External or internal switched SUT

ssssly · 6244

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ssssly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
    • Posts: 386
on: December 20, 2010, 03:21:32 PM
I picked up some altec mic transformers to build a SUT for my EROS. Want to try out some low output carts.

So now I am wondering if building a switched SUT into the EROS, so I can bypass it for higher output listening, or a traditional external SUT with RCA connectors would be better.

So what do you all think? With the low signal levels will there be more loss via the RCAs or the switch?

Any more pros cons you all can think of to consider?



Offline Hank Murrow

  • Full Member
  • ***
    • Posts: 221
  • Potter loving music and tubes....
    • Hank Murrow's World of Ceramics
Reply #1 on: December 20, 2010, 03:35:38 PM
Paul Birkeland built me a modified Eros which has sockets for the Peerless 4722 trannies. When the trannies are in the sockets, the MC intputs are used; and removing the 4722's from their sockets activates the MM inputs. Here's pics....



Offline Grainger49

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 7175
Reply #2 on: December 21, 2010, 12:07:33 AM
  .  .  .   So what do you all think? With the low signal levels will there be more loss via the RCAs or the switch?

Any more pros cons you all can think of to consider?  

Both have drawbacks and a possibilities for noise.  The switch has longer wires carrying the non boosted MC signal versus the outboard SUT where the MC signal travels a shorter distance.  

The outboard SUT boosts the signal sooner but could be more exposed to sources of noise.  As I type this I am thinking I would go outboard over dedicated SUT inside the Eros.  The switch makes me uneasy.  There are a lot of setups out there that have switches, they do work well, but if I were to do it, it would be dedicated not switchable.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 01:00:22 PM by Grainger49 »



Offline ssssly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
    • Posts: 386
Reply #3 on: December 21, 2010, 01:31:43 AM
That PB build is interesting. Is the switching circuit for that openly available?

At the moment I am leaning toward the stand alone with all the internal wiring done with the same wire as my tonearm. Thinking of making a dedicated set of RCAs using the same wire as well with copper mesh insulation.





Offline ssssly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
    • Posts: 386
Reply #4 on: December 21, 2010, 04:10:42 AM
That is the same wire I have.

Am I correct in making the distance between cartridge and SUT as short as possible and then having the longer run of wire from the SUT to the EROS. Thinking that keeping the cart to SUT will minimize any distortion prior to the trannies from getting amplified and then passed to the EROS. Or am I missing something that would make the other way around more beneficial?



Offline Grainger49

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 7175
Reply #5 on: December 21, 2010, 04:16:15 AM
I think that would be right.  But... just to be clear here, the SUT drops the current and raises the voltage.  There is no magically produced power.  

That said, I think the best place for the SUT would be at the end of the tone arm wire.  That makes your table completely dedicated to LOMC.  I don't know if this has been done.  My concern is protecting that tiny signal voltage coming from the LOMC.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 07:43:04 AM by Grainger49 »



Offline Hank Murrow

  • Full Member
  • ***
    • Posts: 221
  • Potter loving music and tubes....
    • Hank Murrow's World of Ceramics
Reply #6 on: December 21, 2010, 06:25:55 AM
That PB build is interesting. Is the switching circuit for that openly available?

I think you'd have to ask Paul Birkeland how available it might be.  [email protected]

Cheers, Hank




Offline Paul Joppa

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 5831
Reply #7 on: December 21, 2010, 12:10:00 PM
The cartridge signal is small, in the sense of low power. That is fairly independent of the impedance level. For example, 5mV at 50Kohms (typical moving magnet) is 0.0005 microwatts, and 0.25mV at 125 ohms (typical moving coil) is also 0.0004 microwatts. The question about cable impedance is, what is the source of interference, or sonic compromise from which you need to protect the signal?

At high impedance, such as a MM cartridge or the output from a SUT, the biggest interference risk is electrical fields, which is addressed with good shielding. The biggest signal damage risk is cable capacitance, which will corrupt and/or dull the treble. So you want a short, low-capacitance, well-shielded cable, and the cartridge or transformer secondary would benefit from electrical shielding as well. Cartridges with metal bodies and transformers with internal and external shields are designed with this in mind.

At low impedances such as an MC output, the interference risks are ground currents and magnetic pickup. These are best addressed with twisted pair, or even star-quad, wire and balanced lines. Decades of studio and PA experience with microphones shows that tiny signal can travel long distances this way. In the absence of balanced lines, great care must be taken to avoid ground currents by allowing the cable to be grounded at only one end, and making sure that there is little capacitive coupling of power-line voltage to the shield at the other end.

Of course these are the extremes, and it's always useful to minimize ground loops even at high impedance, and to use good electrostatic shielding even at low impedances.

A final note - the SUT must be either magnetically shielded, or kept away from power transformers, or both.

Paul Joppa