Dynavector XV1s loading & phono


Hi.

For those of you that have owned the XV1s, just curious as to what phono stage you are using with yours (or have used) and what loading you are putting on it to make it sound great!

I have got a XV1s at the moment, but with the Cary PH301mkII tube phono stage, have never got it to sound great. I was using the XV1s on LP12/Valhalla/Ittok II/rignmat anniversary. The default loading for MC on the Cary is 680 ohms. I modified it to make it about 150 ohms which did make a substatial improvment, however, sound was still very dull, undynamic, muffled, very unexciting.

I have heard the TeKaitorua (next model down) on a Oracle/smeIv setup going thorough a very modest solidstage phono/integrated setup and that gave extraordinary results! Likewise with the Lyra Titan, used through a solid stage Lyra Connosieur phono stage was absolutely amazing. Some people have replaced their Titan's with the XV1s! I don't think I'm hearing anything close to what the XV1s is capable of at all.

I think it is something with my front end analogue setup as my CD playback sounds spectacular, WAY better than the XV1s/Cary combo in every way. Since I have blamed the Cary for the poor match with the XV1s, I have since replaced the unit with the Kondo M7 phono - but as this is just a standard phono stage, I have had to revert back to my very modest MM Linn K18II cartridge. The Linn/Kondo setup is better than the XV1s/Cary in every respect - probably equal to that of CD playback in my system. To use the XV1s with the M7, will require step up transformers.

Question is:
1) What sort of loading are you guys out there using with the XV1s and on what phono? Tube or solidstate?
2) Is my deck/arm/PS combo the main cause of the poor sound from the vinyl?
3) What stepup transformers would one recommmend to match with the M7 - there is obviously the Kondo SFz ... any other worthy contenders?

Thanks a lot for all you guys help.

Regards
David
linnmaster
Hi Speedy one ..

I agree with Thom's comments. I think you should first try optimizing the VTF per Thoms's suggestions.

I didn't want to scare the poor felow, but yes ... you dragged it out of me (grin). .02 is definitely in the realm of audibility.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier
Dear Bkonig: 480 Ohms ?, my God. I know very well Dartzeel unit ( good one ) and if you need 480 Ohms to achieve a good XV-1 performance IMHO you are in trouble elsewhere in your audio system.

Regards and enjoy the music.
raul.
Dear Thom: With all respect to you but IMHO you need to read these links about SUT's:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1130451054&openflup&5&4#5

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1138829438&openflup&41&4#41

What you are reading here are facts not a " simple opinion ".
You are not helping to the MUSIC sound reproduction supporting SUT's and the most critical issue is that you are not helping to any of us that are looking for the best quality sound reproduction in our audio systems. You are telling the people that already invest thousands of thousand ( big dollars ) in TT/tonearm and cartridges that put in hand of a terrible/patch SUT the delicate/beloved cartridge signal, incredible from a TT designer!!!!!!??????

Like I told you I respect your opinion but I must totally disagree. Thom you have to " work " with facts and you don't have any single one to support SUT's and you don't have it because does not exist. IMHO you use it because you need it and you need it because you make wrong choices about low output MC cartridges with tube Phonopreamp, but this subject can't mean it that a SUT is better that a well designed high gain Phonolinepreamp: absolutely not!!!!!!!

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Raul, in your links, I don't see much that I would ackowledge as being "facts."

To address your comments one by one, yes, distortions will be generated at the core of an SUT, but distortions are also being generated in any MM or MC cartridge (both in the signal core and in other places). In your recent posts you have noted a preference for cartridges that measure to be poorer than normal in terms of distortion. If you clearly can like cartridges that measure to have higher-than-normal levels of distortion, why are you afraid of distortion in the SUT?

Bandwidth of an SUT may not go down to DC, but I have a test transformer on my bench that measures dead-flat down to 10Hz, with a -3dB roll-off of 1Hz. The top end is dead-flat to at least 30kHz (the top-end response after that depends on the load). Far better than any loudspeaker, for sure.

True, an SUT has a reactive electrical component, but so does any cartridge that has an inductive output (all of them) when you use it with an interconnect cable that has capacitance (again all of them). The audibility of the resulting electrical resonance is directly related to the inductance of the cartridge (high inductance plus cable capacitance means a resonance that may be close to the audible band and can be measured and heard directly, while low inductance means a resonance that remains at RF frequencies, and shouldn't be directly audible unless your phono stage has linearity problems at RF frequencies and IMD subsequently allows the electrical resonance to fold down into the audible band). At least with a stepup transformer, you can physically place it close to the phono stage and keep the interconnect cables ultra-short (thereby reducing capacitances). With a high-inductance cartridge like an MM, you need to keep the cable long (therefore meaning high capacitance), and this will give you an electrical resonance that is far more likely to be directly audible and also measureable in the audible band. This is why, although high-inductance cartridges like MMs make life easy for many phono stages due to the high signal voltage, many audiophiles still prefer low-inductance MCs, even if they need to use stepup transformers into low-gain phono stages. FWIW, every MM that I've listened to and thought sounded acceptable had low inductance.

Mind you, normally and by preference, I also prefer to design with and use fully active amplification when it comes to phono equalizers. However, I know from first-hand experience that it is possible to design a stepup transformer that at least measures pretty well and sounds reasonable. And let us not forget that there are many phono equalizers that audiophiles like and already own that would benefit substantially from some extra gain with small noise penalty (and also in some cases, benefit from judicious band-pass filtering). Both of these are attributes that a stepup transformer can easily provide. Let's not insist that audiophiles throw out their existing phono amplifiers just to satisfy a technical argument which doesn't appear to be on such solid foundations.

regards, jonathan carr