On Step Ups and the Importance of Managing Gain


The past several weeks have been some of the most eye opening in my entire audio journey. Despite over 30 years listening to LPs across a range of setups it seems I've only just stumbled across one of the secrets of analog reproduction -- the step up transformer AKA the importance of managing gain across the analog reproduction chain.

To understand what I mean you need to start with an understanding of my gain cascade prior to my most recent changes. My cartridge is an Acoustical Systems Palladian which is a relatively low output MC at 0.33mV. I've been running it into an ARC Ref 2SE Phono and then an ARC 40th pre. Both are connected balanced so the gain is 51dB (for the phono stage) plus 12dB (for the pre) = 63dB at the LO gain setting -- I tried listening to the HI gain (74dB) setting on the phono but found the added FET amplification added an edge to the sound, amplified hum and restricted dynamics. I'd therefore learned to live with having the Ref 40 volume control on the high side (about 70-80% of range) and "thought" I was getting good sound - great clarity, sound-staging and frequency delineation.

However with a pending upgrade in my phono stage to the VOSS phono, a pure 40dB only single ended affair, I was forced to add a step up to my setup. I've always sworn off the added complication and additional switching and cables so had assumed it would not do anything to improve things. How wrong I was. The model I have is the Music First Audio Classic V2 in a custom configuration built for me with two inputs (one for my mono arm and cartridge) and fixed 20dB gain (1:10 ratio). It also has a three way ground lift switch so any hum issues can be addressed at source (which works btw). At about $3K it's not cheap (and MFA have cheaper options) but in the scheme of things actually much less than the list price of the interconnect I needed to add to connect it to my phono stage (so in the context of my system a stone cold bargain). 

My gain cascade is now 20dB (step up) plus 45dB (phono, now single ended) plus 12dB = 77dB and the volume control is at 40-50% of range. Once I'd realized that running a step up into 200 ohms is not going to work at all and switched the ARC Ref2SE to 47K I was off -- and was I surprised! All of the sudden the soundstage opened up by 50% side to side, front to back and up and down. Dynamics on individual instruments suddenly snapped into focus and the overall presentation was transformed in a way I would not believe possible. One instance can serve as a sense of what I mean -- the two opening cuts on Joni's Hejira, "Coyote" and "Amelia", are mostly similar sounds layered over one another and can be pretty hard to sort out. With the new step up in place it's as if everything now makes sense and each instrument is positioned in space perfectly in location and scale with all the others.

So what's my take away and potential advice to any reading this?
  1. High gain (i.e. 60dB plus) phono stages are, as we all know, problematic so if you can avoid going that way consider looking into it, BUT
  2. Don't "push your gain" i.e. try to under drive a stage, you may not know it (as I didn't) but trying to amplify .33mV with "only" 51dB is probably losing a lot of detail into the noise floor of your amplification stage and/or giving you problems down stream if gain is set too high
  3. So given 1 and 2 try a step up -- you may be surprised as I was!
Not sure if this experience matches with others and would love some perspective from amplifier designers as to why I may have had such a bad (in retrospect) experience with my prior gain cascade.
128x128folkfreak
roberjerman, I cannot argue with your thesis, because it is after all based on your own opinion, but with all due respect, the Levinson JC1, while it is historically significant, is ancient in design and parts used, compared to the best modern high gain phono stages, like Raul's and Almarg's, and dare I say my own.  (JC1 was a pre-preamplifier or "head amp", as I recall, or was it a phono stage with high gain?  I used to own a Counterpoint SA2 head amp, which is now easily beaten by many top caliber high gain all in one phono stages.)  But I am not taking the position that all high gain phono stages are to be preferred compared to all SUTs plus low gain phono stage combos, even though the former is my decided preference.  I am only saying that either approach can be superb, done right.
I do not recall the technical details as to why, but my reading indicated that matching the proper SUT to the particular cartridge is critical, and is not only a matter of gain.  My experience was also that very small differences in loading were very clearly audible with a highly resolving phono system.  Cabling also becomes critical due to the "multiplication" effects of the SUT.  Since analog is not my primary source (GASP!!!) I have chosen to avoid the multiple variables involved with and SUT, and have gotten very satisfactory results with either a high gain LOMC phono stage or a head amp plus MM phono stage over the years.  I have heard excellent results either way.
Dear @swampwalker : The cartridge it self is no sensible to load impedance. What is sensible to load impedance changes si the phono stage dpending on the quality of that design..


@rauliruegas-  All system integration decisions involve trade-offs. I do not have even a smidgen of the knowledge necessary to parse out the differential effect of load impedance on the various elements of the analog reproduction chain.  I only know that I was able to hear the difference between very small variations in the load resistors placed across a very high quality SUT.  Therefore, I've opted for a solution that eliminates the variables associated with an SUT by going w sufficient gain in the phono stage to allow a 0.25 mV LOMC to perform well.  Maybe if I had some knowledge of electrical engineering and circuit design, I would come to a different decision. 
Raul & Michael (Swampwalker), you’re both right. Regarding the multiplication effect Michael mentioned, the transformer will of course step down the resistive component of the input impedance of the phono stage as it is seen by the cartridge, but at the same time it will step up (multiply) the input capacitance of the phono stage and the capacitance of the cable connecting the SUT to the phono stage, again as seen by the cartridge. That will tend to work in the direction of lowering the frequency and increasing the amplitude of the resonant peak in frequency response resulting from the interaction of cartridge inductance and the load capacitance applied to the cartridge. In the case of LOMCs that peak occurs at RF frequencies, but may affect sonics to the extent that the design of the phono stage allows audible frequencies to be affected by RF energy that is fed into it, and to the extent that the bandwidth of the SUT allows frequencies in the vicinity of that peak to be conveyed to the phono stage.


Also, differences in loading can affect the behavior of the transformer itself, including its susceptibility to effects such as ringing. The concept of an “ideal transformer” is often used in electrical engineering, because modeling a transformer as a theoretically ideal device can be useful for purposes of circuit analysis. But an “ideal transformer” is something that in the real world can only be approximated. So the noise-free gain provided by a SUT, that was referred to earlier, does not necessarily come without tradeoffs.

Atmasphere has made similar points in a number of past threads.

Regards,
-- Al