[topround]

Yes MM has gain, of course. About 40 db.
Don't know how we got so far off course.

The thread initially was about using stepup transformers as a gain stage for MC carts.

For all those that don't know, you need additional gain to run a low output moving coil, a MM phono pre does not have enough gain. So you need to boost the gain a bit. One way to do it with the use of a passive device called a stepup transformer. It requires no power to run it but does require additional interconnects as this transformer is used between the cartridge and the phono section.

Some phono sections have the ability to run MC cartidges. In other words they have a built in gain stage. That gain stage could be SS, like fets, or they could use tubes for gain, or they could use transformers.
Different transformers have different sounds. Of course you have to have the right transformer to mate with your cartridge, obviously, other wise you will have sonic issues like roll off because of impedance issues. Like putting diesel in a gas engine. You should know better.

We all have our own ideas as to what works best, and most , if not all, (including myself) have not exhausted all the possibilities.
But some of us have had very good results with transformers. It  is certainly, by a large degree,  not the cheapest solution. A tube or resistor is certainly cheaper by magnitudes. This is not to say a tube or resistor cannot give great results, or that spending more money, necessarily makes it better. But those that have experimented with stepups have sometimes found magic.

Those that are happy with the built in gain stage in their all in one phono pre, please do not be insulted by those of us who like to experiment. That you are happy is wonderful, the intial post was not to try to persuade anyone to try to use transformers, but rather, to ask those of us that do, what they use. What we do is just an extension of tube rolling or cap swaps, or cable changes, things we all take for granted. But in the phono world there are things that we do, other than the usual. If you owned a tube amp and changed the output transformers, you would have a very different sound. That of course would be a pain in the ass to do(not for Karl of course )(he changes transformers in like 7 minutes flat!)but changing stepup transformers is pretty easy.
I have found, personally, that even when using a very very modest phono pre with good stepups it made the very modest phono pre sound so much better. So it leads me to believe that that  gain stage is critical to good performance.

It is usually overlooked by most,, but perhaps it shouldn't be..........

[GBB]

Don't know how we got so far off course.

The thread initially was about using stepup transformers as a gain stage for MC carts . . .

Those that are happy with the built in gain stage in their all in one phono pre, please do not be insulted by those of us who like to experiment. That you are happy is wonderful, the initial post was not to try to persuade anyone to try to use transformers, but rather, to ask those of us that do, what they use . . .

Wow - the world is going topsy turvy.  Mike, aka Topround, is back and he's now the peace maker???  My head is spinning 

Anyway, getting things back on topic, I'm also a huge fan of stepup transformers for MC cartridges.  My main transformer is an S&B TX-103, which has selectable gain of 1:5 or 1:10 or 1:20.   I've also had good luck with older mic input transformers like the Altec 15095.  With both of these, I've found that playing with loading on both the primary and secondary windings of the transformer is critical to getting the best sound.    At the suggestion of Dave Slagle, I've gotten good results loading the secondary of the transformers with relatively high impedances such as the 47K input impedance of a typical MM phono stage and then playing with low value resistors on the primary of the transformer.  For example, the 15095 running with a Lyra Helikon sounded really good with the secondaries loaded at 47K and the primary loaded at around 220 ohms.  But it's worth experimenting with the loading of both the primary and secondary.  Small changes can make a surprisingly big difference.

---Gary

[cheap-Jack]

Hi.

All MM i know of still have gain. I would not consider them just an EQ.

Equalizers can come with or withOUT gain.

In case of a phonostage, it is an amp with voltage gain with built in equalizer to boost up the LF from 50Hz (58dB) to 500Hz (44dB) to compensate the vinyl groove cutting LF cutback & to roll off HF at 2,122Hz to get back the flat response as the orginal recordings.

Basically a phono amp is a vinyl record signal booster with uneven LF & HF gain (reference 1KHz 40dB)

c-J

[marknoir]

Well I've never used a MC cartridge for the following reasons:

1)  Never owned any.

2)  Tracking of most MC's is usually 3 g. which is enough tons of force to wipe the record after two or three plays.

3)  Use of transformers into the MM input gives normal RIAA Eq. that can't be bypassed, but the impedances seen forward affect the frequency response depending how badly or goodly the MC Cartridge is loaded.  Most MC's are supposed to be loaded with 100 ohms, instead of 47K ohms, if I recall from some 30 years back.

Steven, I have never had an MC cartridge that needs a 3 g tracking force. I have an AT OC9 (1.6g), AT33PTG (1.8g) and a Denon DL-s! (1.3g)

M

4)  Don't have any MC level inputs, modern stuff doesn't even have MM phono inputs.

Still, Mike, if I get the drift of what you're saying, maybe I should hook up some small shielded transformers, connect up my MM cartridge(s) and turntable, and try that into my normal PAS-3x Preamp, or my slightly modified PAS-3x (both use 1960's Telefunken 12AX7 tubes) or one of many transistor preamps.  However, since the PAS is tubes, it has a wide overload capability, and I think I once measured a PAS as putting out over 30 volts P-P before clipping, then I'd get the so-called advantages of "Input Transformers" and none of the Moving Coil Cartridge "minuses".  Anything close to 1:1, or between  1:1 and 1:4 or 4:1 would probably work. Hooked up after the PAS could be any half decent receiver, Mosfet Amp, ULT Amp, SET Amp, etc. and usual speakers system.

So does this sound like a good idea?  Anybody ever try this?  Chirp in with suggestions!

-Steven

Way off. My MCs all track at between 1.3g and 1.8g

[marknoir]

I use a Hagerman Piccolo that I have modded and upgraded. It powers my Transfiguration Temper LOMC cartridge into a Hagerman Trumpet MM phono stage (but you know this already Mike).

Is it the quietest step up/head amp? No, but it has lots of adjustability for loading and gain (I need 26db boost for the .2mv output of the Temper) and has rediculous performance for its cost. I would love to compare it against the better Bob's devices or Slagel's or Jensen's. I have heard it vs the venerable TX103 transformers and thought it was better all around. More dynamic, better soundstaging and imaging, better bass and transparency.

And I have pride of building it myself and experimenting with different caps and resistors in the signal path to tune it to my ear. Not something that can be done with a transformer.

My experience was completely the opposite. I have tried the Piccolo with the Trumpet, and tried it with the TX103 copper that came with the Trumpet, and I thought the SUTs were not only better, but simply much better. I think you are doing a disservice to your top-flight cartridge by running it into a Piccolo. Just my opinion.

[marknoir]

I have tried many SUTs, and settled on Bent version of S&B TX103 copper. I found it to be the least offensive and the most transparent of all I've heard so far. Hagerman version I thought was just as good, but I had sold it with my Trumpet. For a MM phono stage, such as Trumpet, a SUT is a necessity when using an MC. There is no question in my mind that a good MC is better than a good MM.

I use now an MFA Luminescence preamp (modified, my favorite preamp ever), also tubed, but with huge gain. It was designed to pull an MC straight in, as low as .25 mV. Even though I do get some tube noise etc, it does pull them. I use my Bent transformers if the signal is very low, such as my Denon DL-S1 (.15 mV). When comparing the signal going straight in, and through an even properly loaded transformer, there is a certain deterioration, or definite change in sound, no matter how small. I found that active solid state MC pre-preamps were even worse.  So a SUT is a necessary thing in most applications. Never had a chance to hear David Slagle transformers, heard good things. I have also used for a while a Pass XONO active solid state phono stage, and I liked it a lot. I believe that with some mods it can be just as good as a tubed MM with a SUT in front. It had a certain dryness to it, which I've heard people were able to get rid of with mods. But with my other cartridges - ATOC-9ML MkII, AT33PTG and Madrigal Carnegie I I feel no need to use a SUT with the MFA. It uses two 6SL7's (or 5691s) in parallel per channel and a huge severely regulated power supply the size of a decent power amp and can double as a stove if you have a need...

[sts9fan]

To be honest I have neve used a SUT. I have used LOMCs before (Zu 103 and BM Glider 2L).
I have a Pass Xono MC stage. I have never seen the logic with the fact that the first 40-60db (including pre) of gain is fine being active but the last 20 should not be? That forty db is already 100x the carts signal. Quiet is quiet. Don't matter if its active or passive.

[topround]

Logic really is not involved with audio.
The use of transformers can give the magic, the magic is in the transformers.
Don't know why but the MC coils like to see another coil.

If you have never tried them you have to experience good ones that are spec'd for your cartridge. You may scratch your head and wonder why it sounds so good, but in the end it just sounds good

I have heard the Pass Phono stage several times , it was the big expensive one with 2 chassis, and it was very good, best SS phono I have heard so far. I would prefer it over most lesser tube pre's, but not an equivalent tubed unit.
This you would have to hear in comparison to understand why, and I have been lucky enough to

[sts9fan]

While I don't need one now, I am sure I will try them some time. I am sure they habe their pros and cons.  That said, I have zero use for tubes anywhere in the chain so our tastes may differ. 

[topround]

Since you are a SS guy, I think you will REALLY like the benefits of transformers.
Tubes are a pain the ass, but there is no denying the special quality of music they make, and they do have their downsides.
We all decide where we will compromise

[BobM]

My experience was completely the opposite. I have tried the Piccolo with the Trumpet, and tried it with the TX103 copper that came with the Trumpet, and I thought the SUTs were not only better, but simply much better. I think you are doing a disservice to your top-flight cartridge by running it into a Piccolo. Just my opinion.

I have a feeling you could be right, which is why I am eagerly awaiting the results of the stepup shoot out that I think Topround is (likely) preparing.
 

[marknoir]

I have a feeling you could be right, which is why I am eagerly awaiting the results of the stepup shoot out that I think Topround is (likely) preparing.
 

I'd love to read that too. I'd also love to hear the Temper, heard it's one of the best cartridges out there. Jim Hagerman told me that he chose the TX-103 because he felt they were the best available at the time. There were a few different incarnations of those, so one has to be careful, some were not as good. I like mine, but as I posted in this forum, I still hear some changes that they introduce to sound, as compared to direct in. "Mama, we are all crazy" here... ))

[BobM]

The Temper is an extremely musical cartridge, but from reports of previous owners who have moved to the newer Transfigurations, the Phoenix beats it (could partly be age related too).

I have heard the Orpheus compared directly to a Dynavector XV-1s on the same turntable (different arms though) and it was no contest. The XV1-s was just dry and uninvolving in comparison. Unfortunately the Orpheus is no longer produced because the only person who could make them died. Talk is that Transfiguration is desigining a new top of the line model.

[topround]

Yes, a step up shootout is in the works. It is not exhaustive though, just the usual suspects who wanted to be involved.
I am not  involved in the review I am just the instigator of it.
They will all be wound for the same cartridge.
Should be interesting, look for it on Analogplanet.com shortly.

I would like to know more about the different incarnations of the TX 103, is their a history path of changes to this transformer?
Was never impressed by the TX 103, perhaps I heard a bad one?

Would love to know more

[Jeff V.]

These tiny CineMags sound really sweet.  The CineMag 1131 are smooth, detailed & Dynamic.  If there is a shootout please include these.   I'd also like to try the Hashimoto HM7.

 

[marknoir]

Yes, a step up shootout is in the works. It is not exhaustive though, just the usual suspects who wanted to be involved.
I am not  involved in the review I am just the instigator of it.
They will all be wound for the same cartridge.
Should be interesting, look for it on Analogplanet.com shortly.

I would like to know more about the different incarnations of the TX 103, is their a history path of changes to this transformer?
Was never impressed by the TX 103, perhaps I heard a bad one?

Would love to know more

Looking forward to your shootout.

You said you were never impressed by the TX-103, what exactly you didn't like, what other did you compare it to, and which do you prefer? I have had probably 4 of them. One came with the Trumpet, one I bought before I bought the Trumpet combo, one I got in trade, and the Bent version is the ones I'm using now. I hear some problems with them, but they are less obtrusive than the others I have tried. What I have tried are these: FR big as a brick toroidal, don't remember model number, Entre, inexpensive K&K, top model K&K, a couple home-made Beyer dynamics, Altek 417-based home-made, various Jensens, Micro Seiki, Sony, Verion/Cotter, and some others that I don't remember now

TX-103 had a few versions over the years. Some came in "smooth" cans, and some with very rough cans (later). I remember Jim Hagerman mentioning, that the later ones were not as good. Since they've stopped selling to public right after that, I have heard that there were other changes implemented, but in which direction, I don't know. I can easily imagine, that the rough-canned unit that I've sold, because it was too exciting to me, would be loved by somebody else. They sounded very dynamic, much more midrangy, but also very up-in-your-face, and I couldn't listen to them for a very long time. The other three, all smooth-canned, had minor differences, but generally were mild sounding, sometimes a bit bland, I would say that they may limit dynamics somewhat, but VERY transparent. They also tend to emphasize upper mids/lower treble somewhat, flatten the sound a bit, and to my ears they are a bit slow, so to speak, they don't follow the music as flawlessly as when listening to an MC directly into my MFA. Difficult to explain. But I hear the same and more problems with other units. Their shortcomings can be compensated for with proper loading and correct choice of cables. These are the best that I have heard so far, but I have not heard the more current crop, like David Slagle's units. As I've posted before, these are the necessary evils with my Denon DL-S1, it's output is too low for my MFA to pull. I have recently heard a $15K tube phono stage with built-in SUTs, and I have heard some problems there as well, they were extremely transparent, but also edgy and peaky in upper mids/treble, so I guess the perfect SUT hasn't been built yet. I wish i could get my hands on the "Expressive technology" SUT, some swear by it.

[mgsboedmisodpc2]

GBB wrote" But it's worth experimenting with the loading of both the primary and secondary.  Small changes can make a surprisingly big difference."
How about keeping it simple and stick to what the manufacturer recommends keeping personal preferences out of the equation.

[mgsboedmisodpc2]

TOPROUND wrote " experience good ones that are spec'd for your cartridge"
Okay TR where is that list showing what trannies match what carts.  Yes for my 105 R I could contact BOB DEVICES have use his recommendation but should not this list exist for existing MC carts or at least the common ones.

Most people do not know how to match SUTs with MC.  It seems a consultation is always needed yet with whom.

[mgsboedmisodpc2]

"the stepup shoot out that I think Topround is (likely) preparing"
TOPROUND please include SUT in the under $1000 range including the Denon AU-300LC which is one of the cheapest SUTS around.  It will be interesting to see of hard to find VINTAGE SUTS will be used or if only currently produced SUTS will be used

[GBB]

How about keeping it simple and stick to what the manufacturer recommends keeping personal preferences out of the equation.

Hmm - that's an interesting but odd request.  My experience is that there is no such thing as one size fits all, especially when it comes to vinyl.  You can get good sound just by following the manufacturer's recommendations but to get great sound you need to be willing to experiment and tweak things to match your turntable, cartridge, and phono stage.  Very subtle adjustments can make a very big difference, especially when it comes to vinyl. 

Of course, feel free to ignore my input if that's your personal preference.

---Gary