Dedicated phono-pre for MM only?

Hi:

I was following the thread the last few days for a different reason than most of the previous participants. I have a Supratek Chenin that has only a MC input and I want to experiment with one of the Moving Irons made by Soundsmith that require a MM input. Currently mi analogue rig is Teres 255/Triplanar VII/Zyx Airy 3 and I am puting together a second analogue rig that would be finished in a couple of weeks. I bought a Townshend Rock III with a Moerch DP-6 and a totally refurbished Lenco L 75 (with a 70 pound plinth) with a Micro Seiki MA 505. I want to install the Soundsmith The Voice in both of those tables and see how it sounds. I can even install the Moerch in the Lenco and see what happens. That is the reason I am looking for a dedicated MM pre-pre. Thank you very much for this very informative thread and the options that you are considering. I will look for the K&K, Whest, Aqvox, Haberman and Allnic here on Audiogon and buy one of them. Regards, Pablo.

Hi Kirkus,
as always, a thoughtful and well laid out response.

As far as SUTs go, yes they need to be matched, well matched! But if done, they have some 'magic' of their own and can make an MC something more full of 'live' and vibrant.

As to this RIAA 'ping-pong' you say: "Well, error is error . . . and it's always statistically additive in this case"
Not necessarily since there are errors to the (-) and (+) side of the curve, yes?
And we are actually talking about observed 'tolerances' just not quite the same as ERROR, in my vocab anyway.
Now, tolerances can be additive or subtractive.

This would also mean that some of this 'synergy' so often mentioned, is just one of the things that make one cart sound better in a given set-up then in another.

As far as SUTs go, yes they need to be matched, well matched! But if done, they have some 'magic' of their own and can make an MC something more full of 'live' and vibrant.

Oh yes, absolutely agreed! Even in a purely technical sense, there are many inherent advantages to transformer-coupling a LOMC cartridge . . . and I obviously chose this approach myself. I simply wanted to give counterpoint for those that feel that SUTs are inherently inaccurate and colored - because I understand how one could come to this conclusion . . . as most implementations on the market IMO don't really realize the full performance possible in the transformer approach.

Not necessarily since there are errors to the (-) and (+) side of the curve, yes?
And we are actually talking about observed 'tolerances' just not quite the same as ERROR, in my vocab anyway.
Now, tolerances can be additive or subtractive.

From a statistical/tolerance standpoint, yes, this is purely additive error. In electronics design, there is a specific procedure called "monte-carlo" analysis . . . which takes the maximum allowable tolerances of each component and combines them all in the absolutely worst-case situations - and this gives you the performance tolerance of the entire circuit.

In the audio chain, to define frequency-response as a deviation from perfection . . . keep in mind that in this definition we may have no idea exactly what the particular error is for each part, only that they are within certain limits. So while we can hope for that perfect synergy where every error just happens to cancel each other out . . . if we are to truly take responsibility for the performance, we have to assume the "perfect storm" where all the errors just happen to add up in the worst way.

Hi Kirkus,
>>> ... assume the "perfect storm" where all the errors just happen to add up in the worst way.<<<

"Monte Carlo" analysis, OK... the inventor must have lost it ALL then - worst case.
BUT he did not consider any form of 'synergy'. The importance of synergy has been pointed out over and over, in fact lots and lots of times by Raul himself :-)
Must be some concession to this 0.075% perfection.

I worked in pcb, and later semiconductor assembly, that gives me that practical bias what can be done if it gets 'commercially' viable.
No way to have much better then 1% components on a tape-fed bonder doing SMDs, as I mentioned earlier.
Also no way to start improving tolerances after the stuff (not only SMDs) are on the pcb. (Note: >3x rework = reject)

I have a pretty good idea, that this is where some realism in terms of tolerances has to prevail, meaning ALL hand build, bespoke, and nothing done 'commercially' will qualify --- seriously, that doesn't float my boat yet.

Why? Because a lot of 'bespoke' products have plenty more hidden QA issues then something more 'commercial', where errors have been weeded out to a much higher degree.

Pablovila, Your list of candidate MM preamps looks like the one I posted on 6/26. I consider it incomplete. Below $1500 we also have the PS Audio GCPH and the Graham Slee Reflex, discussed above. Just to make it more confusing, I wonder how some of the highest end preamps from the "good old days" would fare if one were to upgrade the power supplies and the parts in the signal path. I am thinking of early Audio Research, for one example.