream choices that affect the step up vs gain stage decision, all other factors being equal? " +++++
In my opinion, other than money/price, no know-how and poor interest in music quality reproduction I don't think exist any upstream/downstream about. The choice must be active gain stage.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Eldatford: Yes, I agree with you and I respect to every single preferences that have the people.
I'm only given my opinion/answer to an especific Downunder question: " Besides providing gain, are good quality MC transformers transparent to the signal they are providing the gain to?. "
I think that the question here is not which proponents exist about the subject but which way is best for achieve a better quality music reproduction.
I know that are many SUT proponents but that does not means they are right about. The SUT is an easy way to hide bad designs, but the medicine ( SUT ) is worst than the illness ( bad design ) because to a bad design you have to add another disadvantage named: SUT. My advise is that the SUT proponentes have to learn about. Like Tom say: " Knowledge is power. "
Btw, ++++ " some prefer transformer-coupled amplifier stages over capacitors " +++++, as you know this statement ( both designs ) is the non right way, the right way is: direct coupled amplifier that is always a challenge for the designers.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Swampwalker: +++++ " I was not thinking so much of an attempt to compensate, rather a better interaction btwn either an SUT or a gain stage with a certain kind of cartridge or line stage.... " +++++
Your way of thinking is right on target. No one in his healthy brain sanity can speaks about the use of SUT for compensate for some problems over the audio chain.
" interaction "/ synergy that's the name of the game in audio. The SUT certainly has no synergy with cartridges and that's why we have to go for active gain stages. The SUT is the " easy " way to hide bad phonopreamp designs. These bad designs add a bad medicine ( SUTs ) trying " to help " but the SUT not only does not help but increment/continue the signal degradation. The source of the problem is in the origin: bad design.
" Interaction with line stage ": in my opinion the active gain phono stage must be integrated with the line stage, in this way we can have a better synergy. Of course we could go for and stand alone/external active gain phono stage but here we can lost synergy, not only because we need additional cables and connectors that function like filters/veils to the signal reproduction but because the phono stage could comes from a manufacturer different from the line stage one.
Well as you can see this is a very complex problem. That's why I post about SUTs: " a cheap solution to a very complex problem ".
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Eldartford: Great!!!!
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Doug: ++++++ " At ultimate performance levels, however, it is now my belief that a properly implemented gain stage will outplay any trannie. " +++++
After all that time and after several post by your self about how good were the SUTs and after several discussion against/with me now your mind change in favor of active gain phono stages: good.
This is only for the records ( no argument about, please.): it is what you post about:
+++++ " For the record:
- some of us love them
- some of us tolerate them
- one of us hates them with a fiery passion. " +++++
" one of us hates.... ", that's me. It is nice to " see " that I'm not in the wrong road after all.
Like the people say here in Mexico: " the time put everything and every one on the right place ".
Doug, those fets on the MC stage...??????
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Gregadd: Yes, across the bandwidth. Btw, We do some changes on our phonopreamp design/parts and now we have the " final " one I will write the update info about. Stay tunned.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Gregad: This is a quick resume of some info about my phonopreamp:
- In reality our phonopreamp have three preamps instead of only one:
it has and MC phono stage, it has a MM phono stage and a line level stage
preamp. All this three stages are totally independent from each other. We don't do any compromise, the
MC and MM
stages are very critical and needs to be independent.
- Our design is a Zero-feedback ( no overall and no local feedback ),
direct coupled, pure class A , true balanced input to output, dual mono
design and fully regulated input to output with dual external power supply.
To round off the preamplifier's RIAA capabilities, we have introduced a
switchable 3.18 us turnover point to compensate for the cutting head
preemphasis roll-off.
There is also a low-cut filter designed to remove unwanted rumble
frequencies, selectable between DC, 16 and 32 Hz.
- RIAA eq. deviation from 20 Hz to 20 Khz: 0.02 db
Frequency range to: DC to 2 MHz.
Clean gain: Adjustable to 100 db
Signal to noise ratio: better than 82 db
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Gregadd: Well, this is a mature phonopreamp design, part of our 10-12 years of hard/fun working about: testing and hearing, testing and hearing, etc, etc.
We use the best pasive and active parts ( not necessary the more expensive ones ), other than the desing it self we take care all over the whole " instrument ( phonopream ): our ultralow noise circuitry was specifically designed for very low output moving-coil cartridges. The outstanding CMRR of 120 dB at the input stage will reject any interference not present at the audio signal generated by the cartridge, ground plane design , ultra low noise power supply ( better than an alkalyne battery, at least in our design ) that is solid " steady " one: it has more than 40,000 uf of capacitance , bullet proof whole circuit protection, four layers circuit boards, very precise ( almost perfect ) circuit board lay out, good design execution, extremely trusty operation, no internal wires where the signal pass through ( every component is direct soldered to the circuit boards ), etc, etc, etc.. We don't left nothing to " destiny ".
Our phonopreamp had some " old/new " ideas, examples: all the best preamps use at their volume/attenuator a serie's resistors ( it does not matters if they choose doing through relays or ladder attenuators design ), at least two por volume position, in our design the signal pass ONLY for one resistor at any attenuator position.
Our design is a Current Drive one and this allow that the volume control attenuates the audio signal and the stage noise at the same time, resulting in outstanding signal-to-noise ratios and dynamic range.
Our whole design permit to have a preamplifier combining
the purity and transparency of a passive preamplifier with the speed, dynamics and drive of an active preamplifier.
What happen when you hear through our phonopream: SS signature? Tube signature?, not at all, only real music with all the music emotion.
Through our phonopreamp we have not only a different musical experiences but a new emotional one that we never experienced and that we even don't know it could exist in any audio system at any design/price.
Yes we are extremely proud of what we achieve over those working years.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: Here are some facts about why exist the SUTs for LO cartridges ( at least is my point of view ):
- In the fifthies appear the MC LO cartridges ( As a fact: Ortofon invented in 1948. ). In that time all the phonopreamps were designed for HO cartridges MM/MI/etc. No one was in the design of high gain PP because no body need it.
- Ortofon and latter other MC LO cartridges never ask to the PP designers/builders to manufacture a high gain PP for their MC LO cartridges. What I mean is that never exist a cooperation job between the MC LO builders and the PP manufacturers.
- What was the comercial attitude of almost all MC LO cartridges builders?: to put on sale their MC LO cartridges along with a SUTs ( designed for it self ) for those MC LO cartridges.
- I can remember from Ortofon when they design the MC10, MC 20, Mc 30, Mc 2000, Mc 3000 and MC 5000, cartridges at the same time they offer the respective SUT: T 10, T 20, T 30, T 5000.
- Like Ortofon everybody do the same: Denon, Audiocraft, Fidelity Research, Koetsu, Micro Seiki, Accuphase, Dynavector, Highphonic, Audio Technica, Entre, etc, etc.
- In the mid-time what does the PP designers ( SS or tube ) for the development of a high gain PP?: almost nothing, almost all take the easy " cheap road " ( wrong/worst one ): that the customers buy SUTs along with their PP if they want to handle a LO cartridge. Some of the PP designers/builders incorporate in their " high gain " PP internal SUTs, exactly like today ones.
- No body take the challenge to design a HG PP with out SUTs. There are some exceptions: Curl, Levinson, Pass, Klyne, Classé, D'angostino, etc, etc,
- So we all are suffering the " easy road/ wrong road " that almost all designers/builders take it more than 55 years ago.
- All those comercial attitude never take into account us: the audio customers and never take into account the QUALITY MUSIC/SOUND REPRODUCTION. They don't care about in those times and many of them don't care about today.
Fortunatelly, in the last few years, some PP builders finally take the challenge ( others like me designed our self ones ) and we have some very good HG PP, many of them at very high price.
This change of comercial attitude: Bravo!!!!!!, could tell us that the best about is coming because the developtment of HG PPs are really " starting ", it is not a mature industry.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Gregadd: Well that is yout point of view and I respect it.
I never speak about " lazy " but now that you are mentioned maybe some of them were lazy. I speak about " they don't care about music and quality sound reproduction ".
If you like the SUTs go a head, no problem: is up to you. My point of view is still the same: " a cheap/easy/wrong/worst solution for a complex problem " and I can prove it. Can you prove that the SUT is a better solution ( better quality music reproduction ) than a good high gain phonopreamp design?.
You are a wise person and I can't understand why do you have that attitude of " SUT/designers protector?. The proponents of the SUTs are against you and against all of us: can you understand that?
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Gregad: Two things, first my mistake about RIAA eq. deviation, it has to say: 0.1 db instead 1 db. ( big difference ).
About the Manley S/N you have to compare with the fixed output at 65 db gain: 70 db.
About the Vendetta, that was a criticism in the very early models ( many years ago ). The actual CTC ( that inbody the Vendetta ) is very good.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Onhwy61: First my opinion is not a mere " my opinion ", there are facts objective facts about. Of course that I accept that people may disagree with me, no problem about.
But this SUT case is really critical for only " accept " opinions with out objective facts.
I think that all of us take some learning through this kind of dialogue and I put an example from a person that I respect: this very enthusiastic person always defend the SUT against my opinion about, through the time he grow up ( very fast ) and now he own a high gain phonopreamp and today he knows that is really better than the SUTs that he defended.
This is what is all about. If we can grow up in our audio hobby then we are on the " right road ". Don't you think?
Btw, I can't see on your audio systems any SUT: Good!!!!
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Doug: You are welcome!!
The other two alternatives ( best ones ) that they have are:
- HO MC and
- MM cartridges.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Gregad: I almost agree with all your statements but: 80-100 db S/N ratio ( unweighted ), there is no posibility to achieve this spec on and MC high gain phonopreamp.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Shane: I have a great respect for Tim De Paravancini and for their products but here the issue is not on the name of the designer or the design it self ( SS or tubes ): the issue is that any ( good design ) high gain phonopreamp that use SUTs for achieve that high gain with low noise do more harm to the quality signal that comes from the cartridge that a high gain phonopreamp ( good design ) that don't use SUTs ( active gain designs ).
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Gregm: +++++ " . But let's face it: as Gregadd seems to imply, a good tranny, while expensive, is nowhere near the cost and rarerity of an outstanding fully active 80-100db riaa. " +++++
Well, a Manley Steelhead or a Lamm one are not inexpensive units: both use SUTs and , here, you have to pay for it. Yes, a good Phonopreamp with out SUTs is more expensive.
+++++ " If what Raul is to make sense, he is using a very well stabilised active circuit and he's using his components in their optimum operating region. That's difficult and painstaking to design and implement ... " ++++
Absolutely, that's why is so expensive and it is not only a money issue it is deep knowledge about.
We love music and we love to care about its home reproduction. We love to have almost perfect targets about and we love and take the hard challenge: it is exaiting, fun and extremly emotive/emotional experiences about.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Gregad: +++++ " This means that we need a preamp with about 60-80db gain in the phono stage.Agree Y/N?
Optimally we also need about 80-100db S/N ratio(unweighted). AgreeY/N? " +++++
I think that you forgot to the most important characteristic in a Phonopreamp: we need a phonopreamp because the PP is the only audio device that can reproduce in the right way the cartridge signal due to mimic the inverse RIAA eq. The specs here is, which is the RIAA eq. deviation?: I think that has to be in no more than 1 db ( +,- 0.5 db ), ours is 0.02 db.
Btw, our S/N ratio ( MC ) is 82.5 db A weighted refered to 0.5 mv.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Clio09: +++++ " Both these designers make outstanding phono stages and I'm sure they would never recommend something that is proven to compromise the sound of their designs. " +++++
These gentleman, like many others, make their designs with a price target and they make their design inside that price target. This " limited/inadequate " price target put a lot of compromises in the quality sound reproduction of the audio devices and in this case they have to make compromises in the quality sound reproduction using SUTs. Of course that they can do better but they choose their trade-offs.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Shane: I never said thet the SUTs are bad, what I said is that any SUT design at any price do severe degradation to the quality of the signal that comes from the cartridge and that a PP design with out SUTs is a lot better that one with SUTs.
+++++ " I think as a few of the guys in the thread here have stated - it all depends on the design, the listener's musical preference and current tonal qualities of his system and budget. " +++++
If you want to use it like equalizers, fine it is up to you or up to any one but trying to cover faulties in the audio chain through SUTs is a double mistake!!!!!!!
The transformers exist before the LO cartridges and that transformers were not designed taking in account the LO cartridges. Someone take the transformers, like a patch, and introduce to us in audio: very bad play.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Onhwy61: +++++ " If growing up means becoming as dogmatic and narrow-minded as you are regarding this issue, then I don't want to grow up. " +++++
I don't think I'm dogmatic and certainly not narrow-minded.
In the last 10-12 years we try/test different alternatives for our AHG PP: SS, tubes, hybrid, Fets, Bipolars, Suts, no Suts, etc, etc.
Can you call this narrow-minded and dogmatic?
Now, what is all about?. You agree with me about SUTs.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: Shane is right: it is not a cheap unit.
Our Phonopreamp are in " true " three preamps: one MC, one MM and one Line level stage, all independent. Now, the three are true balanced input to output, this means that in reality they are: 6 single ended stages!!!!!
In other words: six preamps in one integrated unit!!!!!!
Right now I'm out of home in a business trip. I return at the middle of the next week and I would like to make a plan for the " hearing " of that Phonopreamp.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul |
Dear gregad and Downunder: I would like to know your address. Btw, if any one is interested about please e-mail your address.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
