MC phono stage without transformer?

Ron, I'm sure that you are enjoying your system's performance and maybe what I posted could help you to think and try to improve it.

No doubt Raul genuinely cares for everyone here to enjoy the music but such a comment implies that his way is ultimately the only way to improve the system.

I have read many A'gon threads where a few regular members have politely bashed SUT's with the claims of distortions, clipped dynamics, marginal capability to correctly load a cartridge, etc., etc. Having little experience with SUTs, I put this in the back of my mind until I would get the opportunity to hear an SUT. Actually, the BAT VK-P10 that I owned a few years ago had an internal SUT and it did indeed clip the dynamics a little bit but otherwise it sounded mighty good. I did not need the extra gain so I kept this switched out.

Recently I took delivery of the Aria WV preamp. This is designed by Michael Elliot the designer of the famed Counterpoint SA-9 and SA-11. In the SA-9, he used JFET's on the MC input and then drove this into a tube stage. Later on he provided SUTs, first Jensen and more recently Sowter 8055's to replace the JFET input. Gain here was 20db.

Michael Elliot has written that he will not go back to a JFET input as they have their own set of problems. And in his opinion, tubes are just not appropriate for the MC input stage due to the noise issue. Like all the designers discussed here, he has taken his own road here and has clearly achieved much success.

The WV uses the Sowter 8055. This was chosen after comparing several others in a blind shootout. He discusses this here.

This is an internal implementation with some optimizations in the WV for this device. One advantage too is the elimination of an IC which I have found to be very significant and an often overlooked link in the chain. Any claims that one can not optimize cartridge loading are dismissed here as the WV provides a pair of RCA jacks for cartridge loading to any desired value. No internal toggle switches or jumpers or soldering is required.

I have been listening with the WV for 3 months now. As a preliminary report here, I have concluded that the negative generalizations about SUTs by many people do not apply with the WV's implementation. Compared to an Aesthetix Io Signature, the WV with the Sowters does not constrain dynamics at all. In fact the WV exceeds the Io in this regard. But this is not an Io strength anyway. If I use a highly modified ARC MCP-33 (a top-performer in the dynamic contrast scene) into the WV's MM input, the WV's SUT MC input easily holds its own against the ARC in dynamics.

As well received as the ARC was 20 years ago, it had a captive power cord, was used with an interconnect that nobody would tolerate today, and had a circuit board of mediocre passive parts. With much of this updated, this MCP-33 is in a whole new world. And still, the WV with its lowly SUT is mighty impressive with the dynamics. As for distortions, low-level resolution and noise level, the performance here is at a level the MCP-33 does not come close to achieving. And yet there is an appeal to the MCP-33's sound in how it portrays harmonic textures, particularly piano. A return to the WV's SUT input and there is a loss of some of this "bloom" and yet the significant level of clarity and openness with the WV makes one quickly forget about it.

To go throw my stash of 6DJ8/6922/7308 tubes and find the lowest noise tubes, I can get the ARC's noise level quite low. And with a hand-picked quad of 12ax7's for the Io's input stage, I got this mighty quiet too. But the noise level with the WV's SUT's is a whole new world as well. There are clearly compromises in any of these options.

Once I get the Counterpoint SA-2 updated with the same parts as used in the WV, I will have another data point on how a tubed MC compares with the WV's SUT MC input.

The WV's experience has educated me that much of the generalizations that I have read here about SUTs is just not true. I kept the Io and the rebuilt ARC and the older SA-2 just in case. But in the final analysis, the internal SUT option at $200 might end up being the greatest value, other than the $25 pair of Amperex 7062 pinched waist tubes for the WV, that I have found in a long time.

It's been a long time that I have heard a solid-state based phono stage. All that I heard, Spectral, Klyne, Threshold and Krell years ago were simply too sterile and dimensionally flat. No doubt this is not universally true for many solid-state phono stages of today, so I'll try to keep an open mind here. But for now, I'm very impressed with the implementation of the Sowters in the WV.

John

Dear John: +++++ " No doubt Raul genuinely cares for everyone here to enjoy the music but such a comment implies that his way is ultimately the only way to improve the system. " +++++

Certainly not, there are many " roads " to arrive Rome ( this is what the people here in Mexico say: something like a " slogan " I don't know the right word. ).

As you can read in this thread an else where different people have different aproach for the very same target ( who achieve in a better way? that's up to you after hearing those different " approaches ". ). I read ( in deep ) everything about Elliot's WV designs ( I owned the SA-2 and heard many times even in my home the 9/11 designs. I respect M. Elliot for its contribution over the years to the audio high end industry, no doubt about. ) where I can't find nothing that can/could tell me that the SUT solution is the right way to go, what I read is that he chooses that " road " that he must to believe on it against other " roads " ( something curious: in the website we can read everything including almost all design specifications but the must critical: RIAA eq. deviation, that is IMHO of paramount importance and one of the reasons why the Phono stages exist. ). Btw, one thing that will be important on that website is to tell us with which audio system ( better yet: on which different audio systems. ) he made the SUTs voicing.

Any " road " you choose has trade-offs ( till today nothing is perfect ), many times not because inherent design but for limitation performance on some parts ( either SS or tube devices ), the better you choose those trade-offs the better quality performance you can achieve.

M. Elliot speaks about the problems ( trade-offs ) to design with Jfets/tube ( input ) devices ( that's why he goes for SUTs. ) but other people ( like Ralph ) find out and fix those troubles ( from his point of view ) in its whole balanced/differential approach very different from Elliot's one.

I ( we ) decided that the best " road " to make justice to an MC low output cartridge ( and inverse RIAA eq ) is SS way and not only that but the best amplifier devices ( here ) are bi-polar transistors ( not Jfet/ Mosfet. ), we take a very " hard " road ( and the people with the in deep electronic design know-how could understand what I mean about. ) to do it: bipolar are a " pain in the ass " surrounded with a lot of operation issues ( that's why almost no one choose them on this particular item designs. ) but if you fix those " issues " IMHO is truly very good road for a whole Phonolinepreamp design.

I respect any single design out there and the fact that I don't agree with their designs whole approach does not means are not totally valid for other people.

There are many " miles " to go on in the Phonolinepreamp whole future designs, the good news is that there are some people/designers who cares about quality performance on music reproduction and this could means that we have to wait for real improvements about.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Raul...Slightly off topic, but what is the reason that you put such great importance in exact RIAA equalization. There are no loudspeakers which have the kind of frequency response which you claim is essential. How accurate are the RIAA networks that are used when records are cut?

I, for one, did not read Raul's comment as implying that his way was the only way. I believe, as he states above, that he was simply hoping that something in what he said would lend some perspective that might render some future improvement.

Obviously, there are innumerable ways to approach a high gain phono stage, all of which present significant challenges and trade offs. IMHO, rather than concluding a king of the hill design approach, the value of this wonderful thread is in shedding light on the many roads to Rome.

Dear Eldartford: +++++ " My experience suggests that, at an "affordable" price point a step-up transformer makes sense. " +++++

IMHO more than " make sense " : " you have no choice ".

I'm always against " mediocrity " and very special on music reproduction at any link/level on the audio chain. You know, José, Guillermo and I choose to design a Phonolinepreamp/tonearm not just for fun but because we think and our experiences tell us that the most critical links ( all links are important, no doubt about ) in the analog rig are the Phonolinepream and the tonearm ( other than the cartridge it self ) and what is out there don't fullfill my music reproduction targets/priorities in the best way.

I already posted that I would like that everyone could have the opportunity to buy the best Phonolinepreamp ( no SUTs ) ( SS tube or what ever ) at an affordable way but how all of us could " dream " with that when the message to the audio industry is that SUTs are ok.

Here I want to say that it is fully regrettable that many " professional " reviwers support that wrong SUT approach ( at least for me ).
I can understand that many of us are in favor of the SUTs but people like AD or MF or many other is out of question, these " proffesionals " are loosing respect ( like reviewers ) from many of us that with buying those magazines mantain it.
Today many of them ( IMHO )make more harm that good to the whole high end development audio industry and we all will be " paying " for it sooner or latter.
Many of us are only spectators where we can/could be protagonist in many ways other that buy audio items.

+++++ " but what is the reason that you put such great importance in exact RIAA equalization. There are no loudspeakers which have the kind of frequency response which you claim is essential ... " +++++

well, if I take that approach that " why bother for the RIAA deviation ( or other link accuracy ) when through the whole audio chain are greater ones " then my and your system were full of " colorations/distortions " that put us not closer to what is on the recording but far away. I try to put at minimum the distortions/colorations/noises in every single link in the audio chain and I think you do it the same or at least you try it to do it like everyone that cares about music reproduction in an imperfect audio systems environment and analog reproduction medium.

IMHO we have to take care that the cartridge signal " suffer " the less degradation ( looses that you can ever recover. ) at any single link on the audio chain and at the same time that has the less " additions " , we have to try to preserve the signal integrity in the best way we can in our own system environment.
I can tell you that those all efforts about are well worth for say the least.

Other that some designers almost no one take care about RIAA deviation eq. where accuracy is a must to have by any quality performance audio standards reproduction.

Things are that that inverse RIAA eq. accuracy is maybe the great and more challenge in a Phono stage design/execution and very hard to achieve it and that's why almost no one " speaks " about.

Regards and enjoy the music.

Raul.