SUT - electrical theory and practical experience

@lewm : What words of this posted statement you just did not understand? :

" 300khz is an exceptional case, normally good SUTs goes to 60khz-100khz "

Now: " It was you who posted the information that your vintage SUTs had such a wide bandwidth "

Wrong, that bandwindth is the exceptional Technics SUT.

Solve what?: your wondering.

Btw, those measures were SUT and added IC cables.

and it’s not for me only that the LOMC cartridges are faster than MM ones: IT’S OBVIOUS. Not for you ok, follow wondering is fine for me.

R.

First of all, when did I say I disagree with you regarding the relative "speed" of the two types of cartridge?  Second, YOU posted the bandwidth of the Technics SUT when you were trying to claim superiority for vintage SUTs over some modern ones.  Yes, it's an actual number, I agree.  You're stuck with it if you want now to argue that the SUT used in the rise time experiment is reducing the apparent rise time of the MC used in conjunction with the SUT.  But like I said (twice at least), we lack data (frequencies, impedances, capacitance, inductance, etc), and whoever performed the measurements should certainly have re-measured the MC cartridge without the SUT in the circuit. 

Yes, I still wonder what you expect me to solve with virtually no data.  To achieve a bandwidth of 300,000Hz (at 0db), a SUT must have a rise time of at least .00000333 seconds.  Is that the solution you are looking for?  It's just a number that solves nothing.

Yes, solves nothing because it's not the real issue. Do you think that any MM cartridge is faster that your MC2000?, today I know that MM are near but still behind LOMC cartridge with an output level no higher than 0.4mv.

Btw, in this week I will pick-up my Denon AU 1000 that rigth now is under measurements mainly bandwindt and distortion levels. We will see.

R.

@rauliruegas 

That gentleman that pass away was a tube lover

Art made his system choices on what gave him the most musical enjoyment and had a large readership of similar minded people.  If those choices do not align with your measurement-centric view of the audio world, maybe it is time to take out the earplugs and actually listen rather than let a device prove to you how good something must sound.

dave

Dear @intactaudio : It’s not that " do not align with your measurements " because the issue is not about just measurements.

All tube phono stages needs/necessary a SUT for LOMC cartridges and the ones active high gain tube ones are around mediocrity even the effort of the designers that’s it’s not the issue too.

If you have enough/deep live MUSIC experiences seated at near field position then you know that tubes and specially in phono stage is not the best alternative but an SS one and if you think it’s rigth then not because I say it but you are way wrong no matters what and I can prove it with facts as I did it in hundreds of threads here and in other internet forums.

I know that I don’t like you but that is up to you, not my problem. I never let that attitude against " some one " let me post with that kind of attitude, normally I’m unbiased about.

I never think to use the information you share about the RIAA deviation of your unit that as I said on the subject goes around mediocrity with that 0.66 db " fligth " in the RIAA that's good for you because is your design but that's a shame for a RIAA phono stage.

R.