2. analog
  3. 1240225358

Einstein Turntable's Choice vs EAR 834P + MC4

I have been contemplating a phono stage upgrade from my EAR 834P and MC4 transformer, and have compared it to a couple of highly rated phono stages. My 834P is un-modded, apart from using JJ 12AX7 tubes. The MC4 step up is a major upgrade over the internal transformers, but effectively doubles the price of the 834P. I am using it with a Nottingham Ace Spacedeck, Micro Seiki MA505 arm and Koetsu Rosewood cartridge.

A few weeks ago I borrowed a Tom Evans GrooveX, which had adjustable loading and capacitance. This is a very highly regarded phono stage but I found it severely disappointing. While it was extremely quiet and tonally neutral, it lacked real dynamics. Guitar strings, cymbals, drums all lacked that speed and snap that vinyl does so much better than CD. While initially impressive, I gladly returned the Groove after a few days.

Over the last few days I have been listening to the Einstein Turntable's Choice. This is about 50% more expensive than the 834P/MC4 combination and has been getting rave reviews, regarded as comparable with some of the best phono stages at any price. It comes with a number of different impedance plugs so that it can be matched with any cartridge.

The Einstein TT is much better than the Tom Evans stage. It produces dynamics as well as a rich, liquid sound, and is extremely quiet and resolving. This time the comparison with my 834P/MC4 was not all in the EAR's favour. The EAR phono now sounded a little noisier, with a little more hash and grain, while the Einstein sounded smooth, quiet and liquid. I was almost ready to order the Einstein.

However, again I had some subtle misgivings, which I couldn't quite put my finger on. So I made some 24/96 digital recordings of both and switched back and forth between the files. The Einstein is dynamic, but I felt that the EAR - despite being a tube design - was just a touch faster and more rhythmic. The Einstein is also darker sounding (the 834P has a reputation for sounding dark, but the MC4 brightens it up considerably), and its "liquid" sound was just a little overdone - I normally like a smooth, liquid sound, but here it seemed as if all the intruments were connected in one "flow". The 834P/MC4 gave instruments their own space and a better defined sense of texture, even if the Einstein had better resolution and was quieter.

At the end of the day I preferred the EAR 834P and MC4 step up. The Einstein Turntable's Choice is an excellent phono stage and I could easily live with it. But I felt that the EAR combination was, for me, more musical. Obviously, this is a personal view and other people will have a different take.

I guess it also goes to show that the 834P is a remarkable design at its price. Even in stock form it sounds truly excellent (although it has a few detractors). Add a great transformer, such as the EAR MC4 and it is comparable with phono stages costing a lot more, and may even be preferable, depending on your tastes. Rather than looking for a new phono stage, I am now planning to have my 834P modified by upgrading the capacitors and resistors - hopefully this will increase its resolution and reduce its slight amount of grain, to the point where it is much better than the competition.

Again, this comparison was made using my equipment, my ears and my preferences, and should not be taken as definitive. Nevertheless, I hope it may be a useful data point for anyone contemplating buying any of the phono stages mentioned above.
rossb

Showing 7 responses by rossb

rossb OP
183 posts
 
>>Yes, you like all those EAR distortions/colorations and this is what it matters more because you are the one that must live with it but IMHO the Einstein put you near to the recording where the EAR combination put you far away from the recording.<<

I won't respond to Raul's post in detail. Others can form their own view on these differing opinions. However, I will respond to this one comment about the Einstein putting you closer to the recording while the EAR puts you far awar.

I own a few Chesky LPs, and I also own the CD versions of those LPs. Recently, I have also downloaded the 24/96 digital versions of those recordings from HD Tracks. While digital recordings are not always a good guide because their mastering is not always ideal, this is not the case with the Chesky recordings, whose mastering in both digital and LP versions is always excellent.

In terms of things like tonality, spatial information and instrumental texture, the EAR 834P/MC4 sounds a lot closer to the digital versions - especially the 24/96 versions - than the Einstein (while also adding a certain indefinable "analog" realness). The same LP played through the Einstein sounds a little different to the digital versions - darker, with less tonal variation, instruments having less separation, a little more liquid. The differences are subtle, and the Einstein is still undoubtedly very good, but it renders music in an audibly different way to the digital versions. Draw from this whatever conclusion you like.
rossb OP
183 posts
 
>>BTW one of my cartridges is the Rosewood and that sounds terrible with the standard 834P deluxe - I assume that the adjustable taps on the MC4 enables you to dial in the right load for the cartridge to see.<<

My experience was also that the Koetsu and 834P alone are not a good match, mostly because the loading of the internal transformer and the Rosewood are not a good match, and the internal transformer is of only average quality. Also, the 834P on its own is a little dark sounding, which is not ideal with the Koetsu which also has this quality. However, the MC4 transforms the sound of the 834P completely, partly because of the more accurate impedance matching but also because, aside from being a much better quality transformer, it also removes a lot of the dark colorations from the 834P.

However, I will have to look into the 88PB - this is not something I had previously considered, so thanks for the suggestion.
rossb OP
183 posts
 
>>I know what you and other owners of that EAR are listening and there is no doubt ( from my standards/priorities. ) that even like a " entry " level is a faulty/distorted/colored audio items ( along the MC4) ( that can't do justice to the recording. ) and this is a fact that you or any one of the gentleman that already posted here can't argue against it, even exist a very detailed measures on it. Anyway enjoy it.<<

Raul, I'm struggling to understand what you are saying, and I appreciate that English is not your first language, but I will try to respond. I think even those who like the 834P acknowledge that it is not the quietest phono stage out there and, certainly using the stock transformers, is a little coloured. But to suggest that it "can't do justice to the recording" is patent nonsense. The fact that so many people regard this phono stage highly, even against much more expensive phono stages suggests that if there is one thing it can do, it is to do justice to the recording. Again, to suggest that this is a "fact" and that I and others on this thread "can't argue against it" is also nonsense. If you have "very detailed measures", please post them, but they will not alter this conclusion.

I should also add that this thread was not created to suggest that the 834P is the best phono stage there is, or is uniquely capable of reproducing music. Of course it isn't. This thread was created to compare the 834P (with MC4) with the Einstein phono stage. As I acknowledged in my first post above, the EAR is slightly noisy, grainy and hashy compared to others such as the Einstein, although I suspect from your comments that you barely read what I wrote, but jumped to conclusions about what you thought I was saying. You clearly have different musical priorities to mine, and that is of coure fine. But to suggest - and in such a condescending way - that yours are somehow better than mine, or that your preferences are objectively more valuable is ridiculous.

I have yet to hear any audio component at any price that does not provide an individual perspective on musical reproduction. Sometimes that perspective is in the form of tonal colourations, sometimes spatial effects, timing, decay or other differences. Even components which *measure* perfectly can *sound* completely unnatural, unrealistic or unsatisfying. I think everyone who has been involved in audio for a while understands this phenomenon very well.

Therefore, to suggest that there is only one correct way of reproducing music is not only completely wrong, it is contrary to our experience.

You believe that the Einstein phono stage is truer to the recording than the EAR phono stage. Well, it isn't. It may measure with less noise and distortion (and these are undoubtedly good things) but it has a unique colouration and presentation of its own, and this does not enable it to accurately produce the recording. You may prefer this presentation. I and others do not. That is the only fact.
rossb OP
183 posts
 
For downunder and Opus8:

I have just borrowed an 8PPB from a dealer for a demo, and will have it for about a week. First impressions are very impressive. It sounds very similar to the 834P but much quieter, with less grain and noise, and without the overblown bass. However, I notice that the sound changes quite markedly depending on the volume level - at low volume the sound becomes quite bright and there is a distinct loss of bass. As the volume knob is turned clockwise, there is a proportional increase in bass and the sound becomes warmer. At full volume the bass becomes almost as pronounced as with the 834P; at about 9 o'clock the sound is perfect. Sounds like an input/output impedance isue. Have you had a similar experience with the 88PB?

Also, the dealer was not able to give me the manual, so I am not sure whether I have it set at 4 ohms or 40ohms. I suspect from the extremely high gain that it is 4 ohms. Also, the internal jumper seems to be closer to the 4ohm position on the PCB than the 40 ohm position. Does this sound like it is correctly set to 4 ohms?
rossb OP
183 posts
 
Thanks, Opus88, that is very helpful.
rossb OP
183 posts
 
Thanks, yes I noticed the switch. I have been comparing the MC input with the MM input using the MC4. The internal transformer produes a slightly bigger, more open sound, while the MC4 is a little warmer, but smaller sounding, probably because of the 6 ohms loading for the MC4 rather than 4 ohms for the internal transformer. I'm not sure which I prefer.
rossb OP
183 posts
 
I'm currently using Exposure solid state amps, which are about to be replaced by Audio Note tube amps which are in the process of being modified, although the preamp uses 6sn7 tubes. Thanks for the suggestions, though.
More to discover