MC TRANSFORMERS VS TUBE PRE PRE

Darkmoebius-how long does it take for mc transformers to break in? I didn't like mine the first time I heard them. I probably have 50 hours at the most on them now and they sound the same-real "nice" if you don't know any better. There is a "jump" factor with the SA-2 that the Sowters' couldn't approach if they were wired to a defibrillator. I was really hoping the transformers would sound at least as good as the SA-2 because it would simplify my life by removing tubes from my system. The SA-5.1 uses 8 tubes, the SA-2 uses 8 tubes, and my Quicksilver MS-190 uses 15 tubes in lucky serial #7 (the very early MS-190s only used a single rectifier tube vice two in the later versions) and my "newer" Quicksilver MS-190 uses 16 tubes. I normally use lucky #7 only because according to Mike, the very first MS-190s sound better because of the single rectifer tube and better output transformers. The bottom line is that I am maintaining 31 tubes in my system. And of course the 4 69J8/6922 tubes in the gain stage of the SA-2 have to be very low noise tubes which means they are the most expensive grade to buy.

Mpearson,

You hit it with the jump factor comment. IMO you just can't get this with transformers. I've not tried the Kondo or ultra expemsive Audio Note... but have tried the moderately priced AN ,EAR,jensen and some highly touted microphone transformers too. Quiet and dull was my impression. They were of the correct turns ratio for the cartridge to see the right impedence.

Some will like this eery "undynamic" sound that is quiet. However, I fall into the active camp. At the twilight of the LP during the mid-late 80's many high end designs, "classics" were put to rest: the Sp-10, SA-2,Roger Modjeski's RM-4.... As the industry went to line stages for CD and add on phono for LP for the loonie fringe, lack of demand resulted in an absence of good thoughtful design(transformers) for active stages . Now there is a rennisance and some very good active stages are available.

For example, just listen to the Manley steelhead with and without the transformers,even though there's solid state devices in the path, the difference without transformers is not subtle.

For the SA-2 the soviet 6h23n is a good rugged tube that is quiet and works well. The 6dj8's are paralleled for each channel to form a giant triode of sorts with better S/N ratio. Roger Modejeski RAM labs can supply ultra quiet tubes at a price. The original Yugo's were not bad tubes either.

I used the Bent Audio MU's with my old preamp. A great product for the money and John Chapman is a great guy.

I use a solid state Gram Slee "Elevator-EXP" transformerless stepup(+21.5dB) into a GS Era Gold mkV phono preamp. It provides excellent gain while being dead quiet. I've never had the chance to compare it to a quality MC transformer stepup, but amp not sure it's worth the effort.

I am, though, seriously thinking of getting a tube phono, Art Audio Vinyl One is at the top of my list(because I have their PX-25) and the Wright Sound AG-phono.

Dear Mepearson: I agree with you and with the music lovers that think that the step-up transformers are not the right way to go. This what I already posted about some where:

+++++ " 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 " chip 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 ( yes, exactly like the problems between tube amplifier and loudspeakers because of those impedances ).
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 ( filter ) link in the analog audio chain: How can you love it? !!!!!!!!!!!

I want to let clear that there is no single advantage, in any way, using SUT's, any of them: it does not matters their design or price.

The SUT always be a : wrong PATCH. " +++++

+++++ " Dear friends: I'm not against the SUT " per se ", I'm against what the SUT makes to the cartridge signal: heavy degradation.

I like many of you used the SUT for many years till I discovery that the best SUT is NO SUT. I already try severals SUT's and all of them do a severe degradation to the cartridge signal.

Maybe some of you can think that an Audio NOte Kondo or Expressive Technologies SUT's don't have any problem: wrong, all SUT's have the same problems and all of them degraded the cartridge signal.

We have to understand that the low output MC cartridges was not build " thinking " in a low gain phonopreamps ( tube or SS ). The low gain phonopreamps like yours is only for CD, high output MC and MM cartridges ( btw: Music Maker, Sumiko and Audio Technica have great cartridges too ).
Tha's why I can tell you that if you have a low gain phono stage with a low output MC cartridge: you choose the wrong cartridge to go. For any one can enjoy and discover ( really enjoy ) the " magic " quality sound reproduction of a low output MC cartridge any one needs a high-gain phono preamp, with out any PATCH ( external/internal SUT/Autoformer. With out any mis-match between cartridge impedance and SUT that equalized the cartridge signal, always. ) ) no question about. " +++++

+++++ " 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.

- 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. " +++++

IMHO the SUT can't compete with a well designed high-gain integrated Phonolinepreamp ( with out any additional cables/connectors between the phono and line stages. Those additional cables/connectors always make a signal degradation: adding veils to de sound reproduction. )

Your SA-2 was a benchmark on those times.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.