2. analog
  3. 169469-3674

SUT Advice - Which Ones Are The Best?

I am currently in research mode.  I want to add a SUT to my set-up but I am finding that there is not a lot of information from my local audio shop resources.  It seems that SUTs are outliers in the high end audio world.  
That said, I have read several articles in magazines and the web touting their merits.
Of all the brands out there I am most familiar with Bob's Devices.  Art Dudley wrote many good things about his experiences with Bob's SUTs, and I happen to trust Art (God rest his soul), but I'm wondering if there are others I should consider as well.  Please post your recommendations if you have experience with any SUTs, regardless of brand.
As for my set-up, I have a SME 20/2 turntable, Tri-Planer tone arm, Lyra Kleos cartridge, and KTE LCR Mk5 Phono preamp.  I do not know if I will always use a Kleos cartridge but I do think I will always buy low output MC carts.  I hope to buy something that will work with low output MCs but have some adjustability just in case.
I'd love to hear your recommendations.
Thanks!
Peter
snackeyp
three_easy_payments's avatar
three_easy_payments
2,097 posts
 
I think in a perfect world @rauliruegas is correct...the goal is to simplify the signal path and not add a SUT if at all possible. The problem is that unless you're using a top-tier SUT there is a good chance that a quality SUT combined with the MM-stage may outperform the onboard MC stage.  I have seen this in many of my phono stages but I've never owned a truly high-end phono.  A/B comparisons in my gear history shows improvements to SQ when using a SUT.
itsjustme
682 posts
 
Not to be difficult, but to get everyone on board with the simple facts rather than vague goals of "simple signal path": 


how does replacing many active components with one passive component, that in fact performs an impedance transformation rather than delivering pure voltage again, "simplify" the signal path???  In my view it vastly complicates it.

if you think an MC RIAA stage is a single stage, you are generally mistaken. It's a bunch of gain stages -and from MC to line in, typically three, with each having multiple active devices. Both the aggregate gain and number of stages can be reduced by placing the RIAA filters in the feedback loop of quite a hgih gain and complex stage, but now we have introduced a complex, global feedback loop which i personally find undesireable.


vs ONE passive device.  yea, it has complications too, but its much simpler.
three_easy_payments's avatar
three_easy_payments
2,097 posts
 
@itsjustme   Excellent points!
rauliruegas
13,125 posts
 
Dear @antigrunge2 : I’m with you because it’s what you are listening but with all respect to ZYX and obviously to you if the Artisan+SUT outperforms the Artisan MC stage then what you need is not a SUT but a better phono stage design.

The Artisan has to many gain stages ( 4 ), not very good RIAA deviation with a 0.4db swing: to high, input resistor wound by hand by ZYX: sorry again those resistors can’t compare its quality levels to Vishay or Caddok that are non-inductive like the ZYX ones.

I can’t argue against what you like and only point out some " high-ligths " that came from its design.

Take a look to the KTE MK1 ( the OP owns the MK5 that’s way better yet. ) that is the Valav LCR 1 in this shoot-out:

http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/LCR-RIAA-shootout.htm

a picture of the MK5:

https://www.kitsunehifi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/LCR1-MK5-3-scaled.jpg

Engineering design level, parts selection design, circuit boards design and excecution quality of that design makes a difference in active high gain phono stages. Not all are almost the same.

R.



tomic601's avatar
tomic601
13,164 posts
 
+++ for the Clayton products mentioned above when going the SUT route to bliss
More to discover