• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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!

Phonostage - Sutherland 20/20 vs Manley Chinook - Am I Crazy? Other options?

miketeachesclass

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 4, 2023
Messages
8
Likes
2
I brought home a Sutherland 20/20 with LPS from a local shop because my Manley Chinook is experiencing some ground noise, and the Sutherland is well reviewed. The shop was willing to loan it to me for a few days to try out.

I was fully expecting to love the Sutherland and drop the nearly 3k on the pre and the LPS.

Let me preface this by saying I have limited experience with varying phonostages, and my experience is a mofi low end phonostage ~$150, my Chinook, this Sutherland, and the built in MM stage on my mcintosh MA352. I also hate myself a little bit for using a handful of the below subjective terms.

I just felt the Sutherland was a little thin in comparison to the Chinook. The midrange felt a little squashed together, and the Chinook seemed to allow instruments in the midrange maintain separation more than the Sutherland. In particular, there are guitar parts that I had to listen very closely for on the Sutherland that were easier to hear on the Chinook. Not that they were mid forward on the chinook necessarily - just seemed to have greater midrange clarity.

Same thing for low frequency punch; the Chinook just seemed to have a little more weight down there. The high frequencies seemed comparable on both units.

The soundstage on the Sutherland seemed a little "flat", and the chinook, a little more "3D" (This is the stuff I absolutely hate myself for saying, but I'm not sure how else to describe it - the Chinook just seemed to allow things to be placed in space/the stereo image more accurately, and with more separation/clarity.)

Now the above absolutely shocked me. Under normal circumstances, I would have expected a tube pre to have a little less clarity.

Am I crazy? Is this just a tube vs solid state thing? Is the sutherland maybe just not the right solid state pre for me? I did LOVE how quiet the sutherland was. Damn near silent when nothing was happening.

Anyone got thoughts? Are there other solid state phonostages I should try? Honestly, if the Sutherland had the sound of the Chinook and the super low noise level of the Sutherland, I'd have handed over my money instantly.

Thanks!
Mike
 

USER

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
886
Likes
1,409
OK, I'll bite. As I own a Chinook I feel that I should say something helpful. But I'll preface this by saying that the type of advice you get here may not be what you were looking for.

First thing's first: do you know much about setting up a turntable? As you have not even mentioned your cartridge or loading settings, I'm thinking that this would be the most beneficial area on which to focus. I'm afraid that I can't really respond to your descriptions and comparisons as the terminology is not very useful and *I* can't trust it unless you conducted a proper AB test, which would be near impossible to perform in this scenario. Gain alone can be making the difference and you haven't mentioned it. What kind of low end filtering are you using? What does the rest of your system look like? What are the specs of your phono stages?

What we would need to know to begin to understand your situation are the cartridge and loading settings. These affect the frequency response, which has been demonstrated through actual research to affect perceived sound quality. Are you using a MM or MC cartridge? The former is dependent on loading, including cable capacitance. The latter less so, though gain can make a difference depending on its quality.

The Chinook is a great phono preamp. I have it because of its robust loading options and I collect and measure historical cartridges. (It's waaaay overpriced though. Phono stages are old, mature technology and no one is doing anything special despite what they say. Compare the specs of what you have to those found on reviews here.) It would be great to know why you are getting noise. I get a tiny bit with a Cambridge Duo but not with the Chinook. (I do get a little hiss if my ear is by the speaker, but generally most phono stages have this. I use specialized equipment for my important recordings.) Could it be the cartridge itself? Have you tried grounding the actual preamp to the amplifier? Evelyn Manley forwarded me their actual lab measurements and the results show that there is no real coloration of the sound. (With tubes, the design makes the real difference, not the tubes themselves given they are working as they should.) I can forward it to you if you'd like to see the specs. Manley is a legit, professional company and tubes in the Chinook aren't used as distortion factories. If you *need* an anecdote: I own the special edition and have rolled tubes. No difference. You saying it has a 3-D sound sounds to me like something Kevin Deal would say. He is, of course, a f'ing say-anything idiot and I'd recommend you not listen to his marketing videos. I recommend you look up the big tube thread on this site. There is some fabulous information there.

Anyways, make sure the loading, gain, and overall levels match as closely as possible. You can even get the most out of your cartridge if its MM by measuring it and adjusting it as needed.


Here are some useful links:

Here you will find a paper on cartridge comparisons. This is from the authority on home audio, Floyd Toole, and the information here is as definitive as you will find.

There are a few other tube threads but this is a good place to start:
 
Last edited:

DVDdoug

Major Contributor
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
2,920
Likes
3,834
I wouldn't expect the RIAA EQ to be off by more than a dB or so.

The preamp's input capacitance can make a difference and because the cartridge is inductive more capacitance can resonate to boost the highs (the opposite of what happens with a resistive source).

I'd expect cartridge frequency response to vary more than the preamp's response (including it's RIAA EQ).

And the records probably vary more than anything else. That used to be the case back in the vinyl days when I was playing records. Newer records may be more consistent... I don't play records anymore but overall the record itself is still the weak link, assuming you have a half-way decent setup.

And of course you can tweak the frequency response with EQ!

I would have expected a tube pre to have a little less clarity.
It's not too hard to build a good tube preamp. it's just expensive and the sound quality can degrade as the tubes age. And IMO it's silly to be using 1950's technology. :p Power amplifiers are more difficult because of the output transformer (which you don't need with solid state). A good audio transformer is hard to build and expensive!
 
OP
M

miketeachesclass

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 4, 2023
Messages
8
Likes
2
Hey Guys - thanks for taking the time.

Indeed, I left out some important information.

The table is an RP6 and all the groovetracer upgrades, not that it matters. (Delrin platter, new sub platter, counterweight). It’s running with an ortofon black LVB (MM) It sounds much better to me than the stock exact did. The cartridge was mounted and set up by the shop that sold it to me, which I trust.

I have the chinook set to 100pF for a total load of 150-180 pF including the tonearm cable. The Sutherland doesn’t have changeable capacitance. The chinook is set to 45 dB gain, and the Sutherland is set to 46, which is the closest match. Both are set to 47k on the input.

I’m not currently using any subsonic filtering, and will investigate.

I don’t mean to imply that my opinion should be taken as any sort of objectivity. Indeed, everything I’ve mentioned is entirely subjective, and ultimately seems to come down to “I like the way the chinook sounds better than the Sutherland”. I’m absolutely certain someone else will have a different experience and opinion.

I was just surprised at my own listening experience, which sort of turns out to be the opposite of confirmation bias. I went in expecting one thing and ended up the other way around. Imagine my delight when I preferred the thing I didn’t have to buy, as surprising as it is.

The chain in my system is RP6 > Chinook > McIntosh MA352 > PSB T800’s. Cables are well built, but not of the high grade audiophile type because I mostly think that’s a bunch of snake oil.

I spend most of my critical listening time in my studio on a pair of focal SM9’s. I’ve been mostly doing orchestral recording as of late. (It’s not my living - I’m a control system programmer by day, but studied music and audio as an undergrad and in graduate school). I’m well versed enough in the pro audio side of the world, but the “high end” home audio thing is still sort of new to me.

I guess ultimately, I wrote in the forum because my preconceived expectations were sort of upended.

I agree with you, the terms like “3D” sound like complete garbage, and I should have taken the time to be a little more objective. I would say that to me, the chinook seemed to be a little clearer in the low mids and mids between 250Hz and 1k or so, and seemed to have a little more every in the upper low end range around 50-60 Hz. The imaging also seemed a little more clear, with a little bit more of a phantom center. I’ve seen written that the Sutherland dies something different with the higher end of the RIAA curve, but only beyond 15k, so it seems unlikely that would impact what I’m hearing out if the lower mid part of the audible spectrum.

Again, this is my ears, in my room, on my gear, on a handful of records I’m familiar with to know the sound of very well.

Really, this whole post started as I was thinking to myself, I’d like some opinions on tube vs solid state, and whether that should even make a difference if all other things in the circuit were equal. One of the reasons I like this forum is the objectivity with which things are assessed and measured. (Get out of here with your $400 power cables). I have no interest in contributing to the tomfoolery that so many “hifi” folks seem to subscribe to, and apologies if that’s what came across.

Thanks for the reading material and thoughtful responses. I’ll dig into that material.

In the meantime, maybe I should realize that sometimes “I like the way that sounds” is good enough reason to keep a piece of gear rather than chasing some bizarre nonexistent objective “best”.

Thanks again!

Mike
 

USER

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
886
Likes
1,409
It’s running with an ortofon black LVB (MM) It

I've always wanted to measure one of those. The measurements I see are all over the place and it would be good for one of us here to post a properly done, reliable one.


Supposedly it is the modern cartridge that comes closest to one of the all time greats, the Shure V15 V-MR. Luckily I have a good supply of the latter so I don't need to consider the cost of this one. The measurement would have to look like the one below.


Without any real evidence, if it measures like in the first two, then there could be a difference in sound if the loading is different. I'm not sure if it would be what you are describing. Maybe more "air." As mentioned, capacitance affects the higher frequencies, though it can start at around 5kHz. Perhaps the Sutherland has higher noise and distortion with higher output cartridges. You should try to find measurements. I do have to add that I have seen measurements of cartridges on different phono stages and there usually is no difference in the frequencies you mention. In fact, it is known that most cartridges perform very similarly below 1kHz!

As for other phono stages to try out, if you wait a little bit longer around here you may see some interesting options to try if they work out. ;) And don't let price be a factor here. Again, this is mature technology.

I'll post some caparison measurements of cartridges on different phono stages some time next month. There are some already on here made with the Chinook and they behave as they should with absolutely nothing indicating any tube influence on distortion or, more importantly, frequency response. Search the MI MC MM thread.

Remember that you can always send your Chinook to Amir. Many would love that. You'd have real answers then. If I were not on the other coast I would myself
 
Last edited:

Angsty

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 11, 2020
Messages
1,863
Likes
2,215
Location
North Carolina, U.S.
Both are great phonos, but the one friend I know who had both kept the Manley and sold the Sutherland.

If you like the Manley more, then it is “best” for you. Don’t feel compelled to have to prove your preference.

I have a Sutherland Insight which I enjoyed greatly, but was knocked off the perch by a vintage Bryston BP1.5. No regrets.

Reviews with measurements:


 
Top Bottom