Evaluation of the Coincident Statement Phono Stage

I have a problem with the sweeping generalization, within this thread (and others), that active step-ups are inherently superior to passive step-ups, usually described as MC transformers (SUT).

It appears that ALL the anecdotal evidence is based on the performance of full preamplifiers, and/or phono stages, where the active step-ups are fully integrated with the MM/RIAA stage. This means the step-up's own unique performance can NOT be separated and/or independently evaluated and verified.

This is the equivalent of claiming that either transistors or tubes are inherently superior in all line stages when the only components evaluated are some high quality integrated amplifiers.

The four finest INDEPENDENT step-up devices I have ever heard are all step-up transformers (Expressive Technology, Bent SILVER, Coincident & EMIA/Slagle). The closest active device I've heard to these four was the ZYX CPP-1, which was excellent for sure, but there was still a noticeable performance gap. Other excellent active step-ups have also failed to measure up to the finest transformers over the years.

As far as I'm concerned, until an independent active step-up, which can be used with any MM phono stage, proves to be superior to the finest SUT devices that have been available over the years, then such a claim of superiority is premature, if not misleading.

In fact, if an active device is so obviously superior, I don't understand why there are not several such components available today, especially considering the enormous amount of money that audiophiles are willing to spend today on superior performance. I would certainly be interested in such a component myself.

Finally, there is another critical issue/question that is directly related to this general discussion of MC amplification, which would require another thread: Is it possible that "all in one" (single/or inseparable gain stage) MC(/MM) step-up/phono amplifiers are inherently superior to any separate MC step-up and MM amplifiers being used together, no matter what their cost/quality? That appears to be the unspoken theory/belief behind this entire thread (and many others I've seen). If so, maybe it should be discussed in greater depth.

http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Step-ups.html

To Audiofun:

Thank you for the reply and your time and effort for your review above.

>>>I want to say that this was a review of my impressions of the Coincident CSPS, not a commentary on the efficacy of SUT's.

I understand, but the thread has since evolved. There was your original post and then 8 replies before mine. The first four replies dealt with the Coincident, while the last four were about the efficacy of a SUT, with no further mention of the Coincident.

>>>I clearly stated that I used my former Ortofon ST80 SE ($1,680.00) with the MM input of my Fully active (formerly owned) Graaf GM70 Phono stage and the MM input of my Fully active iFi iPhono MM input.

True, but the MC step-up you prefer is strictly INTERNAL, while the "outboard SUT" is EXTERNAL, which is the main point of my post.

>>>I would like this review to remain on topic and not get bogged in the mire of ideologies.

I agree, but this already occurred prior to my post. I was simply attempting to provide a broader perspective.

I don't have an "ideology" concerning this issue of step-ups. I don't claim that a SUT is inherently superior in all cases, though the 4 finest EXTERNAL step-ups I've heard were all a SUT. This issue is important for those audiophiles who already have a MM phono stage and require an external MC step-up.

To Doug,

Thank you for your reply as well.

>>>some of your assumptions are incorrect... at least in my case.

Maybe, but I don't believe so.

>>>This particular SUT does not compete with the speed, dynamics (macro and micro) or low sound floor of this particular active MC stage.

I accept your conclusion, but you are also comparing an external SUT with an internal active step-up, this time inside the Alaap, which is again the main point of my post.

The Alaap internal step-up also can not be used with other MM phono stages (such as my Jadis), so its actual performance as well can not be independently evaluated.

>>>I hope you'll take these findings seriously.

I ALWAYS take your "findings seriously", which should be obvious to anyone by now. Your influence on me is so documented that we've even been accused of collusion (by a moron) in the past!

To Everyone:

I did my best to make myself clear in my post above, but I obviously failed, since no one directly addressed my concerns. So I'll try again...

My concern is that there is an implied consensus, or "rule", that appeared to become the heart (or primary "lesson") of this thread, which I disagree with due to the lack of relevant and direct evidence.

I believe it is unfair and misleading to make any generalization concerning EXTERNAL step-ups based on comparisons only with INTERNAL step-ups, but this is exactly what is described in the respective iPhono and Alaap comparisons.

A clear distinction must be made between External and Internal step-ups because of the existence of dedicated MM phono stages.

This is why I used my "integrated amplifier" analogy. Can there ever be a consensus concerning separate line stages based only on what is observed with the line stages inside integrated amplifiers?

External active step-ups must be compared to External passive step-ups (a SUT) before coming to a general consensus as to which is superior as an External step-up. It is prejudicial to assume that just because an active step-up is superior internally, it must also be superior externally (or because a SUT is inferior internally, it must also be inferior externally).

I also have a problem with this statement as well.

>>>It is FAR FAR more difficult and costly to design and build a well executed “QUIET” completely active phono stage than it is to place a xfrmr in the circuit. +1

That is true of course, but Spectral and other solid-state companies built "completely active" models decades ago. I know because I actually sold them (as well as hearing them almost every day, and they were "quiet"). I was never that impressed with their sonics, but they did exist.

ARC, MFA, Counterpoint and others also built some high gain models using tubes, which I preferred, although none of these models equalled the performance of the Jadis with an excellent SUT.

However, I never mentioned building a "quiet active phono stage", but instead an external, active MC step-up device, which can directly replace a SUT. A high quality SUT can sell for $ 5,000 or more these days. So there's plenty of room to build a competing active step-up, with no RIAA/MM stage, or line stage or volume pots etc.

I don't understand how someone can design and build a complete MC phono stage, with outstanding performance, and not be able to also design and build a dedicated active MC step-up with the same level of performance as its own internal version. If not, why not?

Finally, Doug claims to have heard some outstanding active EXTERNAL step-ups, which he described as much better than the ZYX. Maybe they are also better than the Bent Silver SUT. If so, I would like to look into these components myself.