lewm
As I mentioned/hoped, others should catch any mistakes I made. Thanks for pointing out OP’s particular phono stage resistance is 68k, not 47k (my errant assumption was ’normal’ 47k).
My initial and specific answer ’x factor 14’ is far from complicated. (into 68k, I now say x factor 16)
Then I yapped about how I came to that conclusion. That’s complicated.
Get a SUT with optional loading is not complicated advice.
Find a SUT that fits your existing or future cartridge’s specs is complicated.
...........................................
The yap (here and prior) was for OP and/or anybody following to be able to figure this out on their own.
It’s inverse: The higher the x factor, the lower the resultant impedance ’shown’ to phono stage will be. OP’s cartridge .4mv signal strength and coil impedance of 7 is a particular challenge.
Many people love that cartridge. Some, not all, know what their phono mc stage or their SUT is doing. Sounds good, great. OP is asking what might work for him, using a SUT.
OP started with Too High as his problem. He needs to determine HOW HIGH a final signal strength is ok for his system, to get the resultant impedance low. (even lower to work withhis phono stage’s 68k impedance).
x factor 16 = 6.4 mv signal strength, his 68k phono stage increases the resultant impedance to 265.
x faxtor 18 = 7.2 mv ..... resultant impedance lowers to 209.
IS 7.2 mv tooo high?
OP’s 68k phono stage impedance exacerbates the problem, it raises OP’s/ANY coil’s resultant impedance by 45%. (68k divided by 47k = 1.45)
x factor 14. into ’normal’ 47k: resultant impedance ’shown’ is 240. into 68k that is 345 (+45%)
The basic way to lower ANY coil’s resultant impedance shown to ANY phono stage: is by increasing the x factor which increases the xfs, which lower the impedance shown.
Precisely the problem here, as the OP is needing a lower x factor to solve his phono stage’s ’too high’ signal boost, while needing low resultant impedance shown.
..................................................
Resistors: as I said, I don't understand that, but it appears to be the way to more precisely solve this.