2. amps-preamps
  3. 1179939807

MC TRANSFORMERS VS TUBE PRE PRE

Has anyone here had much experience comparing mc step-up transformers vs. tube pre pre amps? Several things conspired together to cause me to send my Counterpoint SA-5.1 to Alta Vista in order to have the Sowter 8055 transformers installed. I own a Counterpoint SA-2 pre pre amp which was simply magical with the SA-5.1. Unfortunatly, my SA-2 broke and then my listening room was flooded out (thus the conspiring events). When my listening room flooded, I decided to take the "opportunity" of my music downtime to send the 5.1 back to Mike and have the Sowter mc transformers installed as an "upgrade" and then not have to worry about having the SA-2 repaired. After all, the Sowters' were supposed to far superior to the SA-2 and it would remove a bunch of tubes from my system by replacing the SA-2. Well, my listening room was fixed from the flood and slowly my system came back together again. When I installed the SA-5.1 back into the system with the Sowters' now in place, I was bummed to say the least. The magic was gone. In its place was a homogenized, dumbed-down version of what my LPs used to sound like. Had I not known any better (i.e.; I didn't know what information was really on my records), I would think the Sowters' sounded really good. However, I do know better. My question to the forum is does anyone else have any experience going from a quality tube pre pre and switching to transformers? I don't mean to pick on Sowters' in particular, they are just what I have installed and Mike feels they are the best of breed. I am beginning to think that the problem lies in using any mc transformer. At this time my SA-2 is in route back to Alta Vista to be fixed. I am going to send my SA-5.1 back and have the Sowters' removed and my phono stage restored to the way it was. I want the magic back that I had. And the magic that I am speaking of is the difference between your system sounding like live musicans are playing in front of you with all of the dynamics that implies vice having a system that sounds very "nice" in the usual audiophile sense that would impress people who didn't know better. For the record, my system consists of the VPI TNT MKIII with the new 300 RPM motor, ET-2 tonearm, Denon 103R cartridge which replaced my Van den Hul MC-2 special which it simply smokes, Counterpoint SA-5.1 pre, and Quicksilver MS-190 amp on the main speakers. I have a DBX electronic crossover that feeds a pair of Denon POA 6600A monoblocks for the subs. My speakers are my own designs. They are all (main speakers and subs) 1/4 wavelength transmission lines. Bottom line is that before I ever take another blind alley on "upgrades," I want someone to come to my house and show me that what they have is better. For the here and now, I would step over all of the mc transformers out there in order to get my hands on a SA-2. And if anyone has heard another pre pre that bests the SA-2, please let me know what it is. One last tid bit. If you have a British copy of the Beatles lp Abbey Road, listen to the beginning of Sun King. Let me know if you can hear Ringo hitting the cymbals with a mallet, and if you can hear pressure waves coming off each of those strikes with differing dynamics. If the answer is no, it just sounds like cymbals being hit, you are in the "missing information" catagory which is where I am currently back to with mc transformers.
mepearson
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,841 posts
 
I have yet to hear a transformer that can do what a proper tube phono stage that is capable of MC operation can do on its own. The transformers rob detail, bandwidth and are less interesting to listen to.
cjfrbw
148 posts
 
It's fine that you don't like your experience with your trannies, but it is a rather large leap to generalize that all transformers have the cited negative characteristics. Certainly SUT's are capable of enormous subtlety, tone, texture and some remarkably high, wide and deep imaging. I haven't heard any active stage that approaches the silk and texture of a nice SUT with a decent MC cartridge.
I have listened to my own system through solid state amps rather than the tubes I typically use. The sound from the SUT coupled inputs is so hyper detailed and almost phosphorescent that it is like the difference between a nice tan and radiation burns, The solid state was interesting but rapidly fatiguing. In that kind of system, it might very well be that an active stage would sound better, but by subtraction, not addition.
There are whole segments of audiophiles who devote enormous energy and attention to the use of transformers in amplification stages, and they pursue their solutions to the point of mysticism. I doubt that they do it because they are losing imaging or information.
Again, SUT's are a pain but if you like what they can do I doubt you would find an active stage competitive. If you don't like them, then screw them and enjoy your active stage.
mepearson OP
100 posts
 
Cjfrbw-my system is all tubes, all 32 of them when everything is working. The SA-2 has 8, the SA-5.1 has 8, and the Quicksilver MS-190 has 16. So, my experience using the Sowter 8055s is through all tubes. The other point is, I have tried to be careful and relate my experience using the Sowter transformers. That is why I started this thread to see if my experience is an aberration or is there some commonality with my experience and others who have compared both tubes and active head amps. I can't speak for how many different transformers sound as my experience is limited to only two transformers. The first experience was so long ago that I can't compare that experience. It was in one of my first decent systems and I had a Denon cartridge that came with its own transformer in the same package. My equipment back then was far inferior to what I have now. We are talking around the 1980 timeframe on that system (maybe a Denon DL-302 cartridge?). Judging from the responses so far, it seems that people generally agree with my experience that well designed active head amps pass more music than transformers. I can see why the allure is there to use transformers because I bit on it. They are relatively cheap, they can be installed inside your preamp, and you can omit a pair of interconnects-all desirable attributes. It cost me just under $600.00 to have Mike Elliot purchase and install the Sowter 8055s in my 5.1. I looked at it as a good excuse not to repair my SA-2 when the power transformer crapped out and move "up" to the wonderful world of transformers. Now I know better. The magic I had is gone and that is why my SA-2 is back at Alta Vista to be repaired. I can't wait to get it back.
jbernhard
3 posts
 
I'm late responding to this but hope this will be helpful.

I have an ARC Ref Phono (with built-in Jensen JT-346-AX transformers, factory configured at 1:12) and a pair of Mu transformers (S&B TX-103 Cu) that I originally configured at 1:10. For various reasons, including the .5mv output of my MC, I chose to forego the trannies and go "straight-in" the phono stage. I should note the Ref Phono is not stock, having V-caps, HexFreds, Caddocks and various other mods, and this certainly does not sound like a stock unit.

I recently reconfigured both transformer pairs for lower gain, 1:4 for the Jensens and 1:5 for the TX-103s. Now, I've never been that happy with the Jensens, but reconfigured they were actually very good, with abundant low level detail and only a very slight 'lightness' in character -- something I could live with in any case.

The TX-103s sounded (then) much like Mike Elliot describes them in his comparison of transformers -- good tonal balance but bland -- missing low level detail. It occurred to me that their sound was similar to an MC that needs demag, ala a Fluxbuster or similar device. I used T. Loesch's recommended burn-in (running the Purist Audio cd for nearly 24 hours non-stop) to open up the transformer cores, and the transformation (no pun intended) was quite honestly huge. The even-handed tonal balance remained, but there was now tremendous low level detail, even exceeding the Jensens a bit, and without their 'lightness'. I'm guessing that Mike Elliot did not burn-in the S&Bs enough (or perhaps at all?), though that's a moot point given that S&B trannies are nigh impossible to get now -- all their production is apparently targeted to their Music First offshoot.

Compared to "straight-in", the transformer loading of the cart improves the low end, the dynamic range and S/N.

This doesn't address if an active step-up is better, but properly done, transformers can be quite good, and better than apparently some here have experienced for themselves.

Best regards,

Jeff
More to discover