MM phono stage to use with an SUT

richamor

amateur house husband
thinking about trying an SUT. again. I keep getting on and off this fence but I am still curious. But all I have are MC stages. The Samuels is adjustable for MM but I'm thinking a dedicated MM would yield better results.?

Any recommendations? Does the MM stage play a huge part or is it more supporting cast? Would you pair say....an Auditorium23 SUT and a Lehman Black Cube?

Any help/comments are welcome. I feel a "need" to upgrade/change something and that seems a way to go. Pretty happy with the system as is but yall know how it is.....
 
The Samuels is adjustable for MM but I'm thinking a dedicated MM would yield better results.?
No, I doubt that. Many adjustable phonostages which cover mm and mc simply reduce the gain for mm by increasing the feedback. If anything, that should make them perform better as mm phonostages than mc phonostages.
Would you pair say....an Auditorium23 SUT and a Lehman Black Cube?
The cartridge-SUT compatibility is probably a lot more important than the SUT-phonostage compatibility. The Black Cube should be happy enough with any SUT at its input. It's a pretty ordinary op-amp based phonostage and is typical of the genre.
Pretty happy with the system as is but yall know how it is.....
If you're happy with the system as it is I'd say just enjoy it and don't worry about changing stuff.
 
f you're happy with the system as it is I'd say just enjoy it and don't worry about changing stuff.
A friend runs a dealership. I used to visit frequently, to look for new goodies — his used/demo/trade-in section was a goldmine — or just hang out. He said to me "You have a great system. What are you not happy with?" I said "Nothing. I love it."

"So stop coming here. And stop reading the magazines. And stop going online."
 
Thanks for the replies guys. I just like to tinker with things. Sometimes it makes a noticeable improvement......sometimes it goes the other way. But it’s always different. Not better not worse just different. So in that way Ilearn more about what Ilike and what I don’t. Ya dig

So if I wanted a Rothwell SUT which one would I need for a Denon DL-103FL?
 
Thanks for the replies guys. I just like to tinker with things. Sometimes it makes a noticeable improvement......sometimes it goes the other way. But it’s always different. Not better not worse just different. So in that way Ilearn more about what Ilike and what I don’t. Ya dig

So if I wanted a Rothwell SUT which one would I need for a Denon DL-103FL?

The Denon DL-103FL has:
  • Output voltage: 0.28 mV (1 kHz, 50 mm / s, horizontal)
Get a SUT that would give it the proper boost required. :)
 
well.....that's kinda the problem Balifly. I don't really know how much boost is needed.

The out put of the Denon DL-103 FL is the same/ similar to the out put of the Denon DL-103R.

Base on that, see the :

DL-103R
This cartridge is a revised version of the DL103 and has a slightly lower output voltage of 0.25mV, but has the advantage of a significantly lower source impedance of 14 ohms. The theoretical optimum turns ratio for maximum voltage transfer with this cartridge is 1:60. However, 1:60 is a huge ratio with serious practical compromises on performance. Even if it was possible to get acceptable performance from a 1:60 transformer there would still be another issue: output voltage. The output voltage from the transformer which would be fed into the phonostage would be 15mV - significantly more than a typical moving magnet cartridge - and would risk overload or severely curtailed headroom. Clearly, aiming for maximum voltage from the transformer has led to a poor choice for the turns ratio.
So what would be a better ratio? A sensible criterion would be to aim for 5mV output from the transformer. This would give a good signal level into the following phonostage and give a good signal-to-noise ratio without the risk of overload, and the lower turns ratio required for 5mV would give better performance. The turns ratio required for a 5mV output would be 1:24. However, a 1:20 ratio would give still produce 4.5mV - only 1dB less than the 1:24 transformer. Anything in the range 1:20 to 1:24 would be a very good choice for the DL-103R.
A suitable transformer from the Rothwell range would be the MCL
:dunno:
 
A friend runs a dealership. I used to visit frequently, to look for new goodies — his used/demo/trade-in section was a goldmine — or just hang out. He said to me "You have a great system. What are you not happy with?" I said "Nothing. I love it."

"So stop coming here. And stop reading the magazines. And stop going online."

This is a bad advise. I would rather suggest to see (and hear) gear that is much more expensive than what you have. Based on my experience in majority of cases it will sound is worse than what you have now. You will be happy that you save some buck and still got sound to brag about. Though DL-103 variants will not be in that category.
 
It's nice to have a step-up transformer with two ratios. I have one with 1:10 and 1:20. Pretty flexible.
 
MC1? How about the MCL
Yes, the MCL would also work well, though it is considerably more expensive.
The specs I found for the 103FL said its output voltage is 0.35mV. I recommend aiming for about 5mV into the mm phonostage, but don't get too hung up on trying to achieve that figure. The MC1 would give you 4mV into the phonostage whereas the MCL would give you 6mV.
 
A new development....I found a killer deal on a Samuels XR-2 phono pre. So the F-117 will be replaced. Also found another great deal on a MCL for slightly more than the MC1.

And the truck's gotta go in the shop:whip:
 
I have also wondered if my DL-102 MONO HO MC cartridge could benefit from an adapted SUT just before my adjustable preamp. After reading on another audio forum someone shouting his best upgrade ever with an "cheap" passive SUT ($200 or so) as he gained that much in "clarity" and "gain/volume" (double he said).

Dubvious, still I went on and purchase such a passive SUT 1:2 (specs of my HO MC) and tested it with the settings on my preamp like for a typical MM cartridge. Mind you my sound is that "neutral", "dynamic" and "clear" as it is now. The SUT addition as I was expecting (sadly) only refrained my preamp to give me a "muffled" & "muddy" sound.

Having tweaked enough on my speakers, tonearm and turntable, I managed to get the best out of my amp and preamp (neutral and clear characteristic in sound) and got to undo instantly any tweak/addition that might draw it back to "muffleness" and "muddiness". This SUT in my case got pulled out even after trying different load and impedance values.

My guess, is that even though I could do with a "higher end" preamp, mine is still of the good kind up there, that "someone" who found such benefit from his SUT had only the average preamp in his receiver and that having add a SUT of the right values for his cartridge, finally brought him a sound stage he never had before.

With your adjustable Samuels preamp (that looks to be in the good lead), such a SUT addition in line should prove useless in the best scenario I believe. Now, I am still considering seeking a better (higher end) adjustable preamp and maybe this should prove beneficial to you all the same. Best way is to demo audition one if you have the opportunity.
 
With your adjustable Samuels preamp (that looks to be in the good lead), such a SUT addition in line should prove useless in the best scenario I believe.
I assume you're basing this on your experience with your DL-102, but I think you're jumping to the wrong conclusion. The DL-102 has a coil impedance of 240 ohms and that's very different from the impedance of a typical LOMC which is round about 10 ohms, or 30 ohms for a DL-103FL, with a lot more scope for things to go wrong. SUTs with LOMCs are very successful and many people prefer to use a SUT + mm phonostage rather than an mc phonostage. There have been many threads on AK where people have expressed such a preference, and they haven't been people with poor equipment.
 
Well......I bought the MCL so I'll get to see for myself. I must admit the SUT seems to be an all or nothing proposal. Folks either love 'em or hate 'em. Not much middle ground. But there are people here whose opinion I respect and many of them use an SUT. So for 400 bucks I'll try it. And if I don't like it on to BT it will go.

Sorry it didn't work out for you timmy.timmy. But at least now you can say that with some authority. You tried so now you know.
 
I assume you're basing this on your experience with your DL-102, but I think you're jumping to the wrong conclusion. The DL-102 has a coil impedance of 240 ohms and that's very different from the impedance of a typical LOMC which is round about 10 ohms, or 30 ohms for a DL-103FL, with a lot more scope for things to go wrong. SUTs with LOMCs are very successful and many people prefer to use a SUT + mm phonostage rather than an mc phonostage. There have been many threads on AK where people have expressed such a preference, and they haven't been people with poor equipment.

I hear your argument of the LO cart needs that my HO cart don't (supposedly) need. But that is for the "math" of it. In real and more precisely on my set-up, I adjusted my preamp on the impedance and capacitance by the ear. And since it sings ! Evidently my set-up is of the "clear" and "neutral" tone and anything that is going to diminish that will be withdrawn instantly.

Differences in preferences for sound definition evidently, privileging some set-up systems accordingly and depending on budget and/or wisdom, acquire what one want, can or should is mandatory. I have a small budget for my set up and I had to learn to tweak to "upgrade" and "improve" and so have learn down the road to keep my sound "clean", "sharp" and "bodied".

My understanding is that even if I had a LO MC cartridge, I'd set for a higher end pure circuit active adjustable preamp to run such cartridge. And skip the SUT stage. Now I could believe that maybe with a more "colored" and "warm" kind of sounding phono set-up, the SUT can prove to be a real upgrade. This (I might still be trying to theorize that wrongly) I could picture.
 
My understanding is that even if I had a LO MC cartridge, I'd set for a higher end pure circuit active adjustable preamp to run such cartridge. And skip the SUT stage. Now I could believe that maybe with a more "colored" and "warm" kind of sounding phono set-up, the SUT can prove to be a real upgrade.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that SUTs are the only to go or that they're always superior to solid-state mc phonostages. I make transistor headamps as well as SUTs and I make mc phonostages both with and without transistor front ends. Both types are capable of fantastic results and I'm not a zealot for either approach.
However, the idea that SUT + mm phonostage is always inferior to a solid-state mc phonostage is wrong, in my opinion - and that's an opinion shared by many other people. BTW, I'm not talking about people preferring some kind of euphonic coloration. A wider soundstage and better separation between instruments aren't usually the product of coloration, but they are the benefits often reported when using a SUT.
 
Last edited:
...I make transistor headamps as well as SUTs and I make mc phonostages both with and without transistor front ends. Both types are capable of fantastic results and I'm not a zealot for either approach.
However, the idea that SUT + mm phonostage is always inferior to a solid-state mc phonostage is wrong, in my opinion - and that's an opinion shared by many other people. BTW, I'm not talking about people preferring some kind of euphonic coloration. A wider soundstage and better separation between instruments aren't usually the product of coloration, but they are the benefits often reported when using a SUT.

Me neither, that is why I went into such trial. My preamp is of what can be considered the good solid-state entry level. The French brand manufacturer of those is now retired and out of the market since. It's off the "clear and neutral" (wide soundstage) sounding kind. And so is my amp and my speakers somehow allows that to show.

The solid-state SUT I trial is reviewed to be of the "clear and neutral" kind as well. So I was rather surprise to hear that all it did was the refrained my initial preamp job not to even gain some "power" (1:2 HO (1 to 4 mV) MC dedicated SUT). More power I would have want (not anymore) and more "depth" (separation) is what I still seek to improve.
 
Back
Top Bottom