2. analog
  3. 1430516175

Evaluation of the Coincident Statement Phono Stage

I am evaluating this unit as I will eventually end up with 4 arms and need another phono stage to go along with my AMR PH77. I will start by saying all evaluations were performed using my Kuzam 4 Point arm, MC Anna Cartridge and an Artisan Fidelity SP10 MK3 NG TT fed into my AMR DP777 used as a Preamp and my Graaf Modena amp feeding some modified Axis Voice Box Speakers.

The music selection I used was Sade, Enya, Jennifer Warnes, FIM's Telarc 1812 Overture (Eric Kunzel Conducting) 1st 1000 pressings.

The unit is built nicely, not exceptionally, but nicely, the packaging is very nice in my opinion and it should arrive to any location safely.

Upon my first listen I suspected that this unit had SUT's installed (later confirmed), I recognized that tell-tell signature of a SUT in the chain. The unit was powered for about 5 days and played off and on and this unit does have some time on the clock.

The overall signature is just to the warm side of neutral offering a nicely filled soundstage with a very nice flow to the music. The soundstage is nice sized and the unit offers a nice fullness and weight to the music with a nice amount of information being conveyed along with adequate dynamics. I will note that the phono stage is very very quiet, noise is NOT an issue with this unit.

Listening to the unit compared to the PH77 was pointless as the AMR is simply altogether in a totally higher league in areas of information retrieval, speed, dynamics (micro and macro), shading, instrumental and vocal vibrato, PRAT and the ability to scale...etc. In all fairness it also costs twice the amount of the CSPS. I consider the PH77 a reference unit, to my ears the CSPS is not in the league of a DSA II or Burmester phono stage but again we are talking 11k and up-to +30K.

I used my ifi iPhono for comparisons from here on out and that was interesting. I made digital file copies to compare and they are SURPRISINGLY close. Once the iPhono is run in with over 100 hours it is very different sounding than when new. It is also quite sensitive to loading, 100 ohms sounding a little dead and 300 just too lit up and ethereal (in my system) whereas 250 ohms was perfect in weight, excitement and PRAT.

The CSPS offers a more cavernous sound, i.e. I can hear a bit more of the venue and it has a tad bit more decay in some instances and a tad (but noticeable increase in overall beauty with female vocals). Tube Magic? I have heard this before with my former Graaf GM70 and Ortofon ST80 SE SUT. It can be beguiling, but I find it not real sounding and it tends to make everything sound slightly time delayed and homogenous and thus a bit more electronic. The iPhono had the weight and fullness of the CSPS without the opaqueness I perceived in the CSPS. The ifi, however, did not quite have the decay or minutiae in low level vibrato.

Where the iPhono was clearly superior was speed, overall information retrieval and bass solidity and control especially on the 1812 piece. The ifi peace also did not suffer from the perceived rhythmic slow-down thus I found my right foot tapping and myself smiling where this really was not the case with the CSPS.

I am not knocking the unit, but I think what I am finding is that I may prefer the greater speed and (to me) realism of non SUT based phono stages be it all tube, (SOME all SS) or a hybrid.

To sum up I think it is a very pleasant sounding unit that does not offend in any area and the small things I hear were more omission than commission.

If you have a brighter sounding system or you prefer an Art Audio Diavalo to say the Reimyo PAT777 300B amp I would say check out the CSPS:)

Hope this was of help to someone. Happy listening.
audiofun

Showing 5 responses by dougdeacon

dougdeacon
3,338 posts
 
A well-written, fair-minded and informative review/comparison... maybe worth posting twice!

Provided that one can afford a certain level of equipment, I also have never heard an SUT-based solution for LOMC amplification that can equal the best all-tube or tube/SS hybrid solutions. The rise-time delays and diminution in amplitudes that are inherent in transformer signal induction limit what SUTs can achieve.

That said, for those with some budget constraints, SUT-based phono setups can be and are a viable entry into the LOMC world.

Again, nice review.

dougdeacon
3,338 posts
 
I have the option of plying my Lyra Atlas through either the MC or MM input of my Nagra VPS phono, the latter with an Ortofon SUT. Same cart same system yet to my ageing ears the SUT has more sparkle and realism.
As Audiofun noted, the VPS uses internal SUTs on its MC inputs, so all you've done is compare one SUT with another. The greater sparkle and realism of the Ortofon vs. whatever transformer Nagra uses tells us nothing about how an active MC stage might compare.

Regarding Shindo, I've heard the Monbrison + SUT (don't recall which, sorry) vs. my Doshi Alaap (all active gain). It wasn't close. The owner put his kit up for sale and ordered an Alaap.

The best SUT-based solution I've personally heard was Swampwalker's now-departed VAC Renaissance. Like your Nagra, it uses internal SUTs for MC gain. It was very credible, one of only 2 or 3 preamps I've heard that play in the same league with an Alaap, but it ultimately fell short in speed, dynamics and lowest level detail. The result of that comparison session is listed in Swampy's current system. ;-)
dougdeacon
3,338 posts
 
Arthur,

Thanks for your views and experience, however some of your assumptions are incorrect... at least in my case.

I've used a pair of Bent Silvers (with five different types of loading resistors... months of experimentation to find the best). I've played them into the MM inputs of my Doshi Alaap preamp and compared directly with its (actively amplified) MC inputs. This particular SUT does not compete with the speed, dynamics (macro and micro) or low sound floor of this particular active MC stage.

I've also used the ZYX CCP-1. If that's the finest active MC stage you've heard, well... you need to hear some others. The CPP-1 is a decent if "polite" MC phono preamp (I concur that the Bent Silver's can better it) but it doesn't come close to the Alaap's active MC stage.

Of note, my Alaap is a pre-production model from 11 years ago. Doshi has since made several upgrades. I've had him do as many as my unit will accommodate, but there are some that it cannot. Also, my unit is an integrated phono/line preamp (with separate power supply). Doshi now also offers separate phono and line stages, each with its own separate power supply). Each of these changes made sonic improvements, which I've heard in multiple systems. From experience I can confirm that any new Alaap provides even better performance than what I've described.

As to availability, the Alaap has been discussed on this forum for ten years. It's readily available and quite a few members here own one. It can be purchased as a standalone phono stage, as one half of a phone + line stage pair, or as part of an integrated, full-function preamp.

As I'm the one who introduced you to the ZYX UNIverse-X-SB and first reviewed the UNIverse II-X-SB, both of which you subsequently reviewed and lauded, I hope you'll take these findings seriously. I've no loyalty to any particular brand or type of equipment. My loyalty is to the best available sound within my budget and I've described what I've heard.

Cheers,
Doug
dougdeacon
3,338 posts
 
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

It's not easy and it's certainly not inexpensive. But it can be (and has been) done.
dougdeacon
3,338 posts
 
Arthur,

To continue our many years of profitable non-collusion (lol)...

It's true that this thread has not addressed active external MC gain stages. That would be far afield from the OP's original intent, which was to review the CSPS as it is sold and make sonic comparisons to other MC+MM phono stages.

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?
One reason might be a perceived lack of market. The large majority of MM-only phono stages offer less than world class performance. Why build a world class MC-only device with no RIAA equalization when the true market for such is so small?

Another (related) reason would be if a designer believes it critical to use optimally matched components. Doshi, for example, spent 5-6 years optimizing the impedance, gain, power modulation and grounding interactions between his MC and MM sections (and also between his MM and line sections) before offering his first preamp to the public. Several of his subsequent product upgrades further refined these areas. I helped Beta some of those and can attest to the significance of swapping just one resistor for another in a key location. Splitting a carefully integrated design apart and selling pieces of it, to be plugged into who-knows-what, may simply not interest a designer who operates at that level. So far as we know, Stradivari did not sell standalone finger boards to be glued onto the violin body of the user's choice.

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.
Actually, I never said that and never have heard such.
More to discover