The mass of the SPU-T headshell was not the same as the GM.The GM had a thick and heavy brass(or lead) spacer inside,while the T had a thin brass spacer(or tall aluminium washers).The total mass in both cases was around 32gr .
A good way to use these miniature transformers is at the exit of the internal arm wire inside the turntable plinth.From there you can continue with the arm cable as usual.
I'm trying unsuccessfully to upload a picture showing these transformers and the innards of 2/15K.I hope to manage soon.
Last edited:
I'm pretty familiar with the sound of the 2/15K transformers integrated in the SPU G/T or G/T E.. They are pretty good, but the combination of external transformer with the GM E easily output performs the G/T E in some areas - particularly in LF extension, depth of image, and HF extension - no audible hum either.. My Schick arm has captive cables and as it is still under warranty I'd rather not modify it..
Note also that the G/T E based on a quick measurement is very slightly heavier by a gm or so than the GM E II.. Both are >30gms... I have the higher mass weight on my Schick arm..
As an EE I would be likely to design my own head amp if I chose to go that route, but thanks for the MPP reference.. I actually prefer transformers and have an all tube signal path that I would like to keep that way..
Note also that the G/T E based on a quick measurement is very slightly heavier by a gm or so than the GM E II.. Both are >30gms... I have the higher mass weight on my Schick arm..
As an EE I would be likely to design my own head amp if I chose to go that route, but thanks for the MPP reference.. I actually prefer transformers and have an all tube signal path that I would like to keep that way..
As brianco says,SPU's are popular in Grmany,but not as popular as they are in Japan.It is actually the Japanese that have kept the SPU alive till today.
This is the reason why you will also find some ortofon transformers that are only recently available in many countries but were selling in Japan a long time ago,also they are made in Japan.
These may be a good choice for SPU but they are not cheap today.
This is the reason why you will also find some ortofon transformers that are only recently available in many countries but were selling in Japan a long time ago,also they are made in Japan.
These may be a good choice for SPU but they are not cheap today.
Kevin,
I've got no hands on experience with the SPU but there is quite a bit of discussion on the web. There's a very nice German web page on the use of Siemens/Klangfilm for MC step up duties that claims the VL23 is the bomb when it comes to SPU pickups. It's a 1:30 transformer with impedance ratio of 3.2ohms:2500ohms. But these transformers have already been discovered and aren't cheap. There's a finished step up transformer box for sale on ebay (not mine) for sale for $699. Perhaps if you keep your eyes open you can find the raw transformers for less.
If you're willing to pay other people some big bucks then I've read good things about Auditorium23 and Silvercore transformers.
On the other end of the price scale, I've seen one person say they liked the Edcor RMX-1, a modern day clone of a 1953 RCA ribbon mic transformer. It's got very high gain at 1:37 and goes for around $23 direct from Edcor. As with most transformers, these are sensitive to loading and one person liked these loaded with 150k ohms instead of the "normal" 47k load.
---Gary
I've got no hands on experience with the SPU but there is quite a bit of discussion on the web. There's a very nice German web page on the use of Siemens/Klangfilm for MC step up duties that claims the VL23 is the bomb when it comes to SPU pickups. It's a 1:30 transformer with impedance ratio of 3.2ohms:2500ohms. But these transformers have already been discovered and aren't cheap. There's a finished step up transformer box for sale on ebay (not mine) for sale for $699. Perhaps if you keep your eyes open you can find the raw transformers for less.
If you're willing to pay other people some big bucks then I've read good things about Auditorium23 and Silvercore transformers.
On the other end of the price scale, I've seen one person say they liked the Edcor RMX-1, a modern day clone of a 1953 RCA ribbon mic transformer. It's got very high gain at 1:37 and goes for around $23 direct from Edcor. As with most transformers, these are sensitive to loading and one person liked these loaded with 150k ohms instead of the "normal" 47k load.
---Gary
Today I ordered a pair of Lundahl LL1941 from K&K and will report back once I have had them for a while.. In the mean time the current UTC HA-100X transformers sound really good. I'm hoping the Lundahls will better them in bass extension and should result in an even lower noise floor since their primary and secondary DCR is about 1/10th that of the UTC. In theory I should expect a slight enhancement in resolution, but the current transformer is good enough that is hard to imagine. Worst case I will just buy these.
The SPU is now fully broken in, and in combination with a Schick arm and my TD-124/II gives me the best vinyl reproduction I have ever owned. Shame it took so long..
The SPU is now fully broken in, and in combination with a Schick arm and my TD-124/II gives me the best vinyl reproduction I have ever owned. Shame it took so long..
I decided to split my SPU posts off of my old TD-124 thread as they are OT in that thread and I thought would eventually end up lost.
Much appreciated.. The SPU is really good and I just want to make sure I end up with the most suitable SUTs I can afford. There are a lot of extremely expensive options out there, and a limited number of DIY solutions which might or might not be competitive. The 1941 has a good pedigree and the technical description sounds promising, ultimately it depends on how it sounds in my system of course.. The big problem for me is that almost nothing has been written about the performance of this transformer so the purchase was entirely on faith that good engineering is going to give me what I expect..
The 1941 is based on a cut cobalt amorphous core and the 1943 on permalloy. The 1941 is supposed to offer the greatest resolution, and the permalloy 1943 is targeted at those who prefer its tonal characteristics. (I currently have permalloy transformers in several locations in my system and find them a big improvement over grain oriented silica steel in resolution, and distortion, but the amorphous core is supposedly better still.)
Lundahl 1941 data sheet http://www.lundahl.se/pdfs/datash/1941.pdf
Lundahl 1943 data sheet http://www.lundahl.se/pdfs/datash/1943.pdf
They are higher gain versions of the 1931 and 1933 respectively.
The 1941 is based on a cut cobalt amorphous core and the 1943 on permalloy. The 1941 is supposed to offer the greatest resolution, and the permalloy 1943 is targeted at those who prefer its tonal characteristics. (I currently have permalloy transformers in several locations in my system and find them a big improvement over grain oriented silica steel in resolution, and distortion, but the amorphous core is supposedly better still.)
Lundahl 1941 data sheet http://www.lundahl.se/pdfs/datash/1941.pdf
Lundahl 1943 data sheet http://www.lundahl.se/pdfs/datash/1943.pdf
They are higher gain versions of the 1931 and 1933 respectively.
I've only be listening to the LL1941 for a few hours over the past evening and today, but I will say they are quite good.
They are very neutral sounding and perform well right to the bottom of the bottom octave. They sound quite extended. I'm not sure they have much personality, they are quicker sounding, image slightly better and seem to present a slightly deeper sound stage than the HA-100X I have been using. The HA-100X has a warmer, more palpable midrange, but the trade off is a clear loss of detail - subtle but there, and their bass performance is bested by the Lundahl as are the extreme highs which are clearly more present.
I'd say these are a good choice with the SPU Classic GM E MKII at least.
They are very neutral sounding and perform well right to the bottom of the bottom octave. They sound quite extended. I'm not sure they have much personality, they are quicker sounding, image slightly better and seem to present a slightly deeper sound stage than the HA-100X I have been using. The HA-100X has a warmer, more palpable midrange, but the trade off is a clear loss of detail - subtle but there, and their bass performance is bested by the Lundahl as are the extreme highs which are clearly more present.
I'd say these are a good choice with the SPU Classic GM E MKII at least.
Some further observations... Clearly the LL1941 has much greater resolution and on excellent recordings the results are significantly better than the HA-100X, on mediocre recordings the HA-100X calls less attention to those flaws which may result in a more pleasing listening experience. Hard call, both are likable for different reasons.
Quick Update
I guess I have put about a further 10hrs of use in since I last commented on the Lundahl LL1941.
Obviously all that follows here is subjective and should be taken as applying specifically to (my) use with the SPU GM E II only.
I've never heard tighter, deeper bass out of a LOMC cartridge/SUT combination in my system, it's clearly superior to anything else I have had in this regard. Calculated -1dB point for this transformer with my 6 ohm SPU is 22Hz.
It preserves the dynamics, energy, and guts the SPU is noted for. This is not a polite or reticent sounding set up in any sense, and the 1941 does not degrade those qualities. (This is why I bought a Schick arm and SPU in the first place)
The tonal balance is very neutral, and every record has a distinct character - this may sound odd, but in many cases both a particular transformer and cartridge can impose a coloration that overlays everything - I hear no evidence of that happening.
There is very low level detail on a lot of recordings that I cannot hear through my other transformers. The sound is extremely clean, and characterless in comparison to what I have been used to.
Imaging has improved further compared to the HA-100X which was no slouch at all in this department.
The HA-100X is unquestionably beguiling sounding in comparison, but there is a certain warmth and tonal sameness overlaying everything, a little less resolution, and extension at the frequency extremes.
When I first started listening to the 1941 I heard a lot of good qualities, but it's tonal balance left me a little less than thrilled, if you like lush and warm, bordering on euphony you may not like these. I thought that there was a hint of midrange glare, which strangely seems to be going away with use - I have no idea why, but apparently something is going on in the core with usage and this is audible in casual A/B testing where my initial preferences in some ways favored the HA-100X. This is less the case as time goes on..
There is no question that the 1941 can be rather unkind to mediocre and outright bad recordings - in such cases a little sweetening might not be such a bad thing if it enhances one's enjoyment. I've always tended to prefer the accurate over the good sounding which IMHO are not always synonymous, but then I did not have the sort of resolution I am now living with..
In my opinion these transformers are clearly a good match technically and sonically for the SPU and probably do less damage to the signal than most devices IMVLE..
On a TD-124 with a Shick arm, the combination of the SPU GM E II and 1941 (or HA-100X for that matter) far exceed the performance I achieved with either the ZU DL-103 or Denon DL-103D with the Partridge 977, until I heard it I would not have believed there could be such a huge difference. The SPU literally leaves it in the dust...
I guess I have put about a further 10hrs of use in since I last commented on the Lundahl LL1941.
Obviously all that follows here is subjective and should be taken as applying specifically to (my) use with the SPU GM E II only.
I've never heard tighter, deeper bass out of a LOMC cartridge/SUT combination in my system, it's clearly superior to anything else I have had in this regard. Calculated -1dB point for this transformer with my 6 ohm SPU is 22Hz.
It preserves the dynamics, energy, and guts the SPU is noted for. This is not a polite or reticent sounding set up in any sense, and the 1941 does not degrade those qualities. (This is why I bought a Schick arm and SPU in the first place)
The tonal balance is very neutral, and every record has a distinct character - this may sound odd, but in many cases both a particular transformer and cartridge can impose a coloration that overlays everything - I hear no evidence of that happening.
There is very low level detail on a lot of recordings that I cannot hear through my other transformers. The sound is extremely clean, and characterless in comparison to what I have been used to.
Imaging has improved further compared to the HA-100X which was no slouch at all in this department.
The HA-100X is unquestionably beguiling sounding in comparison, but there is a certain warmth and tonal sameness overlaying everything, a little less resolution, and extension at the frequency extremes.
When I first started listening to the 1941 I heard a lot of good qualities, but it's tonal balance left me a little less than thrilled, if you like lush and warm, bordering on euphony you may not like these. I thought that there was a hint of midrange glare, which strangely seems to be going away with use - I have no idea why, but apparently something is going on in the core with usage and this is audible in casual A/B testing where my initial preferences in some ways favored the HA-100X. This is less the case as time goes on..
There is no question that the 1941 can be rather unkind to mediocre and outright bad recordings - in such cases a little sweetening might not be such a bad thing if it enhances one's enjoyment. I've always tended to prefer the accurate over the good sounding which IMHO are not always synonymous, but then I did not have the sort of resolution I am now living with..
In my opinion these transformers are clearly a good match technically and sonically for the SPU and probably do less damage to the signal than most devices IMVLE..
On a TD-124 with a Shick arm, the combination of the SPU GM E II and 1941 (or HA-100X for that matter) far exceed the performance I achieved with either the ZU DL-103 or Denon DL-103D with the Partridge 977, until I heard it I would not have believed there could be such a huge difference. The SPU literally leaves it in the dust...
Based on measurements and longer term listening I have a couple of conclusions to pass along on the LL1941 transformer.
I am now running this transformer at 16X which provides a flat response within 1dB from 20Hz - 20kHz with a 6 ohm source impedance intended to approximate the source impedance of my SPU GM E II. (And 300uVrms into the primary of the transformer)
The transformer works well and sounds good configured this way, IMHO at least as good as the older borrowed Silvercore MC (SPU version) I am currently using as a reference.
Performance in the 32X configuration is problematic with the GM E, insufficient LF response being the primary issue. (My pair measure -4dB @ 20Hz relative to 1kHz at 300uV from a 6 ohm source.) It did seem initially more dynamic in this configuration, but critical listening has not borne this out. Apart from the apparent lack of extreme low end it still sounded better than many of the alternatives I have tried.
The caveat here is that if you need the higher gain then this transformer may not be the right one for you.
It also seems to take a long time to sound its best and I am not quite sure why although this has been remarked WRT other amorphous core audio transformers, so...
As always YMMV.
I am now running this transformer at 16X which provides a flat response within 1dB from 20Hz - 20kHz with a 6 ohm source impedance intended to approximate the source impedance of my SPU GM E II. (And 300uVrms into the primary of the transformer)
The transformer works well and sounds good configured this way, IMHO at least as good as the older borrowed Silvercore MC (SPU version) I am currently using as a reference.
Performance in the 32X configuration is problematic with the GM E, insufficient LF response being the primary issue. (My pair measure -4dB @ 20Hz relative to 1kHz at 300uV from a 6 ohm source.) It did seem initially more dynamic in this configuration, but critical listening has not borne this out. Apart from the apparent lack of extreme low end it still sounded better than many of the alternatives I have tried.
The caveat here is that if you need the higher gain then this transformer may not be the right one for you.
It also seems to take a long time to sound its best and I am not quite sure why although this has been remarked WRT other amorphous core audio transformers, so...
As always YMMV.
Meister Silver SPU: Observations
Those of you familiar with the SPU probably know there are certain traits that would be common to all SPUs, dynamics, power, detail and an ability to eek the most out of the recording being played.
All of that said I own a Classic GM E II and have recently received a Meister Silver GM II brand new on a long term loan - with an eye to trying to decide whether or not I want to acquire one of these or perhaps a Synergy or Royal..
This design differs from the Classic GM E II in a number of technical respects, the GM E uses OFC wire in its windings, the Meister Silver uses gold plated silver wire instead and has a stylus with roughly half the mass of the GM E II, and the grinded wood head shell is finished differently in that it is glossy as opposed to matt black.
The impedance, compliance, and tracking force are the same as the GM E II, however it weighs 2gms more than the GM E II forcing me to rebalance my Schick arm for this cartridge. The output is 300uV versus 200uV for the GM E II which gives it about a 3.5dB advantage in SNR.
About 10 hours into break-in the differences are subtle, but I am aware of some differences. I expect the outlook to change as the hours pile on (and they most assuredly will )
In a nutshell I think the GM E II has a bigger, slightly more dynamic sound, the Meister Silver more control, a slightly leaner more controlled bass, and a little more focus overall. Highs interestingly are less prominent than is the case with the GM E II, a slighter darker yet still neutral rendition. Very subtle differences for the most part.
I am tracking at 4gms, SUT is a pair of Lundahl LL1941, and the phono stage is my latest design. (The Muscovite)
Music of many genres as always.
I can say it is an SPU..
Those of you familiar with the SPU probably know there are certain traits that would be common to all SPUs, dynamics, power, detail and an ability to eek the most out of the recording being played.
All of that said I own a Classic GM E II and have recently received a Meister Silver GM II brand new on a long term loan - with an eye to trying to decide whether or not I want to acquire one of these or perhaps a Synergy or Royal..
This design differs from the Classic GM E II in a number of technical respects, the GM E uses OFC wire in its windings, the Meister Silver uses gold plated silver wire instead and has a stylus with roughly half the mass of the GM E II, and the grinded wood head shell is finished differently in that it is glossy as opposed to matt black.
The impedance, compliance, and tracking force are the same as the GM E II, however it weighs 2gms more than the GM E II forcing me to rebalance my Schick arm for this cartridge. The output is 300uV versus 200uV for the GM E II which gives it about a 3.5dB advantage in SNR.
About 10 hours into break-in the differences are subtle, but I am aware of some differences. I expect the outlook to change as the hours pile on (and they most assuredly will
)In a nutshell I think the GM E II has a bigger, slightly more dynamic sound, the Meister Silver more control, a slightly leaner more controlled bass, and a little more focus overall. Highs interestingly are less prominent than is the case with the GM E II, a slighter darker yet still neutral rendition. Very subtle differences for the most part.
I am tracking at 4gms, SUT is a pair of Lundahl LL1941, and the phono stage is my latest design. (The Muscovite)
Music of many genres as always.
I can say it is an SPU..
The Meister Silver is breaking in nicely, subtle differences - a more detailed account will have to wait until I have put a lot more hours on it, then a slow but deliberate A/B - will probably ask a few audiophile buddies over to do some comparative listening..
Needle Doctor may be the best place to get one for anyone living in the United States - most new ones on eBay are grossly overpriced gray market items. (Have a problem with one of these and you are on your own - official Ortofon policy. Caveat emptor)
Needle Doctor may be the best place to get one for anyone living in the United States - most new ones on eBay are grossly overpriced gray market items. (Have a problem with one of these and you are on your own - official Ortofon policy. Caveat emptor)
Sorry that I am only now replying, missed the post when it originally occured..
The plinth was custom made in Vietnam for me through the good works of a close friend - I will be getting another one that will not be damaged in transit sometime this fall I guess. This one will live on as the plinth for my second somewhat parts challenged TD-124 and my recent project - a keeper-darren (ebay user id) SME 3012 clone. (A mix of Series II and 3012R features, very nice arm btw..)
Yes, the plinth is effective and the overall performance of the turntable/plinth/schick/spu of the moment thrills me every day. It was a long road to this point but it was worth it - there are just some things that a really good analog set up still does that digital just can't no matter how good, why I have no clue - no desire to defend my position either.. Perhaps a DCS dac would change my mind..
Hope someday to run across a pair at a reasonable price, the Hashimoto stuff has always interested me.
My remaining reservations about the LL1941 have vanished, it is a superb combination with the Muscovite and either of the SPUs on hand here.
The whole setup sounds very clean and detailed, hard to believe that with the exception of the Schick and LL1941s this hardware is all very ancient. I question every day how far we have come, I've traveled back into the fairly distant past to find the modern sound I was looking for.. Yeah the electronics are reflective of one school of current thinking in terms of tube circuit design, but most of the major make or break parts of the system were available by the early 1960s at the latest.
Meister Silver is breaking in very nicely, and sounds great - one thing that I find interesting is cuing up from the lead in grooves at the very outer edge it seems to skate a bit more than the GM E II before finding the groove - a wee bit disconcerting actually. (Verified 4gms of tracking force, the GM E II is not immune but is less likely to do this) Conversely it is fair easy to cue by hand - unexpected.