Dynavector XV1s loading & phono

Raul please lay off your dogmatic opposition to step up transformers. We all know you have a vested (commercial) interest in your Essential design (which uses solid state for MC gain).

I have heard Thom's system for something like 40 hours, and if the theoretical disadvantages of SUTs that you state are audible, they were not apparent in Thom's system.

My view is that whatever phase anomalies are introduced by a SUT, they are orders of magnitude less than the phase havoc wreaked by the average speaker crossover.

I agree with Thom, that it's futile to generalize about topologies - it's all in the execution. There are good and bad MM and MC cartridges, tube and solid state amps, horn and open baffle speakers, ad infinitum.

Dear Raul,

I take issue with your incessant proselytizing about the evils of step-up transformers.

The fact that you embrace a particular architecture means only that after years of dedication, you have arrived at a solution which works well for you and certainly for many others. This is something to be proud of.

Your fine product however, in NO WAY invalidates alternative system architectures.

There are many of us here - the great unwashed - who in our holistic view of musical reproduction can best connect with music by using vacuum tubes as a conduit to Nirvana.

If the "compromise" in using a vacuum tube based RIAA involves using a step-up transformer, we are fine with that, because in the end, we are making a connection, and this is what it's all about.

Surely, there are some very fine hybrids circuits which minimize our exposure to silicon and dispense with step-ups.

In the end, it's not the architecture, but the end result - connecting with music.

I realize that you are trying to be helpful to the original poster, and I respect your sincerity, but please, please, please ... don't speak in absolutes. Reality cannot be mapped in a linear manner.

Thom @ Galibier

Dear Jonathan: +++++ " To address your comments one by one, yes, distortions will be generated at the core of an SUT, but distortions are also being generated in any MM or MC cartridge (both in the signal core and in other places). " +++++

My point is that I don't have to tolerate additional SUT distortions if exist a better way to go. I don't want to add unnecessary distortions, I'm to mantain at the lower possible level all kind of distortions/noises coming from everywhere. I can't do nothing with the own cartridge distortions ( other than a precise set up ) but I can eliminate the SUT distortions that are really bad.

+++++ " In your recent posts you have noted a preference for cartridges that measure to be poorer than normal in terms of distortion... " +++++

Jonathan, you have to hear the MM Technics cartridge ( maybe you own? ) to understand why I appreciate so much its very high quality performance.

+++++ " Bandwidth of an SUT may not go down to DC, but I have a test transformer on my bench that measures dead-flat down to 10Hz, with a -3dB roll-off of 1Hz. The top end is dead-flat to at least 30kHz (the top-end response after that depends on the load). Far better than any loudspeaker, for sure. " +++++

The issue is not if is better than a speaker, the subject is that it is not enough bandwidth against an active design and the active design has a lot lot lower distortions than the SUT any one including this that you own.

+++++ " Mind you, normally and by preference, I also prefer to design with and use fully active amplification when it comes to phono equalizers. However, I know from first-hand experience that it is possible to design a stepup transformer that at least measures pretty well and sounds reasonable. " +++++

Finally we agree: your preference is through active amplification, this is all about and this is my subject: well designed high gain active amplification!!!!

+++++ " Let's not insist that audiophiles throw out their existing phono amplifiers just to satisfy a technical argument which doesn't appear to be on such solid foundations. " +++++

I can't understand you, first you told me that you prefer active amplification and here you told me that " there is no such solid foundations ".

I know that your first statement ( active amplification ) is what you prefer because I could not understand that a very well respected cartridge designer can " think " in favor of SUT's, certainly not because you and us ( customers ) want the best quality performance from those beloved cartridges.

The subject here it is not if you or any one ( including me ) has the " right " point of view, the subject is how any one could take out the best of a low output cartridge: through an active amplification or through a SUT. It is obvious for you and for me that it is through active amplification.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

If you're looking for a nice step-up transformer and don't want to break the bank the K&K step-up that uses Lundahl transformers is a bargain ($300 assembled). I used one with a Hagerman Trumpet phono stage with great results. Made me forget all about upgrading to the Bent unit (a great unit but at 2+ x the cost of the K&K).

Dear Flyingred: +++++ " Raul please lay off your dogmatic opposition to step up transformers. We all know you have a vested (commercial) interest in your Essential design (which uses solid state for MC gain). " +++++

If you look to the links that I posted to Thom yo can read that the date of that SUT post was: 10-27-05 ., I'm talking about SUT's ( against its use ) by more than ten years from now ( a way very long very long time before the Essential ).



+++++ " I have heard Thom's system for something like 40 hours, and if the theoretical disadvantages of SUTs that you state are audible, they were not apparent in Thom's system. " +++++

I have heard too ( a month ago ), I reserve my opinion about for the moment.



+++++ " My view is that whatever phase anomalies are introduced by a SUT, they are orders of magnitude less than the phase havoc wreaked by the average speaker crossover. " +++++

Yes, I agree but that fact can't tell me that because of that I don't have to worry about other " small " and very critical distortions at the analog source chain: I have to and I do care about specially with the cartridge signal that goes through a phonolinepreamp, if I can I will try ( always ) to put at minimum all the distortions/noises at the source because after that we only could wait that that distortions/noises go higher. Maybe you can tolerate this but I absolutely NO!!!!!!

Yes, maybe I'm dogmatic about SUT's and the reason is because I take care and I care to achieve for me the best quality sound reproduction from analog/digital source and trying to put at minimum those terrible distortions/noises/frequency shift is one ( between others ) way to make it.

Flyingred, I respect your opinion but my advise ( till today ) to everyone is to stay away far away from SUT's. Now, I'm not the only one that thinks in this way: fortunately there are several designs that today don't use SUT's anymore, high gain active amplification in both sides: tube and SS designs and you and all of us have to be extremely happy that that " trend " design is already happening because is in favor of the MUSIC and in favor to improve the quality sound reproduction, good for that!!!!

I don't think that any music lover ( like you and me ) could be against that welcomed fact.

Regards and enjoy the music.

Raul.