MC phono stage without transformer?

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.

Dear Raul,

"Dear Ron: As I posted I made a little of research on your audio items just to " imagine " what are you hearing but for what you told here your music/sound reproduction is far from what I can " imagine ", good."

To this posting I can only say, that I which to have your imaginary abilities. It would save me a lot of gas money while going for audio exhibitions or friends, since I could imagine the sound from my listening chair by getting the specs via email...;) sorry for my not so serious comment...

"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."

Thanks for your advice ;)

" 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 would rather say the opposit is the case...if you have to meet a affordable price region you have to go for a SS or even integrated circuit desing instead of a good step up...but thats my personal opinion. Some people even say that step up transformers came out of fashion when transistors could have been used with much reduced costs...