2. analog
  3. 1278350882

SUT shootout

Over the past six weeks I have had the chance to finish a SUT "shootout". I thought I would post my impressions.

My system config for the shoot-out consisted of the following:

TT: Nottingham 294
Tonearm: SME 312S
Cartridge: Koetsu Rosewood Signature Platinum & Benz Ebony
Preamp: Shindo Masetto
Amp: Atma-sphere S30 and Tube Audio Lab 300B
Speaker: Hawthorne Trio (Biamped Open Baffle Speaker)

Music listened to covered multiple genres (rock, jazz, classical) in both 33 and 45 rpm formats. Because of the different turn ratios of the products I used a SPL meter and tried to listen with volume at roughly 80-85db.

My subjective ranking is as follows:

1. Hashimoto HM-7
2. Auditorium 23 "Hommage"
3. Hashimoto HM-3
4. Modified EAR-834P (Upgraded parts and tubes)
5. Sowter
6. MC from Shindo Masetto (Lundahl based transformer)
7. Cinemag
8. Altec (DIY)

The good news is that all of the above are extremely musical. There were no poor performers. I think most people would be happy with any of these products on their own. It was only in direct comparison where some of the differences became apparent.

The top three (Auditorium Hommage and both Hashimoto's) were a notch above the rest because they had both huge soundstages and the ability to dig deep into the music in regards to detail. The Hashmito HM-7 and Auditorium further distinquished themselves from the HM-3 by being more nuanced and textured. The Koetsu's warm tone came across better with these top 2. The tone using the HM-3 was more neutral in character. In comparing the HM-7 to the Hommage, I felt the HM-7 had a slightly better ability to separate instruments in complex musical arrangements and had a slightly lower noise floor.

The EAR and Sowter were very good at showcasing detail and texture but the soundstage was smaller than the top 3.

The internal SUT from the Shindo preamp had the most unique sound of the group and was the toughest to grade. It had the lowest noise floor and really shined in certain types of music (intimate vocals or small scale jazz/chamber music). However, the soundstage of the Masetto (Lundahl) was the smallest of all the products and when it came to larger scale music (symphonies especially) it had a harder time separating instruments.

The Cinemag and Altec were, not suprisingly, extremely similar considering their common heritage. The soundstage was larger than the Shindo, Sowter and EAR but smaller than the Hashimoto's and Hommage. Where I felt they came up a little short was in the area of musical detail. Of these two products, I placed the Cinemag higher because I thought it was slightly quieter.

It is interesting to note that the pricing of the products ranged from a low of approximately $350 (Cinemag based SUT) to a high of roughly $5000 (Hommage). My "winner" (HM-7) is priced at approx $1600 for a finished product.

Finally, I am aware that the performance of the products in question may differ substantially with other cartridges and systems so my ranking is a subjective opinion within the paramaters of my system, room and musical tastes. None-the-less, I had a fun time doing it.
sibelius
dougdeacon
3,338 posts
 
The shoot out results are more about the cartridges likes than the actual transformers abilities.
Exactly right, and Vinyljh only mentioned half the issues. As fun as this shootout was, there was no mention of impedance loading of any of the SUTs, whether on the primary to match the source (cartridge) or on the secondary to control transformer resonances (Zoebel network).

Based on the OP, it seems unlikely that any of these cartridge/SUT combos was optimized. The outcomes therefore, while valid and interesting as an exploration of listener preferences, demonstrated little about the components themselves.

To perform a meaningful shootout would first require identifying the optimal primary and secondary side load for each SUT/cartridge combination. Balancing even one such combination is a work of several hours, at least. It's also not inexpensive, since multiple sets of high quality resistors are required. I've done this for one SUT and two cartridges. It required $1,000 worth of resistors, which I've still got lying about if anyone wants to repeat it. It's not a task for the fainthearted.

Optimizing sixteen cartridge/SUT combos would take weeks (and many more resistors than I've got). Only after optimizing each combo could we begin meaningful A/B comparisons.

Not trying to rain on your parade, but your shootout only scratched the surface. Using SUTs properly is difficult, time consuming and sometimes more costly than expected. It's less costly than top class active MC amplification, so SUTs remain a viable path into LOMC for those on a budget, but not managing all the factors involved can lead to inconsistent outcomes.

sibelius OP
256 posts
 
Dougdeacon:

I agree with you 100%. Post was not meant to be authoratative. I needed a SUT and had the opportunity to test drive a bunch in my system. I had a blast doing it so I thought I'd share my subjective opinions with the board. That's it. I made a point of listing my equipment. It might help a few readers that have similar gear (Shindo preamps & Koetsu cartridges etc..)

I am old enough and been in the hobby long enough to realize one never should talk about equipment in absolute terms. Too many variables and personal preferences involved.
dertonarm
1,042 posts
 
Sibelius: I am aware that this shoot-out's only purpose was to find out what actually would suit you best in your system. Which is perfectly fine. However - on some of the SUTs you've tested (Hashimoto, Lundahl, Swother), you can actually alter the primary to suit a given MCs source impedance best. So maybe you would have gotten more "precise" or "on target" results with your evaluation, if the SUTs (where possible...) had been aligned to similar primary/to a primary best suiting your carts source impedance. Right now the results may based on a given SUT's ideal matching by pure incidence. While another may have performed "worse" in the shoot-out, but would - if it's primary were connected different and thus altered to suit the MC better - actually outperform the other if aligned to the carts source impedance. A SUT and a MC do form a "team". There is never a certain SUT better than any other. There are ideal matches between a given SUT and a given cartridge which may result in a great performance. The inductance and impedance of the SUT and the LOMC do correspond which each other. I just want to encourage you to find the best SUT for your system by performing the shoot-out in a way which will give you the correct and optimized results.
doak
199 posts
 
Amen to the previous posts targeting the importance of the load a SUT is presenting to the cartridge in front of it. I recently acquired a K & K Premium SUT using Lundahl LL1931. It has solder sockets that allow relatively easy use of parallel resistors to precisely adjust the loading for the cartridge being used.

I was able to compare the K & K to the internal transformers on my EAR 834P (heavily modified but retains the stock transformers). After confirming that the EAR presents loading of about 125 ohms to the cartridge I made the adjustment to the K & K to present a similar load. Kevin Carter provides an .XLS spreadsheet file to be used for this purpose. What I found is that with similar loading of 125 ohms (EAR) and 122 ohms (K & K)to the my audio Technica AT33PTG the frequency balances were nearly identical. Yes, there was some difference in the sound of the two SUT, though nothing of the magnitude that I heard with dissimilar loading.

What the load matching allows, to paraphrase what others have stated, is the ability to compare "apples to apples."
Otherwise one is introducing an uncontrolled and unaccounted for variable into the "experiment."

almarg's avatar
almarg
9,670 posts
 
To perform a meaningful shootout would first require identifying the optimal primary and secondary side load for each SUT/cartridge combination. Balancing even one such combination is a work of several hours, at least. It's also not inexpensive, since multiple sets of high quality resistors are required. I've done this for one SUT and two cartridges. It required $1,000 worth of resistors, which I've still got lying about if anyone wants to repeat it. It's not a task for the fainthearted.

Optimizing sixteen cartridge/SUT combos would take weeks (and many more resistors than I've got). Only after optimizing each combo could we begin meaningful A/B comparisons.
A question for Doug, Dertonearm, and the other experts who have responded above, which I'll introduce by saying that I have no experience with SUTs (or with MCs either, for that matter).

Wouldn't it be possible to accelerate the lengthy optimization process, which Doug has done a good job of describing, by using an oscilloscope and appropriate test record to optimize pulse response?

What would be required, I believe, is a test record that provided an riaa pre-emphasized square wave, say with a fundamental frequency of 1kHz, and whose risetime and falltime correspond to spectral components extending some distance into the ultrasonic region. Given that input signal, it seems to me that by using the scope to monitor the resulting phono stage or preamp output, and by substituting resistors until overshoot, ringing, etc. are reasonably optimized, it should be possible to get into the right ballpark much more quickly than by trial and error resistor substitution and listening. Further optimization by listening would then presumably be a relatively rapid process.

I'll add, though, that I am not aware of any test record that would seem to be suitable for this purpose. The Analog Productions test LP, for instance, and others that I have or have encountered, typically just provide sinusoidal waveforms, pink noise, etc.

Thanks! Best regards,

-- Al
More to discover