Recommendations for MM Phono ~ Tube or Solid State

@lewm 

SUTs are far from perfect, and each introduces its own unique set of compromises. Transformers too come with intrinsic limitations, and the choices in materials, core design, and winding configurations have significant sonic impact. 

This is probably why well-engineered SUTs command high prices—they attempt to push their physical limitations as far as possible. In a sense, every SUT’s design is a balancing act between trade-offs, and some listeners value the character that each transformer’s unique “flaws” can bring to the sound. 

Dear @lalitk : " explore and experience the two most prolific ways to get that sensitive MC signal to the phono stage. "

I know the issue is not a " tiresome " debate however what you post and posted technically is not true it’s false or have severe misunderstood. Example:

 

" customized SUT can offer unique advantages in sound reproduction, especially if you’re aiming for transparency and musicality without coloration. "

Look customized or not has no single advantages and be customized is another

disadvantagedue that you can only play with that cartridge or some extremely similar cartridge.

 

Other example:

 

" what others have experienced; elevated level of high performance that can come from integrating a customized SUT + MM phono stage. "

 

Elevated level of high performance, this statement is false too or untrue along that what others listened is/are in way different room/systems and with different MUSIC/sound priorities and some in reality don’t cares deep on MUSIC and its reproduction as you want it.

 

Other example:

 

" MM stage typically has lower gain requirements compared to an MC (Moving Coil) stage, which can lead to a quieter noise floor. By using a quality SUT, the low-level output of an MC cartridge is boosted passively, reducing the reliance on active electronics in the phono stage. This can result in a cleaner, more refined signal that’s less prone to noise and interference. "

 

Technically those information is untrue too. Maybe 10 years ago and depending of the SS whole design phono stages the differences in noise floor were around 6db between MC and MM not today. In our unit and at high gain ( yje worst scenario ) difference between MC and MM noise level is lower than 1db and the noise level is way over 80db: you can’t detect or be aware of that kind of dead noise levels and in any way affects the cartridge signal in the active SS units.

 

Now I will try to explain additional information we need to know:

 

Do you know why exist the SUT even that it’s not the optimal aternative for a LOMC cartridge’? :

 

When MC cartridges started to be offered to the analog market just does not existed SS Active High Gain phono stages even all the LOMC manufacturers offered the cartridge and their SUT as its couple and that’s why exist so many vintage good SUTs designs as : Ortofon, Fidelity Research, Audio Note, Pioneer, Entré, Technics, Final, Audio Technica, Excel, Denon, Yamaha, Koetsu, Supex Micro Seiki, Luxman, Dynavector and many others and some of them not only compete with any and I say any today SUT but outperforms it.

In those old times the SS phono stages came with integrated SUT in the circuit board till started to appears the SS and a few tube active high gain phono stages but the audiophiles were accustom to SUT not because were better but because were just accustom too and I have to say that the first Active High Gain phono stages were not at today very high quality levels.

 

 

" the low-level output of an MC cartridge is boosted passively, reducing the reliance on active electronics in the phono stage. This can result in a cleaner, more refined signal that’s less prone to noise and interference. " "

 

First the SUT is really an active unit because " react " to the cartridge input signal it’s not passively as you think.

 

Reliance on active electronics? really? that’s not exactly true but a mistake for your part and NO the SUT been active the its signal IT IS NOT CLEANER AND NOT MORE REFINED than an SS active high gain designs.

In those all is common sense and I already posted more than one time that the true short cartridge signal path in active SS unit is way way superior to all the added obstacles with external ( any ) SUTs.

 

Again any additional link to the cartridge signal CAN NOT NEVER IMPROVE THE CARTRIDGE SIGNAL IN ANY WAY AND ONLY CAN DEGRADES THAT LOVELY CARTRIDGE SIGNAL.

 

This is not rocket science. Please only think in this post, is all what you need.

 

Yes, I respect what you want and I’m only trying to help you. If you accept this kind of help is up to yoo and remember that this is not about me but about to favor the cartridge signal MUSIC.

 

And please remember the true technically and pragmatic severe frequency response range LIMITATIONS where against an active SS unit you can't have more transparency, nuances pr complete signal because those severe FR LIMITATIONS in any SUT dedicated or not.

 

R.

 

 

 

I think I posted earlier that the first time I became aware of MC cartridges was in the mid 70s, when the Supex cartridge came into the US market. The problem was that few of the existing phono stages had sufficient gain. Within no more than a year of the introduction of the Supex, Mark Levinson (and John Curl) introduced the first ML product, the JC1, which was a pre-preamplifier or "head amp". It was a little solid state box that simply added gain to boost the output of the Supex and I suppose other LOMCs that may have already been available. In my memory, living in Connecticut at the time, I had not yet heard or read about any SUT, but I am sure that the Japanese were ahead of us in that department, at that time. ML was just a kid then based in Woodbridge, CT, outside New Haven where I grew up. That’s the way I remember it. The Supex was highly praised by TAS and Harry Pearson. When later I heard one, I thought it was mediocre at best, certainly not as good as my favorite MM and MI cartridges, at that time.

I have never owned a SUT, but I have heard some systems of very high quality that incorporated SUTs, really good ones designed and built by Dave Slagle of EMIA, that were very satisfying. Nothing to criticize there.

I'm thinking of selling my Modwright PH9.0 and going with Aric Audio's MM stage.

Simplify the signal path and all that.

I have a Hashimoto SUT.

“I have heard some systems of very high quality that incorporated SUTs, really good ones designed and built by Dave Slagle of EMIA, that were very satisfying”

@lewm 

Thanks for your sharing your experience. You obviously have been at this game longer than me, so your opinion matters to me. In upcoming months, I am going to decide which approach yields the best possible sound within the scope of my system. No matter what I end up keeping, it’s going to be lot of learning and I hope to have some fun along the way. 

Right now, I am anxiously waiting to take possession of a MM/MC tube phono from Japan. It appears to be well built, uses my favorite tubes (12AX7 or ECC803S) and have an option to select between Low and High gain for MC Cart.