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
swampwalker's avatar
swampwalker
5,138 posts
 
Sunnyboy- there are two other question I would ask before assuming that the SUT is what is making the difference. In no particular order: do you have enough gain thru the MM input to let that cart shine and how does the different loading thru the two inputs, if they are different, affect the sound? I don't know anything about that phono stage but most do not have enough gain to properly support an LOMC thru their MM input. Non SUT MC phono stages almost/always have an additional gain stage and different loading options
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. ;-)
arthursalvatore
5 posts
 
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
audiofun OP
799 posts
 
Arthursalvatore:
Hi. 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 waited for a long time to read a non-pro review of the CSPS and when it didn't happen I took it upon myself to share my "real-world" listening impression of this unit with others who like myself may have desired a consumers viewpoint.

Arthur wrote:
"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." You may want to re-read the review and some comments:

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. In both cases the MC input outperformed (based on what is important to MY ears) the MM inputs with the OUTBOARD SUT.

Dougdeacon wrote: "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."

Also recall that I wrote: "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. "

Arthursalvatore wrote: "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. "

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. It is less expensive to install a lundhal (very nice quality) or a Chinese xfrmr in a circuit as I have seen done before. Allnic, Hagerman and others produce standalone head-amps.

Transformers are wonderful devices but realize I also own 3 OTL amps. Transformers are answerable to hysteresis, parasitic capacitance, inductance, insertion loss, core material.., etc. Active devices tube or solid state are no panacea but to my ears thus far they ring truer when dealing with voltages at the millivolt level. Now maybe when I get the Ypsilon and MC20 I will hear differently.

I wanted to address some of the assumptions I perceived you as having made. This is not a rule, each of us likes what we like and that is COOL. I have NEVER looked to the masses to inform me of what is best or sounds good. I know what I hear.

I would, however, humbly ask that if this is a topic which is important to you that you start another thread. I would like this review to remain on topic and not get bogged in the mire of ideologies. I believe you when you say you prefer SUT's 😊

Happy Listening!
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
More to discover