EAR 834P Deluxe with Dynavector 20 HX H output Cart.

Update - Installed the new low output cart. and it works well in MC position, this is a better match for my EAR phone stage.

Thanks for all your suggestions!

I don't know how much TdP had to compromise when he was hired by Quad to design the 24p phono stage, or whether the Chinese overlords substituted cheap components for those he chose. I can say that the 24p (designed some years after the 834p) is much nicer with an external SUT than with the built in transformers. Now that difference might be due to a change in loading (internal transformers 10Ω, external 1:15 SUT gives 209Ω).

My experiences to date is that when one surmises about a outcome, it is quite similar to advertising, in the context, the individual is forming a pattern of thought on selected words only and not evidence, through their own direct experience.

I know the 834P Phonostage very well, I have been demo'd it on numerous occasions as a EAR and Clone.

Neither versions have been able to take myself to the place I want to own one.

I have not been demo'd or compared the 834P MC with any of the other EAR's mentioned, which makes it difficult to give an accurate description based on my preferences. 

I have been introduced to the MX4 last year for a short duration, and can confirm, it has a lot that is making a model, one would like to have an extended experience of, especially in the home system.

I still claim the Sculpture A SUT's with the nano-crystalline core, is the SUT I will be trialling at home in the future, the impression the two models from this brand made during the demo's has been indelible. 

My Mr Nixie DIGNA has been compared at Bake Off's to a selection of 834P's and I can say the DIGNA is much more to my liking, especially with an off board SUT in use.

The DIGNA Built in MC Input has been very much enjoyed by most who have heard it, including myself, but the SUT used for my preferences has the edge. 

The Local HiFi Group selected this design as their choice to compare Analogue items for nearly a year, or until another member had a Bespoke Built Valve Input/Output Phon' built to very similar Spec' to my own Bespoke Built model.

Today I will allocate the DIGNA approx' 30% replay time, as it makes such a good impression with a SUT, with a Head Amp I loan, it blows me away on Rock.      

So don’t you think, if EAR make a great SUT, that the SUT built into the EAR is very likely to be excellent? Plus, it does away with the need for an extra set of RCA connections and an extra pair of external low capacitance RCA cables to connect an external SUT to the EAR MM inputs. Those advantages alone might more than make-up for any difference in quality between an external EAR SUT and the built in one.

If there is one thing EAR do know a lot about, it is Transformer Winding.

Prior to the EAR Brand developing TDP produced the TX4 SUT - later to become known as the The Head or the The Brick.

This is one of the most sought out and revered SUT's I know of. 

It is a Legacy Item, that is cherished. 

The MC4 is the go to EAR SUT today, and it will be found coupled to the 834P.

How the inbuilt MC Stage on the 834P, compares to the above is an unknown to myself.

How other SUT's compares to the 834's MC Stage is also an unknown.

I have a Dynavector 20X H, owned and stored. As a Cart' it was my first exit from MM and the predecessor to my use of MC. I was always content with it in use, I certainly did not seem to need to experience MM anymore.

dogberry, when I get the cart. I will see how it sounds, from what I am told there is a SUT built into the EAR I will be using. So hopefully I will be fine.

And to complicate it, there is the third option of combining the low output cartridge with an external SUT and the MM input of the EAR. It can make a big difference, but there is an element of luck as no one can really tell what a particular SUT sounds like as it will depend on the cartridge and phono stage used.

Update- I talked with the EAR dealer who also sell Dyna. cart. and he said I would be better off using Low output cart. and use the MC on the EAR, would be better than using the HO cart. in MM mode. So two different responses. I think I will try the Low cart. and see the results.

Hi frogman,

Mitch also did the upgrades to mine as well. He is a super nice guy and is very knowledgeable with all kinds of different audio equipment. BTW what cart, do u like the most?

I believe that is exactly what I wrote, but good to know that is Mitch’s recommendation.  Btw, Mitch’s 834P mods are fantastic.  I loved what his mods did for the sound of mine when I had it.  Highly recommended!

That is good advice, IF the HO version of the cartridge is as good as or better than the LO version.  Unfortunately, this is usually NOT the case.  Usually the LO version of an MC cartridge that is available with high or low output, is superior.  Then it becomes a matter of personal preference whether one likes that LO version into a SUT for added voltage gain, vs the HO version directly into the MM stage. Unfortunately, no one here can tell you which set up you would prefer.  But I would take advice from those who own the same phono stage and either the LO or the HO version of the same Dynavector cartridge.

Hi, thanks for all the responses I talked with Mitch Singerman who is authorized service repair for EAR and said I might be better off to continue using HO Cart. in MM mode to bypass using the coils and have less circuits to go through and more direct sound.

I have the 834p and the Dynavector 20x2 L (low output).  Ended up selling a $4k solid state phono pre during covid time and never looked back.  

I did enough research to understand that for best results I needed an external SUT and keep the 834p in MM mode all the time.  

I bought the Ned Clayton Moving Coil Phono Step Up Transformer with Cinemag 1254 4 Ratios 1:10 - 1:40 MC SUT on ebay.  Works great.  The Cinemag transformers  well reviewed and this SUT was about 1/3 of the price of (I forgot the name) the other one I was looking at.  

High output MC cartridges should be used with the MM setting on the EAR or any other phono preamp!

I wanted to try the Dyna.20x 2 Low MC Cart would I get better results in MC input on EAR or should I get the same Dyna. in High and continue using MM setting on EAR?

Thanks for the help.

I know the EAR well. I don’t know what line stage you are using, but I tend to disagree with what you were told. I find it hard to believe that you would not have more than enough gain with the Dyna’s .3 db output into the EAR’s MC input. The EAR has a lot of gain in MC mode. 70db of gain in MC mode as I recall. That’s a lot of gain and would explain why you get distortion using a high output MC into its MC input.

However, and this is a BIG “however”. If what you are thinking of doing is going from a LO Dyna 20HX to a HO Dyna 20HX you may, at best, end up with a sideways move sound quality wise. While it is true that LO output versions of the same cartridge almost always sound better than the HO versions, the EAR sounds significantly better, inherently, in MM mode as opposed to MC mode. In MC mode the cartridge signal goes through the same circuitry as in MM mode plus the addition of the transformers. Personally, I would stay with the HO Dyna until you can get a LO cart that is itself an improvement over the 20HX. Good luck.

Sounds like the shop guy is assuming you don’t have the step up transformers built into the EAR. If you do have the SUTs, you can use the LOMC version of the 20x without running into preamp volume level issues.