I would like to offer a different (?) perspective based on years-long personal experience with the EAR 834P Deluxe and a direct comparison that I did to a friend’s highly regarded Herron VTPH-1MC Plus. Perhaps these observations will be of use to the OP in answering his question. I too believe that the EAR is still more than relevant today and is a very musical piece. “Musical” as in the fact that it retains some of the most basic qualities of the sound of live acoustic instruments; not because it sounds like tomato soup. A couple of other things to keep in mind:
My 834P has the full Singerman mods. While some will cry foul, I believe that the basic character of the piece remains the same, but is simply more resolving and a bit more refined sounding as a result of the mods. I also think that given the unit’s potential for improvement via fairly inexpensive mods this should not be overlooked. As I said, even in stock form and with good tube choices it still has many of the qualities that are important to me.
Also keep in mind that, for me, there is something special about tube designs; particularly pure tube designs. For me, a good pure tube design tends to have more of the sense of aliveness and vibrancy that I hear in live acoustic music than solid state designs; not to mention realism of instrumental timbre . I don’t mean this to be a tube vs solid state debate, but I think this is relevant for this comparison. I also feel that many audiophiles consider “better” to be a sound that is too lean and, if anything, overly detailed. The comparison:
The Herron’s pedigree is well known; it is a wonderful piece. My friend’s system is one of the most realistic sounding systems that I have ever heard according to what is important to me in sound. Highly modified Magnepan Tympany IV’s driven by the incredible (and huge) Jadis double chassis mono blocks (M200’s something or other). I know that some are already saying to themselves “What, compare the 834P to a Herron phono stage, are you kidding!?”. Well, I can tell you that not only was the 834P not embarrassed (ownership bias and all) by the comparison and as I expected, but it pointed out something in the sound of the Herron that I had not noticed before. This something may or may not be important to any given listener. It is for me. The EAR definitely sounded less detailed and the spaces between images were not as squeaky clean as the Herron. However, what was obvious to me in the sound of the Herron was its use of FET’s for the additional gain needed for MC’s. I realize that the EAR uses transformers for the extra gain, but still... In comparison to the EAR there was a definite solid state “component” in the sound of the piece which showed itself as a certain dryness in the sound of instruments that is not heard in the sound of live acoustic instruments. The EAR probably goes just as much in the opposite direction; toward the lush. Soundstaging was comparable in most respects. My friend’s system is already fairly lush sounding so the Herron’s slight dryness is probably a good thing. In a different system the EAR’s lushness may be a very welcomed quality.
Bottom line for me and my sound priorities, not a slam dunk at all.
My 834P has the full Singerman mods. While some will cry foul, I believe that the basic character of the piece remains the same, but is simply more resolving and a bit more refined sounding as a result of the mods. I also think that given the unit’s potential for improvement via fairly inexpensive mods this should not be overlooked. As I said, even in stock form and with good tube choices it still has many of the qualities that are important to me.
Also keep in mind that, for me, there is something special about tube designs; particularly pure tube designs. For me, a good pure tube design tends to have more of the sense of aliveness and vibrancy that I hear in live acoustic music than solid state designs; not to mention realism of instrumental timbre . I don’t mean this to be a tube vs solid state debate, but I think this is relevant for this comparison. I also feel that many audiophiles consider “better” to be a sound that is too lean and, if anything, overly detailed. The comparison:
The Herron’s pedigree is well known; it is a wonderful piece. My friend’s system is one of the most realistic sounding systems that I have ever heard according to what is important to me in sound. Highly modified Magnepan Tympany IV’s driven by the incredible (and huge) Jadis double chassis mono blocks (M200’s something or other). I know that some are already saying to themselves “What, compare the 834P to a Herron phono stage, are you kidding!?”. Well, I can tell you that not only was the 834P not embarrassed (ownership bias and all) by the comparison and as I expected, but it pointed out something in the sound of the Herron that I had not noticed before. This something may or may not be important to any given listener. It is for me. The EAR definitely sounded less detailed and the spaces between images were not as squeaky clean as the Herron. However, what was obvious to me in the sound of the Herron was its use of FET’s for the additional gain needed for MC’s. I realize that the EAR uses transformers for the extra gain, but still... In comparison to the EAR there was a definite solid state “component” in the sound of the piece which showed itself as a certain dryness in the sound of instruments that is not heard in the sound of live acoustic instruments. The EAR probably goes just as much in the opposite direction; toward the lush. Soundstaging was comparable in most respects. My friend’s system is already fairly lush sounding so the Herron’s slight dryness is probably a good thing. In a different system the EAR’s lushness may be a very welcomed quality.
Bottom line for me and my sound priorities, not a slam dunk at all.
