• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Ortofon ST-70 Moving Coil Transformer Review

Rate this MC Transformer

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 65 65.0%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 24 24.0%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 9 9.0%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 2 2.0%

  • Total voters
    100
Anyone who is listening to vinyl for superior sound quality is doing it wrong, with the exception of superior mixing (lack of compression).
You mean superior mastering, not mixing.

It is true that the original vinyl releases oftentimes employed much less wide-band compression/limiting than modern reissues—many are victims of the dreaded “loudness wars.”

However, the overall fidelity of vinyl cannot come close to digital releases. Vinyl will always suffer from noise (surface noise and lower SNR) and distortion (inner groove distortion and otherwise), as well as inferior channel separation and dynamic range—all constraints of vinyl as a medium.
 
Aren’t MC step up transformers supposed to be used in the signal chain right right before a phono preamp providing RIAA EQ and gain? Given this use case, I’m not sure if FR measurements of a step up transformer make sense, seeing as it is will be immediately EQ’ed by the downstream phono preamp.
 
Aren’t MC step up transformers supposed to be used in the signal chain right right before a phono preamp providing RIAA EQ and gain? Given this use case, I’m not sure if FR measurements of a step up transformer make sense, seeing as it is will be immediately EQ’ed by the downstream phono preamp.
That's the way I assumed it would be used. But no, the EQ in phono preamp can't fix any variations introduced by the transformer. It is blind to what is upstream of it. If the transformer changes things, that gets cooked in the response/output of the phono stage.
 
Anyone who is listening to vinyl for superior sound quality is doing it wrong, with the exception of superior mixing (lack of compression).

Right on. And with that, aside from know the value you get for this product, not even sure if this review is matter.
 
It is on kind loan from a member and costs around US $1,500.
Thanks to the member and for your testing Amir, but geez... $1500 for this!?

Pics;

1751857730413.png


1751857825237.png



JSmith
 
That's the way I assumed it would be used. But no, the EQ in phono preamp can't fix any variations introduced by the transformer. It is blind to what is upstream of it. If the transformer changes things, that gets cooked in the response/output of the phono stage.
I get that it’s still cooked in the signal, but I thought that the frequency response discrepancies would be better/worse depending on the performance of the downstream EQ.
 
I am open to input from members on how to interpret that. Note that I am on a time crunch to send this unit back (will be boxed up today to go out tomorrow). So little time for more experimentation
Ortofon MC's have an output impedance below 10 ohm.
You could try to create a low Z source with a resistor divider (drive a higher signal in 1000+1 ohm for instance) and see if things go better.
 
You might reach out to Jensen Transformers (or other maker) technical support and see what they have to say about design and testing of transformers in this application. They are a long time manufacturer of audio transformers for professional applications. They were the important supplier of small signal input and output transformers when those designs were popular.

Right now their support page is lacking on this application.


Cinemag (US) has products in this application. Carnhill and Sowter are similar UK transformer makers. From the documentation, the one you tested used Lundahl (Sweden) transformers.
 
Last edited:
Lundahl (Sweden) transformers


JSmith
 
You might reach out to Jensen Transformers (or other maker) technical support and see what they have to say about design and testing of transformers in this application.
And you may want to look at my reviews of their transformers: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ax-ci-1rr-review-isolation-transformer.24104/. I know the company well and they wouldn't produce such a product, and certainly not without proper specifications.

Anything I have to do for testing it better also be in the manual. Such things as frequency response spec, if highly dependent on load, need to have that specified as well.
 
Anything I have to do for testing it better also be in the manual
How to change version A or B is clearly in the manual I see online.
I would have spend a little more time finding out what is wrong when seeing so much deviation from spec.
 
It was set correctly in the 24db position and not <10ohm?
 
Also what was the input impedance of the AP555 with this measurement, as 47k is the rated load?
 
It was set correctly in the 24db position and not <10ohm?
I would have at least try to change the source impedance to find out the effect and if it explains the large deviation seen.
I am an engineer and curious to find out why.
 
Last edited:
(I don't think I've ever come across a transformer of this type without a bit of impact on the bass side, but Lundall is a very serious manufacturer and such measurements are probably due to a procedural issue.
phono tests require a lot of precautions regarding impedance level, egc...we recently saw here that the protocol without a dedicated adapted load produced irrelevant values in mm on ap...)
 
Back
Top Bottom