That's fine, I was just responding to the why it matters question. You have to decide where you like to load your cartridge too, I tend to prefer a higher value load on my cartridge, and use a fairly high gain no-feedback tube stage at around 50dB, so went with 1:6 Partridge transformers and reduced the secondary load to around 24K to keep the cartridge loading between 500 - 700 ohms. But there are limitless possibilities.
Lots of helpful info on this thread! Finally getting my head around how SUTs interface with phono stages. There are some phono pre's out there that, apparently, are impossible to overload--the higher end Musical Fidelity stuff touts this, for example--but with most, it seems a concern worth keeping in mind. Thanks, y'all!
I am not familiar with your Sutherland but one thing to consider in regard of the gain is that, at least on my Cyrus my best option is to use the SUT in the MM setting that has a fixed gain of 40db. If I wanted to set the gain higher 50, 60 and 70 it seems that engages a lot of extra circuitry with relays which also allow you to change capacitance and resistance. As unimportant that may seem, all those extra relays actually make a small but noticeable enough difference that degrades the sound. So if you have a no frills, fixed input that works well with the SUT it is worth making some comparisons to see what works best.
yes, part of being on the fence about a SUT is yet more rounds of possible variables and adjustments. when i listen to records i wonder why i would or need to- and possibly lose something in the process.
Yes, it is a problem, when I embarked on what was supposed to be just a phono stage upgrade. I ended up instead wasting an incredible amount of time testing different variables an options. That is something I always have avoided in the past as I know you'll go insane doing it. Now that I went through the worst of the process, I am reaping the rewards and it was worth it for me. I am enjoy the sum of many little improvements that together are making a big difference so when I look back, I am glad I've decided to spend all that time, money aside.
I've been wondering if a continuously variable loading dial would be one such extra feature that would degrade the sound. It seems like it would be a real benefit to be able to exactly dial in the capacitance. But then I see a lot of high end phono stages that *don't* have this feature and only offer, say, 5-6 loading options. I was thinking a continuously variable dial would just be one extra circuit--a potentiometer or something--but perhaps that's not the case?
Some preamps do offer potentiometers for adjusting the load resistance, don't know any with variable capacitors, that can get big and messy, like an old analog tuner. The downside is that the pot can add a significant amount of capacitance due to the size of the elements and its enclosure. And unfortunately, the normal carbon slurry on plastic film potentiometers don't make very good sounding resistors either, though I've found some of the precision wirewound pots are very good sounding in comparison (as with most things in audio, quite a bit more expensive too).
It's just a role I play online, in real life I'm pretty much clueless, but I have been spinning vinyl for a lot of years so a few things stuck along the way. A lot of people here with good knowledge, including yourself
Depends on how much of a purist you are -I am not but I strive within reason to be- it seems that everything you add can potentially produce a negative effect more so when we are talking very low level signals. A pot you you could use it to change the resistance loading, I don't see how you could use it to change the capacitance, at least not directly without adding further circuitry. When you want to change those variables -which in many cases you must- I think what most manufacturers do is the best solution, switches or relays but that adds either extra cabling or printed tracks plus the contact surface and different materials in the switches or relays and it is in those little things that you start affecting the sound. It also depends on how resolving your system is, in some cases you might not hear the changes or would be negligible and all would be good. For serious listening I use headphones and they are fairly revealing so if you pay enough attention you'll notice some of those additions. For that reason in my case I just use the MM setting that gets rid of all the extras which are nice but in my case I don't need.
A variable capacitor is quite pricey and quite bulky, and you'd never know what it is set at, and have a harder time getting two matching. For one suitable for a phono adjustment range, 18-300pF, you are about $20 for the part, you'd need two of them, closer to $80 additional retail price. This is the type of capacitor found in old radio tuners. A much better "dial" is a digital one, read by a microprocessor, one that controls a "ladder DAC" of capacitors. It's still the same has having 8 DIP switches on the back, for 256 possibilities (which is far more choices than you can differentiate by ear), but computer controlled for front panel and remote operation. One does not need to make this out of discrete components; for $3, it's already made, the size of a grain of rice, and the dial/processor/programmer doesn't need to be powered except when changing the preset capacitance value:
Some points from Rothwell Audio site regarding turns ratio below. Finally, there are many cartridges made before about 1990 which have much lower outputs than the modern cartridges in table 1 above (below 0.2mV). In theory they should be used with higher step-up ratios than 1:20, but experience has shown that 1:20 is still sufficient in many cases. The superior performance of lower turns ratios remains attractive and transformers with significantly higher ratios should be approached with caution. The author has encountered one mc step-up transformer with a turns ratio of 1:100. Its bandwidth with a 10 ohm source was well below 20kHz. All transformers have limitations, and those with higher step-up ratios tend to have more limitations than those with lower step-up ratios. This is because a higher ratio requires more turns of wire on the secondary winding, and more turns means more resistance and more capacitance between windings. These factors combine with any leakage inductance and cause the transformer's high frequency response to be compromised. This usually takes the form of ringing on the waveform (see below) and an earlier roll-off of high frequencies. Alternatively, to preserve the high frequency response, a higher turns ratio could be achieved by having fewer turns of wire on the primary, but that reduces the primary inductance and compromises the transformer's low frequency response. As a general rule, when all other factors are equal, a lower step-up ratio gives better performance than a higher step-up ratio. Quite often a lower step-up ratio giving only 1dB or 2dB less output can yield a much wider bandwidth. For the best possible performance, choose a lower turns ratio if possible.
Oh, how come? I think it actually helped simplify things for me. I'm still very curious about comparing a good SUT to a good MC phono stage and will probably do just that over the next month or two. And, who knows, maybe keep both, since one doesn't necessarily negate the other. Seems, too, that a lot of MC phono stages actually have SUTs inside them. The ones that don't amplify the signal electronically anyway.
By the way, avanti, appreciate all your feedback. Looks like we both play a lot of small group jazz on a 1200-GR, and you helped point me in the direction of the ART9 in the first place. Should have a chance to mount it in the next couple weeks or so, after I get the phono stage/SUT stuff sorted. Excited to hear it.
Seems a bit premature esp when you have the perfect path to your 66 dB gain target using 20/20 and 1:10 ratio SUT. I know that I've tried to remove SUT and it's alway a little better with it in, no matter the phono stage I pair with it. It's an easy audition, easier than cart or subs.
I use a PPA-2 with my ART-9. Nothing but stellar results for me. Its a great pairing. I have used a couple of different Audio Technics SUTs as well with several different phono stages, but the PPA-2 sounds great by itself. I also have input 2 connected to another table all the while only taking up a single input on my preamp. This is very convenient. Another great thing is being able to switch between MM and MC on the front panel. I have no desire or need to upgrade my phono stage any further.
Thanks, Dragon. That's very helpful to know. Are you able to hook both turntable ground wires up to the PPA-2? Its two grounding bolts seems like a nice feature. Though I wonder if one can just run to wires to one bolt and it's basically the same... I'm hoping to audition the PPA2 at some point, possibly alongside the Modwright PH.09 and a standalone SUT.
Yes, you can run both turntable grounds to a single ground lug. I have both signal grounds from my two Technics SL-1200Gs connected to the signal ground lug on the PPA-2 with no issues and it is dead quiet. I have not tried the chassis ground lug for the turntable, but I do use it to ground the PPA-2 chassis to my preamp chassis. Having a choice of two grounds is a nice feature that very very few phono stages have.
Thank you everyone. I Googled AT-ART9 and came across this thread last night. Have read about half the pages and that was enough. Just ordered one from LP Gear. And then signed up on this forum. Cheers, John
Thanks, bajeed. But don’t expect anything very informative since I’m new to all of this. My first challenge will be to set it up correctly and hopefully I won’t run into anything too difficult to address. In the past I’ve only eyeballed my cartridge installations and there weren’t many of those. With this kind of an investment I’d better at least get a protractor. Cheers, John
John if you are not very confident in your set up skills, it might be worth seeking out a local pro to do it right. No shame in that, I would. The 9 is supposed to be finicky to set up and get it to sound it's best.
