Goldring G99.

[andrew Ivimey]

Ah! its the simple things that get me. 'Corse the difficult things, I just don't understand.

cheers, Dave the Bass (DtB)

[Dave the bass]

Ah! its the simple things that get me. 'Corse teh difficult things, I just don't understand.

cheers, Dave the Bass (DtB)

oh... 'ang on what's 'teh' stand for???? eh eh eh eh?

DTB

[andrew Ivimey]

'teh' - what 'teh'? SWIDT! (I think we all know what that means by now)

groan...

[pre65]

I never understand all this business about SUTs. I can build an active stage that will pee on any SUT apart from very expensive ones like Audionote. It is because of valves, you are infatuated with them even in jobs they are not suited for.

Hi Richard.

Are these the "urination" phono stages you speak so highly of ?

http://electronics.shop.ebay.co.uk/Turn ... 86.c0.m282

But then you have a vested interest as a manufacturer ?

[Nick]

Well, having not heard them, who know what they are like I can't say. Then again not every one has heard the phono stages made by folk here, so who can predict what direction the urine will flow in.

I do know of valve phono stages that leave a lot to be desired, so not sure any absolute comparison is possible either way without hearing them.

I would certainly agree from my experiments say that SUT's can be a compromise, but if you want to use a valve phono, and I think there are many reason why you would want to, and if you want to use a low output cartridge, then SUT's make life a lot simpler. And the end result can be bloody good. As in everything though there are some good compromises available.

[Dave the bass]

I've just had a post-coffee brain storm.

Why don't I feed the Litz arm leads directly into the Cinemag SUT's thus negating the need for 1 interconnect per channel, the Cinemags are conviniently mounted in a diecast metal box (clever eh Mikeh ) and I could mount that on the side of the plinth where the phono connector box is now.



Then the signal from the SUT's only has to travel approx 24" into the phono amp. From the Phono amp to the source selector switch box is only about 12". Thats about as close as I can get everything together and avoiding any mains TX's getting anywhere near the TT and SUT's.

DTB

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I never understand all this business about SUTs. I can build an active stage that will pee on any SUT apart from very expensive ones like Audionote. It is because of valves, you are infatuated with them even in jobs they are not suited for.

Hi Richard.

Are these the "urination" phono stages you speak so highly of ?

http://electronics.shop.ebay.co.uk/Turn ... 86.c0.m282

But then you have a vested interest as a manufacturer ?

You are just a ad hominem freak, you cannot avoid it, looking for every opportunity to use it!

As I have said so many times it is daft - I am an enthusiast who designs and builds things for himself, some people happen to want to buy them, so I sell them and make a living from it. If they didn't buy them I wouldn't change, I would just teach more Tai-Chi Chuan for a living.

Though I will use your usual contribution to answer other points to save wasting space. I have no objections to valves, there are very good valve amps, I just don't use valves for my own reasons and I don't build equipment for other peoples reasons only for my own - selfish eh!

Now there are things valves can do and things they can't, an infatuation is when you insist on using them for things they can't do well. In the early days of the hi-fi hobby Ortofon produced the first MC cartridges and they discovered that the current state of the art amplification using valves was too noisy to use, so they used SUT. It was a compromise as any tranformer does just that - it tranforms - but nothing is for nothing and you gain on the swings and lose on the roundabout. Now solid state appeared but early transistors were not up to the job either. IMO it wasn't until the late 70's that suitable circuits were developed but they still had compromises. Now and for the last up to 20 years components have been available to design active circuits that do the whole job without compromise, and with the added bonus of the potential of being able to design the circuit as load rejecting in order to avoid all the cartridge loading ballony.

The point of my post was to point out that there are now other ways to do it apart from SUTs and yet they have achieved some sort of mystique like so many other things associated with valve circuits. I just wanted to broaden your outlook. And as far as the ad hominem stupidity of PRE65 (yet again) why should I design and sell products I don't believe in or don't think are good, my post is non commercial. Regarding giving my circuit, why! it should be obvious what is going on to anyone with any technical nounce, work it out for yourself, explore the devil of low noise transistors or op-amps, look into what they need to power them to load reject in terms of headroom both voltage and current. See what massive headroom contributes audibly to the performance of the circuit - learn!

[pre65]

You are just a ad hominem freak, you cannot avoid it, looking for every opportunity to use it!

Hi Richard, at least I was polite !

Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out exactly where I have used "ad hominem" in this thread as I did not think I had.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

You are just a ad hominem freak, you cannot avoid it, looking for every opportunity to use it!

Hi Richard, at least I was polite !

Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out exactly where I have used "ad hominem" in this thread as I did not think I had.

Ad hominem is not polite. Once again we have to go into this. There is even a thread about it that *you* instigated!

If you want to see an example of a forum that bans it so therefore doesn't get conflict then look at http://thehifisubjectivist.noadforum.com/ but I think your boss here does a very good job at avoiding it and this forum is a breath of fresh air compared with others. You seem to be the only addict here.

Yet again ad hominem is turning the discussion from the subject to the poster in order to some way qualify your personal views or diminish the views of the poster, and that is what you did, it is very poor netiquette.

[pre65]

Hi Richard - I think you are the one with the "ad hominem" chip on your shoulder.

This is a forum where we all try to help each other, so if anyone finds a "better " way (in their opinion ) to do something the information, or theory is shared.

You could easily have approached this in a much more friendly way and made helpful suggestions to point interested members in the "right " direction.

Your way is like going onto a Lego enthusiasts forum and telling them that Meccano is much better.

[Nick]

I think Dr, that in this case it was prompted by your use of first person in the:

I never understand all this business about SUTs. I can build an active stage that will pee on any SUT apart from very expensive ones like Audionote. It is because of valves, you are infatuated with them even in jobs they are not suited for.

While the above is clearly you own view, you must admit it is presented in a somewhat confrontational way, and the use of "I" and "you" only increases that feeling. To parse your statement though it actually says a bit less than it may first seem.

You seem to be saying:

"I can build without using valves or step up transformer, an active stage that will perform better than stages using valves and step ups that perform worst"

You say that Audionote can build SUT's that (though they are expensive) can out perform what you can do with active (and presumably solid state stages), So the presence of the SUT of itself is not the limit, its the cost of making a good enough one that is the restriction.

Personally I agree with this, the experiments I have done using high gm valves instead of step ups shows to my ears at least that the SUT is doing damage, I found that using a JFet at the front in cascade was a good compromise, but I don't think it was better than the best I had heard using SUT's (which happened to be audio note as it happens), but ignoring the problems that come with it by far the best sound I have heard myself up to this date was bu using a valve phono with high gm valve at the front and no step ups.

But like all this, its a case of what compramise you want to pick.

[Nick]

Dave back to your point. I would try and see. Its a question if removing the extra connector does more or less damage than the extra cable after the SUT. The problem is that before the SUT is a low impedance signal that is immune to cable capacitance. After the SUT, its a high impedance signal with all the cable problems that brings.

[Andrew]

Hi,

If you are unable to share the active circuit perhaps you could share some of the general ideas by way of explanation. Like Nick, I have for sometime thought the SUT was a source of signal degradation but nothing I have yet tried has actually weened me off my SUT, even though I know its not ideal.

thanks,

-- Andrew

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I think Dr, that in this case it was prompted by your use of first person in the:

I never understand all this business about SUTs. I can build an active stage that will pee on any SUT apart from very expensive ones like Audionote. It is because of valves, you are infatuated with them even in jobs they are not suited for.

While the above is clearly you own view, you must admit it is presented in a somewhat confrontational way, and the use of "I" and "you" only increases that feeling. To parse your statement though it actually says a bit less than it may first seem.

You seem to be saying:

"I can build without using valves or step up transformer, an active stage that will perform better than stages using valves and step ups that perform worst"

You say that Audionote can build SUT's that (though they are expensive) can out perform what you can do with active (and presumably solid state stages), So the presence of the SUT of itself is not the limit, its the cost of making a good enough one that is the restriction.

Personally I agree with this, the experiments I have done using high gm valves instead of step ups shows to my ears at least that the SUT is doing damage, I found that using a JFet at the front in cascade was a good compromise, but I don't think it was better than the best I had heard using SUT's (which happened to be audio note as it happens), but ignoring the problems that come with it by far the best sound I have heard myself up to this date was bu using a valve phono with high gm valve at the front and no step ups.

But like all this, its a case of what compramise you want to pick.

I see your point, but that is the way I post, it is my style, it is consistent. It is not ad hominem though.

BTW I do not think the Audionote or any other SUT is better, so your paraphrase is wrong. I think they are much better than the lower priced options which for me are just not good, hence the reference to peeing. You have to spend a fortune on a transformer (or wind it yourself) if you want one that is not grossly lossy.

It is still possible to design an active circuit that outperfoms any SUT but you need to spend a lot on an overkill power supply and there is nothing to stop you feeding that into a valve RIAA / line / buffer stage if that is your desire, valves will do that job. But if you have found low noise valves that do it good for you but they are not generally available IMO, and you get rid of the SUT as was the point of my post.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Hi Richard - I think you are the one with the "ad hominem" chip on your shoulder.

You see just more ad hominem - you are simply addicted to it.