Kevin, I've got an Ortofon Synergy G SPU on a VPI HW-19 Mk. iV / FR-64fx driving a pair of Lundahl 9206's into a Pearl 1. I've compared this dude to a Denon DL-S1 MC and a Clearaudio Maestro MM, and the SPU just creams both of them. Amazing for such an old design, but cartridge / headshell mass is the great equalizer. It is the best cartridge I've ever heard in 40 years of playing with this stuff, including a couple Koetsus.
I'd love to own an FR-7fz SPU, but they are WAY too expensive - when you can find them.
I'd love to own an FR-7fz SPU, but they are WAY too expensive - when you can find them.
I've compared three different SPUs to a variety of other cartridges and find them all to be significantly better than anything I else I have owned.
I've had a vintage loaner GT/E, my own current Classic GM E II, and the current loaner Meister Silver GM II - all have strong family resemblances.
The Synergy is another one I have been thinking about, unfortunately this would force me to get another set of transformers. (500uV out is just too much with the LL1941 and Muscovite phono stage combo which is already very hot @ ~80dB gain)
I'm very impressed with the Meister Silver's (henceforth referred to as MS GM II) performance which gets even better each day but am also concerned about the lead in grooves of many of my records as it doesn't find the groove as quickly as the GM E II. I've had to modify my cuing approach considerably with this cartridge and I miss the relative unfussiness of the GM E II in this regard which exhibits this behavior much less frequently. (But not never)
The GM E II IMO offers the most bang for the buck, it is a very significant upgrade over the GM (spherical) for just $50 more, and offers about 95% of the overall performance of the MS GM II for about 65% of the price, and in some areas may better it.
The differences I hear so far is that the MS GM II has a little more resolving power at both ends of the spectrum than the GM E II and is also slightly better at sorting out very complex mixes.. The GM E II images & does depth better and creates a slightly more convincing sound stage, but I am only about 10hrs into the break in of the MS..
I've had a vintage loaner GT/E, my own current Classic GM E II, and the current loaner Meister Silver GM II - all have strong family resemblances.
The Synergy is another one I have been thinking about, unfortunately this would force me to get another set of transformers. (500uV out is just too much with the LL1941 and Muscovite phono stage combo which is already very hot @ ~80dB gain)
I'm very impressed with the Meister Silver's (henceforth referred to as MS GM II) performance which gets even better each day but am also concerned about the lead in grooves of many of my records as it doesn't find the groove as quickly as the GM E II. I've had to modify my cuing approach considerably with this cartridge and I miss the relative unfussiness of the GM E II in this regard which exhibits this behavior much less frequently. (But not never)
The GM E II IMO offers the most bang for the buck, it is a very significant upgrade over the GM (spherical) for just $50 more, and offers about 95% of the overall performance of the MS GM II for about 65% of the price, and in some areas may better it.
The differences I hear so far is that the MS GM II has a little more resolving power at both ends of the spectrum than the GM E II and is also slightly better at sorting out very complex mixes.. The GM E II images & does depth better and creates a slightly more convincing sound stage, but I am only about 10hrs into the break in of the MS..
Have you thought about shunting the Muscovite input with a 50 ohm load resistor and just run the Synergy straight in ? You might not need a transformer with a 0.5 mv input.
I am building a Pearl 2 with variable gain, (45-65 dB) for my set-up and plan on running the Ortofon straight in. X- formers can be a mixed blessing.
I am building a Pearl 2 with variable gain, (45-65 dB) for my set-up and plan on running the Ortofon straight in. X- formers can be a mixed blessing.
Ortofon SPU Collector's Box
Btw, I am still hoping my sweet wife will love me enough to buy me the Ortofon SPU Collector's Box, so I can compare the GM spherical to the 85th, 90th Anniv. and Gold Reference versions. If it shows up for X-Mas this year, I'll invite all you guys over for Scotch, Miles Davis and John Coltrane !!
Btw, I am still hoping my sweet wife will love me enough to buy me the Ortofon SPU Collector's Box, so I can compare the GM spherical to the 85th, 90th Anniv. and Gold Reference versions. If it shows up for X-Mas this year, I'll invite all you guys over for Scotch, Miles Davis and John Coltrane !!
Hi DC,
Not unfortunately an option as I have designed to CD based audio levels and even with 56dB of gain in the phono pre without the SUT or some other step up device I do not have enough gain available.. Noise would be about 16dB worse although that is probably not as big a deal - my line stage has just 4dB of gain, and I need about 1Vrms for full power amplifier output, allowing for margin for different recordings I would need about 15dB of additional gain.. Coincidentally I do have Partridge 977 which would provide sufficient gain..
The LL1941 are very good, were I to get a Synergy longer term I would probably get a pair of LL1931 for it..
Shoot Out between GM E II and Meister Silver
This is where I get serious and talk about the differences I perceive between these two very competent cartridges over a couple of sides of vinyl.
Changes between cartridges was accomplished as rapidly as possible, however given the fact that two cartridges don't weigh the same I had to adjust the Schick arm each time I swapped cartridges - I can generally do this in about 90 seconds, but not nearly fast enough for direct A/B comparison, plus no way to remove my biases since it is not blind.
My initial encounter with the Meister Silver before it broke in was to note that it seemed to have a bit better control over the bass, but seemed less dynamic and images seemed more bounded..
It has been more than a week since I installed the Meister Silver and it has certainly got 20+ hours of use in that time.
I'll start by saying that everything the GM E II is, the Meister Silver is too, then add a little tauter bass, a significantly more extended and cleaner sounding top end and a general sense of greater refinement overall and you will have a sense of the differences between the two.
In general the GM E II sounds like the less expensive close cousin of the Meister Silver it is, just a little less capable and refined. The MS sounds cleaner and more transparent without being particularly obvious about it, and by the same token the GM E II is almost as good at extracting minute details from the recording, but sounds like it is working to do it.
The differences are probably subtle but seem to be significant enough to justify the cost differential and existence in the first place of the Meister Silver. I'm going to get one of my own, and the GM E II will end up on the other TD-124 where it will do a very good job.
This is where I get serious and talk about the differences I perceive between these two very competent cartridges over a couple of sides of vinyl.
Changes between cartridges was accomplished as rapidly as possible, however given the fact that two cartridges don't weigh the same I had to adjust the Schick arm each time I swapped cartridges - I can generally do this in about 90 seconds, but not nearly fast enough for direct A/B comparison, plus no way to remove my biases since it is not blind.
My initial encounter with the Meister Silver before it broke in was to note that it seemed to have a bit better control over the bass, but seemed less dynamic and images seemed more bounded..
It has been more than a week since I installed the Meister Silver and it has certainly got 20+ hours of use in that time.
I'll start by saying that everything the GM E II is, the Meister Silver is too, then add a little tauter bass, a significantly more extended and cleaner sounding top end and a general sense of greater refinement overall and you will have a sense of the differences between the two.
In general the GM E II sounds like the less expensive close cousin of the Meister Silver it is, just a little less capable and refined. The MS sounds cleaner and more transparent without being particularly obvious about it, and by the same token the GM E II is almost as good at extracting minute details from the recording, but sounds like it is working to do it.
The differences are probably subtle but seem to be significant enough to justify the cost differential and existence in the first place of the Meister Silver. I'm going to get one of my own, and the GM E II will end up on the other TD-124 where it will do a very good job.
Well the Meister Silver GM is staying here permanently, as I acquired it, and after about nearly two months of steady use I have to say this is the best cartridge I have ever owned.
I am really amazed at the detail this cartridge literally dredges out of the grooves, and it is completely unobtrusive doing it. The resolution is really there without any obvious penalties.
The differences I alluded to in previous posts between the GM E II and Meister Silver GM are probably a bit less subtle than I initially believed. My new phono stage makes the difference clearer, the MS GM is a great deal more refined while retaining all of the dynamic contrast of the GM E II. It also finds some additional detail and has a better defined and more precise bottom end.
Eventually I hope to get my hands on a 90th anniversary SPU..
I guess I have a thing for SPUs..
I am really amazed at the detail this cartridge literally dredges out of the grooves, and it is completely unobtrusive doing it. The resolution is really there without any obvious penalties.
The differences I alluded to in previous posts between the GM E II and Meister Silver GM are probably a bit less subtle than I initially believed. My new phono stage makes the difference clearer, the MS GM is a great deal more refined while retaining all of the dynamic contrast of the GM E II. It also finds some additional detail and has a better defined and more precise bottom end.
Eventually I hope to get my hands on a 90th anniversary SPU..
I guess I have a thing for SPUs..
Unfortunately I have no idea as I have no Sowters or Jensens on hand. My recollection of the Jensen stuff with a DL-103 is that the Cinemags were better, but that was a while ago and I don't remember what the Jensens were.
The LL1941 are the best I've heard in this system and that includes some well respected devices. (Mentioned earlier in the the thread.)
The LL1941 are the best I've heard in this system and that includes some well respected devices. (Mentioned earlier in the the thread.)
I don't know if this helps, but I've been listening to a pair of Sowter 1:10 trannies for the past several years. # 6495. I've used a few different MC cartridges in combination with it. Including DL103, DL103R, Shelter 501-II, Ortofon MC Jubilee.
Then, for one evening, an audio friend brought over his K&K Maxed-Out phono stage to try on my system. This was around 2007 or thereabouts. The Maxed-Out had MC inputs on the back panel like this one:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
And so we listened to his phono preamp on my system for a while, then changed back to mine, which was/is a Wright WPP100C and while using the Sowter SUT box that had been built by George Wright.
Then, much later, I tried some Beyer Dynamic trannies in a project box like this:
I plan on trying a few other step up trannies in the near future, but in the context of this thread, and this is marginal, I suppose because it is not SPU related, it might be interesting to pose an observation. And that is that the behavior of the phono stage may have a strong determining factor on what SUT / MC cartridge sounds best to the ear.
Anecdotal. The Maxed-Out stage was tried on my Shelter and also an Ortofon Jubilee while in my system. And the Maxed-Out had Lundahl trannies in combination with a switch (with a resistor array) that allowed load adjusting. So we tried several different loadings with my Shelter. The interesting result was that there was minimal difference between them. Nothing radical. Just slight differences like upper frequency extension being marginally different between one setting and another. Or differences in Bass emphasis, or slight differences at the mids. But nothing that would would disqualify any particular setting, had you not heard the others.
However, when comparing the Maxed-Out to the Wright (with 1:10 turns ratio) there was an obvious difference. And this was at the mid-range. The Wright tended to present in a forward/aggressive manner while the Maxed-Out seemed rather laid-back and recessed in comparison.
At one point I almost wanted to say that the Maxed-Out displayed a mid-range suck-out. But this may not be fair since the Maxed-Out wasn't listened to by itself for a very long period.
Lately, I've been using the Beyer Dynamic trannies with the Wright/Shelter. The differences between it and the Sowter are minimal. Slight differences in upper frequency extension in favor of the Sowter. Slightly more low frequency energy, rhythm and drive, dynamics with the BD. Just marginally different. Tonal, timbre differences exist but are also marginal. I suspect the improved dynamic performance with the BD trannies is due to a higher turns-ratio/larger gain. (1:15 versus 1:10)
The one thing I haven't done is try any Lundahl step-up trannies in combination with the Wright.
But in general, I get the impression that what we are listening for are small differences rather than large......that is until you factor in different phono stages. Then the differences heard between stages might, or might not be larger.
-Steve
Last edited:
All of my testing was performed using a single phono pre of my own design.. The new unit has only been used with Partridge 977 and the LL1941. No question the new design (the muscovite) outperforms the old D3A based design, from the standpoint of the transformers perhaps the most important thing is the huge reduction in miller capacitance in the input stage. The old input stage was a triode connected D3A (~300pF) and the new one is a cascode 6S3P-EV (<60pF).
i don't get why you need 1:32 with a SPU with 0.3mV? wouldn't 1:10 be enough?
btw anyone tried HAUFE T-890 with SPU? sounds very good on paper, 40ohm input imp, 1:10, 35k secondary (needs resistors to match 47k), primary dcr 9 ohm, secondary dcr 900 ohm....
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
My LL1941s are wired for 16X these days.. which provides something on the order of 4.8mV from the Meister Silver GM II and 3.2mV from the GM E II.
It's a good compromise in terms of SNR, the dcr of the transformer secondary is probably the dominant noise source in the phono playback chain.
Note that you also commented on a very early post in the thread, good to read the later ones to see what changed. At the time I had a phono stage design with insufficient gain for the system architecture using an SUT with a lower step up ratio. A ratio of about 1:20 would have been ideal with the right transformer at that point in time. (The HA-100X sounded much better run with all windings connected.)
It's a good compromise in terms of SNR, the dcr of the transformer secondary is probably the dominant noise source in the phono playback chain.
Note that you also commented on a very early post in the thread, good to read the later ones to see what changed. At the time I had a phono stage design with insufficient gain for the system architecture using an SUT with a lower step up ratio. A ratio of about 1:20 would have been ideal with the right transformer at that point in time. (The HA-100X sounded much better run with all windings connected.)
interesting, have you had any compensation on the haufe secondary side considering they are 35k - you have 47k written on your graph?!
i guest that a HF rising response may suit well a bit darker character of SPU - or what cartridge you used there?