MC transformers - what do they sound like?

I think Raul should build a prototype and send it to me for evaluation.

Raul's system should be called "Shiva". All those arms!

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. There are some exceptions: Curl, Levinson, Pass, Klyne, Classé, D'angostino, etc, etc,

- 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.

Fortunatelly, in the last few years, some PP builders finally take the challenge ( others like me designed our self ones ) and we have some very good HG PP, many of them at very high price.

This change of comercial attitude: Bravo!!!!!!, could tell us that the best about is coming because the developtment of HG PPs are really " starting ", it is not a mature industry.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

transformers were chosen because they are inherently quieter not because the designers were lazy. they were some aggresive pps' like the marcof.

Dear Gregadd: Well that is yout point of view and I respect it.

I never speak about " lazy " but now that you are mentioned maybe some of them were lazy. I speak about " they don't care about music and quality sound reproduction ".

If you like the SUTs go a head, no problem: is up to you. My point of view is still the same: " a cheap/easy/wrong/worst solution for a complex problem " and I can prove it. Can you prove that the SUT is a better solution ( better quality music reproduction ) than a good high gain phonopreamp design?.

You are a wise person and I can't understand why do you have that attitude of " SUT/designers protector?. The proponents of the SUTs are against you and against all of us: can you understand that?

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.