The correct internal-inductance of Windfeld cart.?

Hi Dave,
this is getting us somewhere, I think.
I have no issue with what you say, so let's put this down to a number of 'crossed wires' on my side -- let peace be with us, it that is fine by you.

I stated somewhere, that you get 20 times the output voltage for FREE! (in that given example 30 dB SUT), and I think it was you, and some other contributor that took issue with this.

Well, you do get it for FREE. Since there is NO additional power input required such as in a gain-stage, to get just that. Never mind ohms law right now... You do get the additional ~ 30 dB gain for free! And that without added tube or SS derived noise. Seems I am selling your own stuff to you, it’s my pleasure (-:
Now please tell me where this statement is factually incorrect, Dave.

Jolly good, now how about the cart damping by increased current through the cart coil?
Tell me it this is correct? If not, how is the cart being damped then?!

Next, let us hear what is the difference in current when the cart goes into 47k impedance, and when it goes into an SUT with per example 10 ohm impedance?
More current? Well lots more, unless we want to argue about THAT some more.
If we do agree that it is more --- does it make sense to use the term "current mode"?

Since we are still with ohms law. If a cart works into a 47k impedance and then into a 10ohm impedance, in which situation do we expect the higher Voltage?
Will it be the same? Not according to the "First Law of Thermodynamics" as you quoted, since more current = less voltage, so the let's agree we have the higher Voltage at 47K impedance (i.e. into a phono-pre straight, no SUT) does the cart operate at a higher Voltage?
You said so, thereby what we have, "Voltage mode".

Maybe, just maybe, we can get it together...

Thank you for still being with us.
Greetings,
Axel

Axel,

I originally misinterpreted what you were saying about "free" voltage multiplication.

What is interesting about your experience with primary loading of the PW cartridge is that your ideal loading (the reflected load seen by the cartridge) is radically different when using that SUT than the recommended loading when using only an active phonostage or secondary loading.

I was wondering if you have any speculation as to why this is so. I know that some experts maintain that there is a specific "critical" load that effectively dampens the high frequency peak without excessively rolling off the high frequencies. I was wondering why it is not the same load (as presented to the cartridge) regardless of the type of downstream amplifying device.

I am asking this because my phonostage (Viva Fono) utilizes a SUT as the first stage voltage gain device (feeding a tube active stage). I don't even know the gain of the device, but, it is loaded at the primary with a 460 ohm resistor. This resistor is soldered across the back of the RCA input jacks. Because of the difficulty in accessing and changing the resistor value (tight space, a lot of nearby wires), I've limited my experiments to connecting and disconnecting one leg of the resistor. I am now wondering if I should try a MUCH lower value resistor.

Hi Saudio
it is like so many things in this here endeavour a ROT value and used if you want to impedance match your cart to an SUT. It is of NO value if you do not use an SUT.

Greetings,
Axel
PS: As in all things Audio YMMV, but I must say it works spot on for me, else I would not have mentioned it. Look at the minimum impedance cart spec. quoted, and it should be close. Often some specs do not consider SUTs, then in other more user friendly specs they give you both impedances for SUT and 'normal' straight into phono-pre , say 10ohm SUT and 100ohm otherwise.

Axel, To me, the "minimum impedance" spec given by the cartridge maker is not the same as the optimal impedance. Can you name any cartridges where two different impedances are suggested, one for SUT, one for no SUT? In my very limited experience as an owner of high-end LOMCs, I have not seen that. This is not a challenge to your integrity or your perspicacity, just a question.

Larryi, The point you are making is exactly the same one I was trying to make with Axel, when this thread was in its infancy. His finding is interesting, indeed. His response to that question is what got us rolling in the current direction (pun intended).