Sweet Vinyl Sugar Cube SC-1 (Continued)

Using the SugarCube SC-1

Naturally the first record I pulled from the shelf was that Beatles album. I put on side two, opened the app and got busy listening. First I listened to the “minty” opener “Martha My Dear” through the balanced connection (as I normally would). Then as it played and with the SC-1 set to “bypass” (analog output) I switched to the preamp input that outputted SC-1’s output, lowering the level to match (the balanced output is greater). So set I wouldn’t want to be subjected to a blind test to identify which was which. In other words, the SweetVinyl folks have designed an essentially transparent relay-based pass-through.

More importantly when “Blackbird” began I switched off the “bypass” so the signal passed through the SC-1’s pop and click removal circuitry. As soon as the “pop” started I hit the “click remover” button and with the “strength” slider set to the mid position, the click was gone and so for the first time I could thoroughly enjoy “Blackbird” and the second side of the $75 album.

Did it now sound “digital” (as well commonly use the term)? No. Did it sound identical to the bypassed signal (which of course now had the offensive “pop”)? Not 100% identical. However, timbrally it was essentially a wash. The differences with the “pop and tick” circuit engaged were a slight change in instrumental textures and a slight diminution in soundstage depth. That is, textures were more supple and transients somewhat smoother and more delicate in the “bypass” mode.

Which is preferable? No contest! Getting rid of the “pop” in exchange for the most subtle of differences was a most worthwhile trade-off. That said, would I just leave the “pop and click” remover engaged full-time? No.

Once I’d heard what the SC-1 was capable of doing it was time to pull out other “tic infested” unplayable records. First up was a copy of “Grand Canyon Suite” with Howard Hanson conducting the Eastman-Rochester Orchestra on Mercury (SR90049). I remember finding it at a garage sale in the late ‘80s and being so excited about finding a Merc for buck! That was until I looked carefully at the surface and after cleaning, playing it.

The music itself was undistorted but the ticks, pops and crackles made it not worth listening to but I kept it anyway. Glad I did! Through the SC-1 it was back to mint! That’s not hyperbole. In fact I’ll prove it to you at the end of the review: there’s a file containing a few minute’s worth of the record during which it toggles between “bypass” , “click and pop remover” and “click monitor” where you hear mostly the pops and clicks with a small amount of music below. Yes, I know it’s all digitized so you can’t compare all-analog to digitized but it’s the best I can do!

Next up was a swell Riverside stereo release The Compositions of Tadd Dameron (Riverside RLP 93511) featuring Milt Jackson, Bill Evans, Herbie Mann, Bobby Timmons, Blue Mitchell, Eddie “Lockjaw” Davis, Johnny Griffin and of course Dameron hisself in groups that include various other greats including Jimmy Cobb, Paul Motian and others.

A great record in the label’s “Jazz Master-Composers Series” I’ve never before or since seen. I got it at a Housing Works thrift store along with 20 others that had just been put on the shelves because I’m sure the next day they’d all be gone (but I won’t list them).

It’s another record where the grooves were good but bad handling had produced too many pops and clicks to make it a pleasant listen. Again, glad I kept it because now it sounds good. There are still a few audible pops and clicks though well suppressed. The SC-1 is a near-miracle product but it can’t fully repair all damage. Nonetheless this record is now one I can play with pleasure or record as a 96/24 file and put on the Meridian Music Server—not as easily as it could be done through the SC-2, but easy enough.

There's one kind of recording that fared worse than most, and that's simply miked, seriously holographic recordings, mostly classical music, though I first heard what I'm about to describe on Stereo Concert, The Kingston Trio (Capitol ST1183) released in 1959. It was the first time Kingston Trio fans got to hear the group in stereo. It was clearly a simply miked production (probably a spaced pair of omni's, according to Stereophile editor and professional recording engineer John Atkinson) that produces spectacularly vivid three dimensional imaging, though when any one of the trio moves, the soundstage imagery dramatically shifts. Some of the music and especially the humor is terribly dated but if you want to hear your system do its thing spatially this one is great! The SC-1's click remover did its usual great job removing my copy's pops and clicks but it also noticeably flattened the stage along with the vocal images' palpable three-dimensionality. Despite the ridiculous claims of "100% transparency" made by some for digitized analog, this kind of real time processing clearly shows what's lost in the process. The better, more vivid the stereo, the more you can hear what's lost.

How Does it Work?

According to SweetVinyl’s Dan Eakins:

“The SugarCube algorithm instead of identifying frequencies or bands of audio with problems looks for events in the time domain and then corrects the audio to remove them by interpolating the slope of the preceding audio. These repairs are so small and distinct that humans can’t perceive them and is actually how a sound engineer would remove them manually.

“Clicks and Pops are distinct from music in that musical sounds typically have an attack and decay that look quite different over time than clicks and pops. (Music has repeating patterns while clicks and pops are isolated impulses that stand out in duration and strength.)

“Our algorithm hunts in real time for candidates to repair and then applies pre-defined rule sets on these to make sure they are not music. This is pretty straightforward for most instruments - but some things can look like clicks and pops. For instance a drumstick on a drum rim, a muted horn, where the attack and decay are roughly symmetrical. We have identified many of these and update the software rules as we find corner cases.”

According to Eakins there are automatic algorithm updates. The unit must be on the update to occur but the company recommends turning it on and off as you normally do your other gear. Once booted up the next time you use it, as long as it’s connected to the Internet and no audio is playing, it will automatically check and update the system, which takes around an hour.


The SweetVinyl team has been working on this “real time pop and project for a few years now, improving all aspects of the design and bringing each update to audio shows so we can all hear how the project has progressed.. These guys are committed audiophiles and vinyl fans who bring to this years working in Silicon Valley so what you have here is a product that is technically finessed in the digital domain, informed by experience and commitment in the analog world and built to the level audiophiles expect at an unexpectedly reasonable price.

They've taken their time with this product and I believe all of their hard work has paid off—at least in terms of the product itself. How audiophiles will react is something I can't predict but I think many will react as I did and come to see this is an indispensible addition to their vinyl playback systems. It will certainly change how I go used record shopping—especially in the bargain bins.

Click on the link below to hear 1:54 of the Mercury “Grand Canyon Suite” in various states of “click repair” as follows:
0-26 “bypass”
26-32 SC-1 “in”, no click remover
32-41 click remover “in”
41-46 just the clicks
46-55 click remover “in”
56-1:02 click remover “out”
1:03-1:54 your call!

Grand Canyon Sweet!

uniqueusername's picture

I initially suspected this was nothing more than taking software libraries like Cedar/Izotope into a chip, and processing the input on the fly. I can do similar by capturing a rip, open my raw rip file in Audirvana, enable AudioUnits to invoke the Izotope declick module, and listen in realtime while it declicks the output (never touching the source file).

Or, load my rip into Izotope directly, setput the declicker and let it auto-declick the whole side. It takes longer of course, and it is a static setting (how aggressive a declick setting to use).

It sounds like the SC has more intelligence in applying the algorithm, although I am speculating, seems as if it is not applying one blanket setting across then entire LP side? My two methods above both do, so this would be a big point in favor of the SC1/SC2 technology.

Further, much to their credit, I wrote the guys at SweetVinyl who make the SugarCube and asked if I could send my 24/192 wav capture and have them declick it through the SC2 for me, and they happily agreed!
Since the unit has no idea what is feeding the analog inputs, I figured this would be possible, and it was, they explained the only possible impact would be the file would get digitized twice. The results were very impressive to my ears, it gave me a glimpse of before/after, and a chance to compare my own manual declicking with Izotope versus theirs. I want one.

Since the SC2 would save me the time of manually de-clicking, which is typically 2x actual playback time, I definitely want one, I just have to convince the household minister of finance of the value proposition and ROI....

Michael Fremer's picture
You don't have to digitize the album before de-clicking. You can listen in real time, enjoy and put the record back on the shelf!
corsentino's picture

The Strength control on the chassis is a knob not a button.

Michael Fremer's picture
True. I'll ficks it
corsentino's picture

Thumbs up emoticon ;-)

Anton D's picture

This is the perfect toy for beloved yet flawed LPs.

Remember the SAE 5000A back in the day?

It would be big fun to compare and see where this new technology struts its stuff!

A member of our Hi Fi club got one and I will get to hear it in 3 weeks at his meeting.

I have a "minty" mono early pressing of Kind of Blue that has the noise profile of a old 78 rpm disc, so I'm taking that and we will see!!

Thank you for reviewing it, it is on my short list for shopping.

cundare's picture

Heh -- I definitely remember the SAE 5000. As I mentioned to Michael at one point, I remember it filtering out legitimate content in recordings of academic electronic music of the day, like Subotnic's "Wild Bull" and "Silver Apples of the Moon." It appeared to me at the time that the SAE worked primarily by means of edge-detection, so those theoretically vertical attacks sometimes fooled it. Michael's brief description of this new approach might overcome this problem, but I'd still be interested in hearing a recording of how this new device handles tricky electronic content. If you do get that demo at your HiFi club, a 1950s-1970s electronic-music recording (or even certainStockhausen-like percussion pieces) would be a grueling test. Look for sounds that have steep attacks & delays and short duration.
I trust Michael's ears (and equipment) when it comes to evaluating transparency. But this is a completely different question.

mraudioguru's picture

...for the files. It seems to do a pretty decent job. I'm sure you remember the SAE 5000A "Click and Pop Machine"? I had one, it worked, but it really degraded the sound.

Michael Fremer's picture
Is so much better....
edbeta's picture

I have been using the SAE5000A for over 40 years, and am well aware of its limitations.....Recently, I have picked up a KLH/Burwen TNE7000 which I have found to be decidedly superior to the SAE.....I would be very interested in reading a review which would compare the performance of the SC-1 to that of these older products....I also question the cost-effectiveness of the SC-1, especially at the recently increased price, and would be very interested if and when the less costly version becomes available...

Johnnyangel's picture

A fun review, thanks. However, it seems inevitable that someone will mention an existing, much more cost-effective alternative to this device, so I'll be that guy.

Namely, if real-time digitization and de-clicking of records is something you need, it can be accomplished via Bryan Davies' ClickRepair RT software, which runs well even on an obsolete laptop -- total cost only a few hundred dollars if you already have a USB ADC and DAC. ClickRepair RT also appears to be more flexible than what SweetVinyl is offering, though I certainly wish them every success.

Personally, I've never found the need for real-time click reduction, though performing it on a rip is another story. But I can imagine that Click Repair RT (and maybe the SweetVinyl?) would be great for anyone with a large collection of 78s.

Michael Fremer's picture
Not interested in laptop interface...
Johnnyangel's picture

I don't love the fact that a MacBook is on top of one of my audio racks either, but most of the time it is closed and doing no harm. It's a question of what's cost-effective. Two grand obviously buys a lot of records or other fun stuff ...

rtrt's picture


Johnnyangel's picture

This has been discussed quite a bit on the Hoffman forum for instance. Bryan Davies no longer bundles it because of problems with real-time Java support on some Windows machines, but the RT code is easily obtained and legal to use if you buy the standard ClickRepair package.

rtrt's picture

I had a quick look on Hoffman and as you say there seem to be people using RT as of 2017.

One thing I didn't see was whether the RT element was still developed actively and so benefited from any improvements added to the main app or if it's effectively frozen at a point in time.

Any insights?

Johnnyangel's picture

... but I'm definitely not qualified to say! One thing I did glean is that RT will only do up to 16/96 unless you upgrade from Apple's Java to Oracle's latest version, at which point it can do 24/96.

gbougard's picture

I have a catalog of audio files that I sell via SpotifyApple and all the online stores you can think of. I also produce music and reissue older stuff. So while I am not in an audiophile trip like many of this site readers, I do care about sound quality.

I have click repair, Izotope and a few other applications that I use as part of this job. I also am the first beta tester of the SweetVinyl "big" model.

The Izotope does a great job, but Sweetvinyl is at least as good and takes no time to use. On some heavily destroyed records from Jamaica (I'm a reggae speailist), I've experimented with going through Sweetvinyl and then Isotop-ing the file, but the improvement is not really worth it. So 90% of the time I stick to Sweetvinyl, that's how good this baby is.

Of course, all these are less good than a good engineer who restores records for a living, but they Sweetvinyl can be used "almost" professionally. I have captured a record and uploaded it to sell online and nobody has complained.

timorous's picture

I actually enjoy ripping vinyl to the computer and fixing up the ticks & pops (manually in some cases). Yes, it's time-consuming, but if you use the right software and listen carefully to what you're doing, the results are very good.

The concern I've always had, is the extra wear and tear on the poor stylus, compared to playing really clean records. If I'm ripping an LP that I know is in questionable shape, I have a spare stylus on hand, saving the 'pristine' stylus some grief and wear and tear.

Michael Fremer's picture
A good point. I wouldn't play seriously damaged records and having the spare stylus is useful. However, while I don't enjoy fixing the tick and pops manually I do enjoy seeding my lawn one seed at a time. So satisfying! So precise!
treyroscoe's picture

I've heard the PureVinyl folks at shows proclaim benefits of applying RIAA digitally, and this seems like another great potential feature for the Sugar Cubes since there is already ADC conversion going on. Is there currently a way to accomplish this with either of the existing Sugar Cubes (with or without help from something like PureVinyl software)?

theroey's picture

I'm so glad you showed this to me at the LA Audio Show last year. I look forward to getting on of these in my system so I can feel more at ease by used vinyl.
Tape loop is going to get some use again!

Anton D's picture

My thoughts, exactly!


annalog's picture

Could you also check the real time performance using the laser turntable as vinyl source? Unless you haven’t build a dust free clean-room the LT’s laser will detect every tiny dust particle and produce more clicks and pops than any other needle based cartridge. A real challenge and a tough job for the Sugar Cube!?

tbromgard's picture

Hey I have one of these in NM condition. Looks like it went up in value since I bought it 25 years ago!

SeagoatLeo's picture

Hi, I'm glad you finally answered my question on the fourth forum try. I thought there would be a slight change in character using a digital conversion; however, the overall benefit is superior, especially for damaged or poor quality surfaced records.

I plan to use the SugarCube SC-2 for mastering from 78s (I have 7,000 in my music room and 4,000 in storage) and noisy and damaged LPs (I have 25,000 LPs with similarly rare but worthy music to be savored). It is very convenient to use in the tape loop position, switching it in or out of the pre-amp.

This is something that archival university 78 rpm record collections should use instead of their "one size fits all" declicking, noise reduction technology and then converting to MP3s instead of higher resolution files. With the SC-2, they can download the corrected version to a harddrive immediately.

Michael Fremer's picture
I should have done a few of those. Maybe in a follow up with some audio posted. The Caliburn runs at 78rpm as does the Technics SL-1000R
analogdw's picture

Enjoying it?

Lazer's picture

I heard a 78 of Rachmaninov actually playing the piano himself on his 2nd piano concerto in the sweet vinyl listening room at Axpona. They A/B before and after and the results were stunning. It was truly jaw dropping to hear such a historic recording sound so pristine.

foxhall's picture

Those of us willing to transcode vinyl and remove clicks in a workflow are likely an extremely small niche group.

I get the impression the SC-1 will just make LPs more enjoyable without any effort.

davidz's picture

I own an SC-2, and think that it is worth clarifying that it is still very much a beta product. Track tagging and splitting have not been implemented. they have been promised in "the second quarter."

cdlp4578's picture

Wondering what it would do to tracks that are supposed to have clicks and pops in them, like The Flaming Lips "She Don't Use Jelly", XTC "Respectable Street" and many others.

jon9091's picture

They originally announced these at $1500 list for the SC-1 and $2500 list for the SC-2. Now, they are each $500 higher, which prives them right out of my interest. They shot themselves in the foot back jacking up the price.
Here’s the original interview. (go to 6:35)

OldschoolE's picture

It is a shame they did that. I have seen both these machines demoed live twice and I think they are fantastic. One can use them with any turntable and any system (provided there is a way to hook it up), regardless of cost. At one demo I got into it with a guy (who was a reporter for some outfit), whom tried to claim that you have to use a $10k turntable to get the benefit and that vinyl was going away again anyway (total idiot).
I was mainly interested in the SC2 since the first time I saw these units, but I struggle to justify the cost even at $2k. Very tempting though in functionality! I grew up with vinyl and I have mad cleaning skills and such so I don't mind the occasional tick or click. (It does bother me on classical music, but then again my classical LPs are noiseless anyway. (It is the one near guarantee in used record buying - classical albums tend to be near pristine). I liked the SC2 so I could eliminate several steps in putting some vinyl on a jump drive or what have you and eliminating extra noise such as clicks, ticks and pops were and added bonus. (I normally try to do that manually through Audicity, but it is far from perfect as I am only willing to filter so far so as to not lose too much).
By them raising the price another $500 pushes more folks out of market. I must say though that the work the guys making the devices put into it is tremendous! On top of that they keep working at it perfecting it more and more and providing good support updates and such, so you do need to pay folks well who are willing to go to such lengths. So even though I am well priced out of the SC units now, I can see both sides of the street and have to give credit where it is due.

Rudy's picture

The price increase pretty much pushes both out of the running for me, sadly. At this point it's less expensive for me to just buy a couple more copies to find a record that is clean.

A buddy of mine was in on the Kickstarter deal and got it at a far lower price. While it's not a must-have for me, this is yet another time when I'm kicking myself for not trusting my instinct...

mschlack's picture

Dan Eakins description of Sweet Vinyl's algorithms sounds in part like what I remember of the Dolby Digital feature on my old cassette deck. Specifically, zeroing in on the attack/decay differences between noise and music. I never liked DD much -- at least in my modestly priced deck, it seemed to kill the treble pretty well too. If you remember the sound of DD on cassette decks, how would you compare its effect to Sweet Vinyl?

gbougard's picture

the difference in sound is minuscule, not like Dolby. You can hardly hear it whereas Dolby was a total pain in the @$$

OldschoolE's picture

To this day, I steer clear of Dolby because it is still a total PITA.

Lazer's picture

I don’t care about cassettes, neither should you. I listened to sweet vinyl today at Axpona(the difference was stunning); you read Michaels review. If your a skeptic, fine. Maybe give it a sample in person before comparing it to cassettes. Do you really want to use DD on cassettes as a comparison without even hearing for yourself? Do yourself a favor and sample it in person. You will bet happy you took my advice. Good luck.

rwwear's picture

Is what you I believe you mean.

SweetVinyl's picture

Just thought we would jump in and provide a little feedback from the team here at SweetVinyl. First thanks to Michael for spending the time and putting the SC-1 through the paces on his amazing system and all the effort he has put into covering our project over the last several years.

On the pricing front, we were left in a dilemma as we believe the basic systems should be less than we are at right now for the SC-1 and SC-2, inline with our original pricing model.

However digitizing analog in the best systems with little to no perceptible difference comes at a price and the cost of the hardware in the system crept up as we refined the design forcing us to raise the list price. As a result our first products can sit in a system like Michael's and improve the experience.

We did offer very attractive pricing to anyone who came to visit us by adding them to our email list and inviting them to the Indiegogo campaign.

As there is still a need for a more affordable design point we started working on some stripped down models that will have less hardware features and a step down in the finish of the enclosures which will improve the list price to be at or better than our initial targets.

We have a lot of work to get the SC-2 out of Beta and into production with track splitting and meta-data tagging working on the units in the field - as well as other software updates to the systems as we make improvements and add features.

If you are at Axpona, stop by and say hi, we will be on the 6th floor and we have a special demo we will be showing of surface noise reduction on 78 vinyl running on a SugarCube!

Yours in SweetVinyl.

OldschoolE's picture

I have been dreaming about getting an SC-2 ever since I saw my first demo. (I'd go for an SC-1, but I can do much more with the SC-2 as I am not bothered too much by the occasional tick and click and one pop won't send me running out of the room either. Of course, really bad records will, but none of mine are that bad, so far). Unfortunately, both units will remain out of my reach, but I think they are a fantastic product.

My last demo was at the Newport Show 2016 where I had to defend you guys live from two idiots, one was a reporter who hates vinyl and the other was some joker who walked in claiming that it doesn't work with turntables less than $10k and carts less than $1000. This was in spite of the fact that you were using a $500 table and a $100 cart in the demo! (I wish Michael was there with me at the time, but he said I did good when I told him later).
I am pleased to hear that you are working on a more affordable unit though as that can only help!
You are right about the cost of materials and such, but I also consider the labor that goes into the product. Not just building the units, but the research and development to make it and continually improve it, which I fear will never end. It is just the nature of the beast. The world in which you work for this product is constantly changing, so it is all you can do just to keep up.
So yes, keep going! I look forward to seeing the less expensive version when it comes around, not to mention anything else you come up with.

abby normal's picture

I gotta know, how does it [the Sweet Vinyl Sugar Cube] compare to the CEDAR DCX/CRX Digital Declicker/Decrackler combo? I have one of those, and I have not found anything else at any price to exceed its performance on the widest variety of phonographic material. the only place where it falls down, is on low brasses, it cuts the teeth out of them unless the levels are set very low, which allows some crackly grunge to slip in at those times. I am wondering if the Sugar Cube has any similar problem with low brasses or musical transients?

marechalney's picture

A regular, "old" classical music concert goer here in New York City, it seems to me that there are more younger
people at the concerts I attend than there were when I sat in the balcony in Carnegie Hall listening to Leopold Stokowski conduct the American Symphony Orchestra. Of course, my evidence is purely anecdotal as is yours, Michael, If your looking for a demographic to single out for a laugh, try the wives an girlfriends, young and old, who having been dragged to concerts kill time by flipping the pages of their programs collectively creating an amisical racket.

marechalney's picture

Line 6: your to you're.

Line 7: an to and.


DigMyGroove's picture

I purchased the SC-2 soon after seeing a demo at the 2016 New York Audio Show via Sweet Vinyl's indiegogo campaign, so glad I did. Since receiving mine a year after placing the order I've played loads of records through the SC-2 and find it to be an indispensable part of my system. It works as advertised and 95% of the time I cannot hear any difference in the sound with the SC-2 engaged or bypassed. I'd say that percentage was even higher using a solid state amp, but when I added a hybrid SS/tube power amp to my system I found that small difference more apparent on some records, but not most.

I haven't done much recording yet, but I look forward to the full implementation of the software before I'll really spend much time doing so. What recording I have done has left me impressed.

There have been a few bumps with the software, however recent updates seem to have really smoothed out the experience of using the phone app as a controller, and they kindly sent me a new wi-fi dongle as I was having trouble connecting with the original one, the new one has worked right every time.

Those interested in further discussion of the SC-2 can look for my thread over on the Steve Hoffman forum where I have several recorded samples posted throughout the thread.

Chemguy's picture

After having the SC-1 for over 7 months now, let me tell you how indispensable this unit is! When Michael uses words like "miracle" in a write-up, you know he must be impressed; I have found him to be one who is not prone to exaggeration over the years.

It is truly a remarkable product. I have played many hundreds of lps now, testing everything from the new and the mildly clicky, the click and pop-ridden, to the "this looks too damaged to play" . The SugarCube not only makes them all listenable, but, unlike Michael and his trained ears, I cannot discern the slightest difference in sound dynamics when the unit is on or on bypass. All it does is remove clicks, leaving the exact sonic signature and decibel level behind.

A few weeks ago, I journeyed to my used record store that had a 5 buck copy of Friends, by The Beach Boys. Five bucks because 'loved up' is far too kind as a description of the scratchfest that is the vinyl surface. Bought it, cleaned it, played it without the SC-1...ouch. Turned on the SugarCube...perfection. I kid you not.

It has transformed my vinyl listening experiences. Yes, it's like I have a mint copy of everything.

Audiophiles, listen up! You won't regret it...get one.

Lazer's picture

The 2 best accessory items I heard at Axpona were the sugarcube and audio envy cables.

bfrank53's picture

Not many of us are fortunate enough to own original Paramount 78s of Charlie Patton, Son House, or Skip James. So we rely on cds on Document, Yazoo, or Third Man. Many of these records, American treasures all, exist only in one or two copies collected by intrepid collectors in the 1960s. Yesterday at AXPONA I asked the designers if the algorithm would work with these cds, through a regular cd player, and make some of these nearly unlistenable recordings sound good again. They assured me that it would. My question is: has anybody tried this yet? If this works it would, I imagine, revolutionize the reissue business and, hopefully, bring new listeners to this wonderful music who's enjoyment has thus far been, shall we say, challenging.

gbougard's picture

It works with any source

Tony A's picture

Michael, curious why you say that. I am a beta tester and after sending a comment about bypassing the unit using the tape monitor button on my Nait 3R remote, Dan replied, "By going in out of tape monitor you may be hearing that path in the electronics of your system – if you want to further test transparency we encourage you to put it inline after a phono stage and use our bypass."


chris hayden's picture

Hi Michael Can you comment on the audio signal play backed through the SC-1 compared to the playback directly through your preamp. In my setup I am using the tape loop in on an Aesthetix calypso. So basically your setup in the review and mine bypass the need to use the bypass on the SC-1 moreover can you compare the two individual playback signals from your record. The sound of my records when played without the the tape loop (SC-1) engaged is far superior in every aspect in playback compared to when the signal is passed through the tape loop tothe SC-1. This comparison in playback has yet to be written about and should be since such an unwelcoming difference exists between the two signal paths at least in my system. Lastly I will note that only the power cord to the power brick is stock and the tape loop interconnects are not to the same
caliber as others that are used in this signal path. I cannot believe at this point what I am experiencing in playback through the tape loop is caused by the level of interconnects and the power cord Please post a comment if you will on what you hear when comparing the two methods of signal playback on your setup.I sadly plan at this point on sending my unit back for a refund based on my experience.

sefischer1's picture

Michael, does the USB support a digital output so that the SC-1 can be used with another DAC?

rwortman's picture

I use a software tool called "Click Repair" that is quite cheap and works like magic. I imagine it is very similar to what this unit does. You can listen to the original signal, the processed signal, or what it is removing so you can adjust the aggressiveness without removing music. If I get a rare LP that is too noisy for me to enjoy, I digitize it and use this tool. You could use it in real time with a good quality USB audio interface and a PC and it would probably work nearly as well but be a lot clunkier. Nice to see someone come out with a convenient box to do this. To the commenter above. If you like the unprocessed sound better, you don't really have a noisy record.

Timobi_1's picture

Does this also help lessen vinyl surface noise? I have some records that I love that really don't have many pops but have some distracting surface noise. Would love to be able to decrease that.

frans callebaut's picture

on the website of music direct sweetvinyl announces a software update for the sc-1 to eliminate vinyl surface noise. is this software update already available , if not when will it be ?
best regards,
frans callebaut

vinylrules's picture

True story!

I use the Sweet Vinyl SugarCube SC-1 Mini to great effect while making compilation "mixtapes" for myself and all my tapehead friends and it is such a joy to be able to make a super clean transfer by removing all the pesky tics & pops!

Fact is the end product is FLAWLESS and the mere fact the music ends up on analog format a second time around, it automatically injects that extra touch of warmth or the small portion you imagined you lost during the digitalization process (except you really didn't - and if you did - it isn't noticeable to 99.9% of your audience I assure you)

Job well done Sweet Vinyl!

bioplaid's picture

I'm interested in the new SC-2 MINI/PHONO with builtin phone stage but have not been able to find any reviews.

Has anyone had a good experience ordering from Sweetvinyl since the pandemic/lock down began?

I'd love to hear some feedback from buyers of the Sugarcube line before I plunked down $3,000.