Sutherland Engineering Duo phono preamplifier

Mr Spock

demokratischer - sektor
Μηνύματα
19.040
Reaction score
53.573



"Saying that Sutherland Engineering builds a nice line of phono stages is like saying that the Porsche 911 Carrera is a nice line of sports cars." So began my review of Sutherland's PhonoBlock in the January 2012 issue. I went on to note that similar philosophies underpin both product lines, and to link the cost-no-object PhonoBlock ($10,000/pair) with the GT2 RS ($245,000), then the pinnacle of Porsche's 911 family. It's now 2017, and though Sutherland and Porsche have both gone through a complete development cycle and replaced their flagship models, the analogy still holds true.
What makes a Duo a Duo?
A key element of the design of Sutherland's new Duo dual-mono phono preamplifier ($4000 for both chassis) was apparent when its shipping cartons—as in two—arrived on my doorstep: two identical mono units. Ron Sutherland believes that this approach offers a number of advantages over a single box, or two boxes that split up the functions: power supply in one, audio circuits in the other. In an e-mail, he ticked off the advantages:

"There is obviously the elimination of crosstalk . . . and it's much easier to design a mono circuit than a stereo one. Everything is simpler . . . there's more room to optimize the layout, and to do things that make it easier to manufacture, which ends up helping reliability. Both channels see identical electrical and mechanical environments, so you don't have to compromise the performance of one channel to improve the performance of the other. Sometimes doing that can require different parts as well as different layouts. That drives up the cost, so you have to make tradeoffs somewhere else. Beyond a certain point, it costs more to improve the performance of a single-chassis unit than it does to build another chassis."

Once I'd opened the cartons, I saw that the Duos were built into the same small casework used for Sutherland's Insight stereo phono preamplifier, rather than the one used for Sutherland's other mono models. Other than size, the Duos' cases mirror the larger ones. They're built of the same powder-coated, heavy-gauge steel with a faceplate of ½"-thick anodized aluminum, the latter's surface interrupted by only the Sutherland logo at lower left and, at lower right, a single LED to indicate that the unit is powered on.



image: https://www.stereophile.com/images/917sutherland.bac.jpg




On each rear panel are one RCA jack for input, another one for output, and a grounding post for a turntable. As with all Sutherland designs save the Argentum Plus, the Duo has no provisions for balanced operation. There's also an IEC receptacle for a power cord, but only a basic AC cord is supplied. Says Sutherland, "Most customers are going to use one they pick, so why add the cost?"

The Duo's internal layout is similar to the PhonoBlock's, with separate subchassis for the power supply and audio circuits, and a single connection between the two. The connection in the considerably more expensive PhonoBlock is elegant: a ribbon cable running inside the faceplate; the Duo's subchassis are instead connected by circuit board labeled Power Bridge. Some may see this as a less elegant approach, but it's way cooler. Not surprisingly, the Duo's circuitry is much less complex than the PhonoBlock's. Rather than the PhonoBlock's linear supply, the Duo's supply is based on the internal switching supply first seen in the Insight.

Loosening four thumbscrews allows the casework cover to be removed, to gain access to the sockets and jumpers used to set the cartridge loading and gain. There are five possible loading values, ranging from 100 to 47k ohms, and the choices of gain level are 40, 46, 52, 58, and 64dB.

Every aspect of the Duo's construction reflects the superb quality seen in other Sutherland models. The boards are sheer engineering artwork, adorned with such audio jewelry as Dale/Vishay 1% metal-film resistors and 1% polystyrene film capacitors, the latter custom-wound to Sutherland's specs. The boards themselves are made of the same 1/8"-thick FR-4 fiberglass used in the PhonoBlock, the thicker material being Sutherland's simple, elegant way of eliminating the capacitance created in a typical 1/16"-thick board bearing circuits on both sides.



image: https://www.stereophile.com/images/917sutherland.ins.jpg




The Duo's operation is simple and intuitive, and the two of them worked perfectly during their time with me. As with all Sutherland products, the Duo's conservative design and superb build quality strongly suggest that it will prove bulletproof throughout a long and happy life.

Listening
I began by putting on the Juilliard String Quartet's recording of Schubert's Quartets 12 in c and 14 in d, D703 and D810 (LP, RCA Living Stereo LSC-2378). I sat back and listened. Try as I might to ignore the Duo's sound, by the end of Quartet 12, two things had become obvious: The Duo unquestionably sounded like a Sutherland, and quite a bit different from other Sutherlands I've heard.

The sound had a characteristic that's unique to Sutherland phono preamps while being shared by all of them. The soundstage and the sounds of the musicians' instruments weren't being re-created in my listening room. Rather, they were being revealed—as if the Duos were melting away some opaque, impermeable substance that otherwise encases and obscures the sounds. It felt the way it does when, at a live performance, the first note is sounded.

Most models of audio gear made by the same manufacturer display some sort of audible family resemblance, but in my experience, few such resemblances are as strong as the Sutherlands'—another example of the aptness of the Sutherland/Porsche analogy. Once you've driven a 911 or spent time listening to a Sutherland preamp, there's no mistaking either for anything from any other maker, and in both cases the reason can be traced to a single fundamental design choice. In the case of the 911, it's the use of an anachronistic rear-engine, flat-six layout. With Ron Sutherland, it's his reliance upon passive resistor-capacitor (RC) circuits.

I did most of my serious listening to the Duo by repeating a pattern of three types of listening session: just listening; then, listening and thinking about how the Duo might be affecting the music; and, finally, listening while dissecting and characterizing its sound in terms of specific attributes that travel well among audiophiles.

To follow a path to enlightenment, you must know where you begin.
The first step began that first night, when I dropped the needle on the Juilliard Quartet's Schubert. As more listening sessions ensued, I casually observed my reactions to what I was hearing and considered a few basic questions. Had I been captivated by the performance on the recording I'd just listened to? When it ended, was I disappointed and reluctant to let go? Or had I already chosen the next album I wanted to hear, or even already gotten it out? Did one evening spent listening have me already planning the next? Over time, my observations accumulated, and jelled into an answer to the first basic question: Had I been captivated by the performance on the recording I'd just listened to? My answer was Yes, absolutely.

A path to enlightenment, but is it the right path?
The second question might be: Did the Duo sound right?

Here I followed my second pattern: listening while also thinking about the five basic elements of music: pitch, timing, loudness, timbre, and location. Individually, nothing could be simpler. Combined, nothing could be more complex. Any sort of error or discontinuity, however small, can upset this intricate balance and destroy the magic. At a live performance, it might be a single violin note that's slightly off-key or a half-heartbeat late. At the other end of the chain of performance, recording, and playback, where an audio system sits, everything matters, and it matters more and more as you move upstream.

At the beginning, the interface of record groove and stylus, the need for precise accuracy is absolute. A system can work only with the information it retrieves at this interface. The same is true of a cartridge's tiny coils, magnets, and suspension, where the mechanical signal is transduced into an electrical one. No error that occurs here can be fixed downstream.

The phono preamp is just as critical, and its job is every bit as difficult. Here is where an insanely delicate, microvolt-level signal must be perfectly and significantly manipulated, then amplified by 60dB or more. This must be done across ranges of frequency and volume comprising several orders of magnitude, in a box that provides constantly changing mechanical and electrical environments that are unbelievably hostile to audio signals. Everything that a phono preamp does matters, and it has to get everything right.

The Duo got it right.
 

Mr Spock

demokratischer - sektor
Μηνύματα
19.040
Reaction score
53.573
Landmarks along the way
My first listening session made it clear that the Duo was a Sutherland phono preamp, largely because of the primal purity of instruments' timbres and the natural, effortless feel of the performers being simply revealed. The Duos' soundstage didn't just end at some clearly marked boundary; it spread to envelop everything within the bounds of the performance space, to create a single, coherent aural environment. When Michael Fremer reviewed Sutherland's PhD phono stage in January 2004, he discussed its vanishingly low noise, and how it gave rise to this purity and an unusually "black" background. He aptly described it as a freedom from "electronic detritus,"—a description that fit the Duo's sound to a T.

Some of the other ways the Duo reproduced spatial information also hewed to the Sutherland family resemblance. One was that it resolved low-level and inner detail past the point where hearing becomes perceiving, and even that becomes increasingly ephemeral. The various ways that a violinist moved his or her finger to create vibrato were one example. It wasn't obvious that they were there with the Duo in the system, but with most other preamps, it was obvious that they weren't.






Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content...ng-duo-phono-preamplifier#WGeODcWwAliyChrK.99
The Duos' definition of edges, on the other hand, was noticeably different from that of other Sutherland preamps, which I've felt emphasized coherence over sharpness. The Duos' images were instead bounded with what seemed like a perfect combination of coherence and definition. Those images sounded three-dimensional, solid, tangible—I had the strong feeling that I could walk between, around, and behind the musicians. Compared to most other preamps I've heard, it was the Duos' coherence that was most striking. Compared with other Sutherlands, I was most struck by their openness and transparency.

The Duos' superb resolution of detail was also not entirely in line with that of its siblings. I've found previous Sutherlands to be sublimely understated in their reproduction of detail. A better description of how the Duo sounded in this regard would be striking. The more obvious bits were much more vividly portrayed by the Duo than I've come to expect from Sutherland preamps. In this regard, the Duo sounded more like other A-list components. In that wider context, the Duo was far more sophisticated in how it handled low-level and inner detail. But compared to other Sutherlands, the Duo sometimes seemed to gloss over some of the subtleties that make Sutherland preamps so captivating.

Next up was the Duo's overall tonal balance, which I think of as the combination of frequency response, the timbres of instruments and voices, and how their transient characteristics vary with frequency. The first of these was easy: I heard nothing that suggested that the Duo's frequency response was anything other than flat. But it's the other two criteria that determine a component's overall tonal balance. Sutherland preamps have occasionally been described as having a rolled-off high end, or as lacking power on the bottom, criticisms I've understood but haven't shared. In the case of the Duo, debates about either are moot.



image: https://www.stereophile.com/images/917sutherland.circuitboards.jpg




The piccolos in Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony's recording of Prokofiev's Lieutenant Kije (LP, RCA Living Stereo LSC-2150/Chesky RC10) provided a good test of the Duo's top end. There was absolutely no lack of extension, but more significant, the piccolos highlighted how well the Duos' maintained their pitch definition and their portrayal of the instruments' timbre well into the upper treble. The Duos nailed the surprising way a piccolo's power and projection can increase with frequency, and such details as the sound of the player's breath moving across the mouthpiece were spot on, even at the highest frequencies. At the other frequency extreme, my listening made it clear that the Duos' low end was as extended as my listening room would support, and as powerful as required by any recording I've heard.

I've never heard any criticism of a Sutherland phono stage's midrange and I have none to offer here. Each instrument and voice had exactly the right balance of fundamental and harmonics, and the harmonic structures were complex and rich. One example of its superb sound in this regard was its reproduction of Suzanne Vega's voice in "Tom's Diner," an cappella recording from her Solitude Standing (LP, A&M SP 5136). Through the Duos, the combination of her odd rhythms and widely varying pitches and dynamic transients had me, hook, line, and sinker.

The last aspect of the Duo's sound I focused on was its reproduction of dynamic transients—which, in a well-set-up analog system, will largely be controlled by the phono preamp. In the past, some Sutherland preamps have been characterized as having somewhat foreshortened dynamic transients, and in some instances, this was true of the Duo. If a piece's largest dynamic transient ranged from pppp to ffff with the preamps I compared to the Duo, with the Duo it ranged from pppp to fff.

The size and impact of the Duo's reproduction of dynamic transients weren't at all deficient. In most cases, they were probably more representative of what I hear at a live performance, if less spectacular than those from preamps whose very raison d'àtre is creating explosive dynamic transients. The recording that for me best highlighted the difference was, oddly enough, one made in a studio. It was easy to hear the difference between transients that seemed natural and those that were spectacular in "Under the Boardwalk," from Rickie Lee Jones's Girl at Her Volcano (10" EP, Warner Bros. 23805-1 B). The dynamic transients in this track lacked for nothing through the Duo, and seemed just right.

When I thought about the speed rather than the size of the Duo's dynamic transients, the terms that came to mind were quick and lighter touch. I describe the Duo's transients as quick rather than fast because I reserve the latter adjective for components that sound fast but make the music feel edgy and rushed. The Duo's transients seemed ever-so-slightly ahead of the change in level or pitch, pulling the music along with just the correct amount of impulsion to support the music's natural flow.

The word that appears over and over in the notes from my sessions with the Duos is articulate. The more I listened, the more I was convinced that that word nails it. Consider Al Di Meola, John McLaughlin, and Paco de Luc°a's Friday Night in San Francisco (Half-Speed Mastered LP, Columbia HC 47152): The first cut in particular, "Mediterranean Sundance/Rio Ancho," was a killer example of how cleanly and precisely the Duos could portray dynamic transients. With lesser preamps, the notes played by Di Meola and/or de Luc°a will be blurred across one or more narrow frequency ranges. With the Duos, each note in the blistering exchanges between the guitarists started and stopped sharply, regardless of the pitch, volume, or complexity of the transient itself.


Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content...phono-preamplifier-page-2#fcFsKiOyt2pXTurh.99
 

Mr Spock

demokratischer - sektor
Μηνύματα
19.040
Reaction score
53.573
The Last Threshold to Cross
It would have been impossible to audition the Sutherland Duo without addressing the $6000 question: How did the $4000 Duo compare to the $10,000 PhonoBlock?

In some respects, the Duo sounded as one would expect: like a slightly detuned version of the PhonoBlock, reflecting compromises made to meet a lower price point. In other ways, it was a horse of a different color, suggesting that by the end of the development cycle, its trajectory may have shifted a bit.

The Duos definitely had the unique "revealed, not re-created" soundstage I've heard in all Sutherlands. Compared to preamps from other manufacturers, it was absolute. Compared to the PhonoBlocks, not quite. Solos and lead parts were slightly overemphasized through the Duos, and in many instances projected slightly forward from their surroundings. Similarly, the Duo's purity and lack of electronic detritus were breathtaking, and put it head and shoulders above the competition. The PhonoBlock was above the Duo, just not head and shoulders above it.



image: https://www.stereophile.com/images/917sutherland.2.jpg




The same thing was true for other elements of the Duo's performance: significantly better than most other preamps, but not quite at the PhonoBlock's level. One example was the amount and complexity of subtle details; another was the Duo's ability to distinguish between slight shadings in any of music's five basic elements. Still another was how well the Duo portrayed the timbres and dynamics of instruments across the entire audioband. The Duo matched or bested anything I've heard in these areas, other than the PhonoBlock itself.

On the Duo's side of the tally were a number of pluses, mostly in those areas where some have been critical of earlier Sutherland preamps, including the PhonoBlock. The Duo's top end seemed more extended, and its bass had more power and impact. Edges of images were more sharply defined with the Duos, which made them more three-dimensional and seemingly tangible. The space between those images were more open, giving me a more convincing impression of being able to walk into it than I'd had with the PhonoBlocks.

I heard similar things when I compared the Duo's and PhonoBlock's transient performances. Dynamic transients sounded larger with the Duo, as well as faster, cleaner, and more precise. The PhonoBlock's transients, on the other hand, seemed more integral components of the music, and thus more natural. The Duo's sound had more energy; the PhonoBlock's was much closer to what I hear at a live performance.

We have arrived and enlightenment is ours.
With the Duo, Ron Sutherland has once again increased Sutherland Engineering's ratio of performance to price. In 2007, the PhonoBlock was ridiculously inexpensive compared to other phono preamps of similar sound quality. In 2017, the Duo is even more so. For starters, it comes very close to matching the PhonoBlock's performance while costing $6000 less per pair. In some areas, the Duo's sound even counters the criticisms levied against earlier Sutherland models, including the PhonoBlock. I wouldn't be at all surprised if listeners who highly value these areas actually prefer the Duo, regardless of price.

I'm concerned that, sandwiched as it is between Sutherland's incredible flagships and less-expensive giant-killer models, the Duo might be overlooked. If it is, that would be a sad state of affairs. The Duo is an incredible product. Given the attention it deserves, it might well become as much a classic as the original PhD.

I can't recommend the Sutherland Duo more highly. Listeners who can afford it should own a pair. Those who can't justify spending $4000 on a stereo phono preamp should think again. The fortunate few who own more expensive preamps need to find a place to hear them—a place that takes trade-ins.


Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content...phono-preamplifier-page-2#fcFsKiOyt2pXTurh.99
Description: Two-box phono preamplifier. Inputs: one pair (RCA). Outputs: one pair (RCA). Gain (user-selectable): 40, 46, 52, 58, 64dB. Cartridge loading (user-selectable): 100, 200, 475, 1k, and 47k ohms. Power consumption: 15Wpc.
Dimensions: Each case: 17" (430mm) W by 2.5" (65mm) H by 12" (305mm) D. Weight, each case: 11 lbs (5kg) net, 19 lbs (8.6kg) shipping.
Serial numbers of units reviewed: 1060, 1061.
Price: $4000. Approximate number of dealers: 7.
Manufacturer: Sutherland Engineering, 455 E. 79th Terrace, Kansas City, MO 64131. Tel: (816) 718-7898. Web: www.sutherlandengineering.com.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content...eamplifier-specifications#DVGK1C2816GxcIQx.99
 






D

deleted user 10898

Guest
Μάιστα. Άντε, με το καλό και monoblock πικάπ...
Ναι γιατι το σήμα στο φόνο απο το ένα κανάλι μολύνει το άλλο...
Και στο πικαπ το τροφοδοτικό ειναι πάντα απο έξω, στα καλα τα χάι εντ κομμάτια, οχι σαν το δικό σου...
 




Τελευταια Μηνυματα

Staff online

ΣΤΑΤΙΣΤΙΚΑ

Threads
175.968
Μηνύματα
3.036.227
Members
38.524
Νεότερο μέλος
opanamas
Top