Manley Chinook SE MK2

Thanks

I just put in some Mullards and are liking them. Reflector 6C45s I think are better also. Happy listening!

@theflattire I've had the Modwright 9.0x for 2 weeks now.  In my opinion it's a step up no doubt from the Chinook. It's dead quiet and enjoyable to listen to.  Honestly I think it needs more time but I'm finding it very engaging and extremely smooth.  No harshness or unwanted nasties. Just very musical. Great details, depth and holographic.  Eventually I'll send it in for the T upgrade. 

@samzx12 

Updates?

Tubes are one cause of "noise", but we don’t know what sort of noise was experienced with the noisy Chinook. One reason the Chinook (and the Steelhead) are both exceptionally quiet for "tube" phono stages is that they are not purely tube phono stages, as I have mentioned at least twice. The gain stage is a hybrid cascode where a transistor receives the signal and drives a high transconductance tube (one half of a 6922) via its cathode. This makes for high signal to noise ratio, very high gain, very low input capacitance, and wide bandwidth. The only downside is a highish output impedance, which is obviated by adding a cathode follower downstream. That’s the basic circuit of the Steelhead so far as I can determine without having a schematic. Now, to be clear, I am not saying that the Chinook is superior to the Modwright on other grounds; I have never heard the Modwright, and I am sure it too is very good. You pay your money and you take your choice, as the saying goes. I’m only saying that the Chinook is unlikely to be rejected on account of inherent noise.

I chose the Steelhead for its capacity to handle more than one tonearm input and both MM and MC cartridges (actually two MCs and one MM), and for its adjustable input parameters. I think I made mine better by upgrading the output coupling capacitors and the phono load resistors.

@lewm my Chinook, which I believe was the mk1, was really silent. Not noisy at all.  Anyone that had a noisy Chinook, in my opinion, needs to investigate tubes. Unless they consider ear to speaker silence a must. The Chinook was the first tubed phono I used and I would highly recommend it coming in to the $2k club of phonos. 

Giving Descriptions is not the easiest way to get info across.

I make it my business to have a sat in front of experience where ever possible.

It don't take much time to decide if it worth hanging around due to being impressed along with being a sociable guest and express being courteous.    

@pindac I do not have experience with really high end cartridges other than my Dynavector 20x2L however, the Blue is definitely a step or 2 forward. I've also heard some very expensive Koetsu and Lyra carts and the Blue is very similar in sonics. I'm not saying at those levels but close in my opinion. 

I have to wonder whether the Chinook that was said to be noisy in high gain mode might have been defective. There are many possible causes. Whatever one might say of my Steelhead, it’s very quiet in all gain modes. I can’t live with a noisy phono stage for long. The base circuit is inherently very low noise.

Often, at shows, many exhibitors, outside of the brand they represent use other products because they have been given these products at no charge. Very typical with cables and power conditioners. So, when you see certain products in many rooms, it has nothing to do with their performance, just good marketing.

I'm not saying this is the case for the Umami Blue. Just something to keep in mind.

My Investigations of certain exhibitions at HiFi Events has shown the Umami Blue has been the chosen Cart' for a few very expensive Vinyl Sources. The idea it is being given this role says a lot for it, hence, it has my attention for this and the idea it presents without too much Richness and the Cost is very very attractive.   

@theflattire thank you very much and I'll do some more research on threads. I've read a few and find nothing but high praise for the 9.0. I never took it as you were bashing the Chinook. I've probably read some of the same opinions and feedback.  

• @pindac thank you. TMR told me they have not had one Modwright come back after the trial period but everyone's mileage varies right? I seriously doubt I'll be sending it back but yes you're correct I wanted to have the option. I can say the Umami Blue is an impressive cartridge and probably why I wanted to step up the phono preamp game :)

@samzx12 It is good to see your first investigation of a alternative Phon' allows for a Home Demo' , a Comparison and a Return Option.

I have only heard one ,Modwright Phon' in the UK, but not the Model you have selected.

I do use a All Valve Phon' that has been voiced to suit what I class as having an attraction unique to my needs.

My learning about a Cart's voicing has put the Hana Umami Blue on my Radar to be demo'd and experienced, fortunately for yourself, this is in the home system. My instincts are strongly suggesting this Cart' will be a positive stimulus when used on conjunction with an All Valve Phon'. 

Some will be Loath to this suggestion, a SUT is a device that should not be overlooked, and by being further investigative, the outcome could become there is  even more attraction added to the sonic, if a SUT is used with any Phon' available during the Trial Period.   

BTW, I don't want to come off as Chinook bashing.  I'm sure its a fine phono stage.  Back at the turn of the century, Manley was a big deal!  Something I could only wish for.  This time around, now that could actually afford it, I wanted it to make my list, but user experience was just a bit too lukewarm.  I did do a whole lotta research and cross referencing to get to the Modwright.  I actually might have got a Heron if it was available.

I mean it wasn't exactly a drop in the bucket for me and I was selling my Tavish to upgrade so I wanted to make sure I was doing the right thing!

As usual, YMMV

@lewm Was either here or SHF. Maybe the also a speaker forum(maybe Polk?), can’t remember which. The one I remember the most mentioned that the Chinook was noisy. Just google Chinook vs. Modwright PH9.0. You may find it often compared to the Rogue Ares Magnum, Tavish Adagio (which I had) and the Heron. I also looked at the Zesto Andros but it was a bit too much. Here’s the post from SHF: "Having owned both I strongly recommend the Modwright. The Chinook was fine in low gain/moving magnet mode, but noisier than a 1970’s window AC unit in high gain/moving coil mode. The Modwright is dead quiet and in a different league sonically. I had my PH 9 further upgraded to the 9.0 X and could not be happier."  There weren't a ton of head to head comparison but I took the ones I found to heart.  Of course one has to take all the comparisons with a grain of salt.

The other thing that swayed me away were the up and down reviews of the Manley while the opinions on the PH9.0 were almost unanimously positive. The folks who liked it, liked it, but the folks who didn't, well didn't. I also changed my mind about having all the adjustments. I found that simple is better for me, something I started to prefer in my phono stage journey.

@samzx12 The thread is here somewhere just do a search. I went with Reflector 6C45s(sovtek) and Mullard 6DJ8s. Consensus was Siemens 6922 but they are kinda pricey.

@theflattire is the information on a Modwright website?

theflattire, I am curious to know where you got the information that most audiophiles prefer the Modwright to the "Manley" (by which term I assume you refer to the Chinook)?  Both units seem well thought of by most who offer opinions, but I have never read of a credible direct comparison between the two.

@samzx12 

Check out the Modwright PH9.0 tube rolling thread too.

Good advice and reviews there.  I don't run the stock Sovteks.

I did both upgrades at the same time so I cannot really attest to how much the tube rectifier did to the sound.  Maybe ask around for someone who did the upgrades one at a time.

@theflattire good to know thanks. TMR didn't have the T model in stock but once the PH9.0 is broken in,  more than likely I'll send it in for the T upgrade.  

Whart thank you for the detailed response.  A fellow audiophile had a Steelhead and didn't care for it whatsoever.  He ended up with a BAT but not sure of the model. He also had Audiopax and Duo's. His system sounds phenomenal.  His room is treated professionally which I'm sure helps greatly plus his analog system is 1st rate. 

I purchased the Modwright from TMR so I'll have a return policy if not satisfied but my gut tells me it will be a notch or two above the Chinook.  

@samzx12 

Turnaround was less than a week for both.

I had a Steelhead (first version, not the earliest, but before the remote control version) and rolled high quality old tubes. I wound up using the MM inputs, because I had a hard time finding a good spot using the autoformer; some frequencies shone life-like but others seemed to be cancelled or suffered from ringing. This may have been down to the system -- Avantgarde Duos, which were originally driven by the curious Audiopax mono blocs, eventually swapped out for Lamm ML2s (glorious).

I eventually replaced the Steelhead with an Allnic H-3000, which some find "burnished" but with the right rectifier in the power supply, sings beautifully in my system. (Some would consider this a lateral move from the Steelhead, but it matched my system and sonic preferences better). I did have an e-conversation with Eva Manley at one point- about her "less is more" approach. I found that adding a line stage, rather than using the passive volume control on the Steelhead gave me more "meat on the bones."

I think it is hard to isolate one component and make judgments about how it sounds within a given system, partly due to all the variables as well as user preference.

Try before you buy is preferable- given the direct sales model, that is possible so long as the return policies are not prohibitive. Otherwise, a good dealer can be a blessing.

I did run a Lamm L2 Reference for a long while, and swapped it out for the Veloce, which is sadly no longer a commercial product, though Vytas is still around. (He was working as the tech director of OMA for a while).

So much is synergy, it's hard to say what is "best" in isolation.  For what it's worth, running all tubes, the system is dead quiet, even though the Duos are extremely efficient and reveal all kinds of nasties if the inter-component grounding is wanky or the power grid is having a bad day. 

@lewm As you are very well aware, I share experiences had especially the ones that have been able to have a profound effect during a comparison.

My own system that is not up and running at present and the Systems I get out and share in the experience of hearing in use, are ones that I personally class as being very close to being each owners unique preference and ideal as a produced sonic.

It is very fair to say, that Systems that are performing at the levels I am familiar with are ones built over many many years and the selections made by the owners   have great produced set ups that have notable resolving strengths. Night > Day changes are not to be found in these set ups, a change is reduced to where subtleties are detected as being perceived. Such subtleties can be as simple as a  Veiled/Obscureness on a recording has become less obscure and much more aligned to how one feels the Sound Engineer had intended for its presence. In general the impression being detected is one that comes across as having a furthering of the fidelity that has already proven to be impressive.

I am having this experience laid out for myself on both systems heavily laden with Valve designs and Systems without a Valve in use.

I can happily see a system for myself that is the polar opposite of my my own system that is pretty much all Valve Devices downstream of the TT and CDT and  through to the Speakers.

Over the years I have met numerous owners of Phonostages, who are owners of designs belonging to All Valve, Valve Hybrid and SS. During this period I have also discussed with many individuals either face to face, as well as on a forum as a public discussion or a private discussion, methods being used to upgrade a Phon' and how they felt the changes made were perceived. 

This thread is created by a owner of a Phonostage who has inquired about: 

  "What phono preamp and how much would it take to better the Manley? I ask mainly because I have one and considering upgrading. I know it's been stated that it takes $5k upwards to better it but curious of some real world experiences."

My contribution is based on the knowledge that the Phon' in use is a Special Edition made available from Upscale Audio. The Phon' has already been modified,  there is no reason to suggest that ones suggestion that a little more thought and realisation of further modifications will not be a suitable route to consider.

My own suggestions come with a cost and I have made it clear that a outlay of $450ish might be the required budget to be considered. Incremental Spending could prove a lesser spend has been quite sufficient.

I am not one for encouraging an individual to Jump Ship and potentially lose a quick $1500 in the resale. Followed by the need to find another $3K-$4K to not get too further forward with a Sonic being produced.

The OP has made it known their recently purchased Umami Blue is still to be run in, my gut feeling, as a result of knowing what modifications to a Phon' can create, is one where I can see the OP extracting much more to their liking from the Chinook for much less monies than those that will be incurred if Brand Jumping takes place.

For the OP, the Visiting Lurker and the visitor who ends up here resulting from future searches, my suggestions are very relevant within this thread.   

Pindac, eddy currents and copper vs silver conductor are probably subjects for another thread. 

@tablejockey  i did not spring for the T upgrade but once the unit is broken in and i get used to it, I'm sure I'll send it in for the upgrade. From what I'm reading its very noticeable.  In fact, i may call TMR and see if they have one in stock. I wanted black with silver knobs but all they had in stock was the black X model with black knobs. No big deal but if the T upgraded model is in stock with silver knobs then its a no brainer. 

 

@theflattire I'll keep you posted and how long did it take for the upgrades turnaround?

@lewm As your experience of modifying RCA Cables to use KLE RCA's (Hopefully the Harmony Range) has proved to be a satisfying outcome, then my suggestion of attaching a terminated Cable with a Pure Copper Signal Pin on the RCA to a Chassis Mounted RCA connector produced with a Pure Copper contact for the Signal will be agreeable.

Where we are going to differ is the Low Eddy approach.

KLE Harmony as far as I am aware are well known for being a Pure Copper Signal path, but my knowledge a Low Eddy property being attributed to this RCA design is not known to myself.

Advocates I know of KLE Harmony in a previous school of thought are not using the Harmony on their Cables when working with the Low Eddy approach.

Cable Termination and Chassis Mount RCA's are both the same Brand.

To help reinforce the understanding of these individual developed conviction to the Low Eddy Approach and the Low Eddy experience I have experienced. 

The Cables being used are Two Pairs of SEAC SL 5000's.

One Pair with the SAEC selection for a RCA Termination and the other with the exchanged RCA's to a Pure Copper Low Eddy type. For demo' purposes the Low Eddy RCA Cable was used as the Input only (a modified Tonearm with Low Eddy RCA's as the termination for the Wand Wires enabled this). The Power Amp' and other set of SAEC Cables were yet to be set up with the Low Eddy RCA's.

There have been Two Identical Phon's Designs available, both with PC Triple C internal wiring, the only difference being, one has Pure Copper RCA's and the other the Low Eddy Pure Copper RCA's. 

I have made it know how the experience has made an impression on myself, and follow up talks about the impression made on the system owner with the Power Amp and other Cables in use with Low Eddy RCA's has left me knowing this is a path I intend on following.

As stated, to experience as I have, does not cost much if the SAEC Cables are not selected as the Cables for the initial experience to be had.

As for your suggestion about component exchanges within the Chinook, I can't see this being anything but a positive outcome.

As a account of a past experience, I inherited much of the electrical component cost for the Prototype of the Phon' I now own and use as the main Phon'.

The EE, was adamant only matched components were to be used, which proved  not too difficult for resistors in general, the exchanges of certain Brands and Values are not too costly. Extend this to Z Foils and then Copper Foils as Cap's and monies are soon haemorrhaging when the voicing for the Phon' is not being found to suit ones own personal tastes.

My own Bespoke produced Phon' was a Pair of Prototypes for over a year as it went through various Topologies selected by the EE designer/builder. The only differences in the Phons' was my own was a Single Tonearm Input, the other a multiple Tonearm Input. The multi input model eventually ended up in the Spotlight of a well known off Individual based in the UK, with a long history of owning Companies that have been producing Vinyl Replay products. There was a intention prior to Covid to have the multi input model housed in a new casing, and take it to High End Munich to be shown of as the Companies Flagship Phon' with a £10K price tag. This same design as a result of Covid causing delays, evolved further to becoming a design which incorporated the use of bespoke wound interstage Tranx's supplied by Sowter.

The EE, was sure on a few occasions they had nailed the sonic I wanted and had me carry out a 200 mile round trip to receive demo's. There was a period of frustration as each Phon' voicing demo'd, was not endearing myself in a way that I was looking to have as a long time lived with experience, even though the voicing produced was very much aligned to what the EE was believing they was wanting for their own model.

The DIGNA Phon' was used on a few occasions during this build as a gauge of where the Prototype Phon' was heading as a produced sonic.

After a period of quiet on the Phon' Build front, and my having discussed the build s with another well known Valve Phon' producer. I was given a few pointers of how to move the Sonic produced to being the type I may be seeking.

I purchased other Z Foils Resistors of various Values in accordance to the Prototype Phon' designers acceptable Specs', but also purchased Copper Foils to a Spec' recommended, but not wanted as a Spec by the Phon' designer/builder.

My take on the designers reservations was simple, don't use these new components in your own model, put them in the circuit of my own model only.

In less than a few days I received a call informing myself to visit for a Demo' the description being the Copper Foil Cap's now being used had transformed the perception of Transparency. On arrival for the Demo' the Z Foils were also added.

The EE attempted to dupe me by saying we were to demo' his Phon' first, I was immediate in my stating whatever has occurred has been to my Phon' is all I could ask for.

My additional costs incurred to discover this level of performance have been close to £400. That as a cost is extremely acceptable as an increase, when the Phon' is the 'go to the grave with me ' Valve Design. 

The EE after the addition of alternative components was now left with two quite different voicings for the Phon', with my version being their preferred and being referred to as the upgrade version.

I am absolutely sure the Chinook will find a new level, with Low Eddy RCA's in use and careful thought out placement for Cap's and Resistors as a component change.

The overall changes, if the above methods are adopted might accumulate to $600ish though.         

  

There is an easy upgrade to the Chinook, if its output stage is like that of the Steelhead.  Just upgrade the output coupling capacitors, which are mediocre in the Steelhead and way higher in value than they need to be. I have written about this before, so I won't repeat it here. If someone wants to know, I can post a summary here or send the information by PM.

@samzx12 

I didn't want to say for I have no experience with the Manley, but when I was researching it was almost unanimous that the Modwright was better.

I just did the X/T upgrades and it does take it to a whole different level; soundstage and detail and attack and decay.

Let us know how it goes!

Modwright PH9-X-nice choice. Did you spring for the "T" upgrade also? 

Look forward to reading thoughts on the differences between the PH9 /Chinook.

Enjoy it!

@theflattire after a lot of research and poking around with a couple dealers, I pulled the trigger on a Modwright PH9-X.  Highly recommended and seems to punch way above its weight.  Some interesting discussions here outside of my original question but it's nice to learn from pindac and lewm.

Pindac, I do not disagree that low eddy current RCA connectors, like the KLE types, do sound good.  In fact, I use nothing but KLE connectors, when it comes to RCA. The point is that one does not know WHY they sound good. The fact that the design reduces eddy currents may have nothing to do with the good results. What a physicist pointed out to me is that at the low voltages and currents we encounter in home audio, not much eddy current is ever generated.  That was just one person's opinion, of course.

I agree with my tube rollers here. Pop you some NOS 6922 Telefunken's in there as you only need (2) and see what you think before spending $5000.

I am not advocating Brands, I am letting it be known about a experience I had.

This is very different to having a discussion about, when discussing Cables with the Electronics Engineer who has commission built important devices in my system, the EE will not discuss anything in any length, as so called specialised Cable is a waste of time in their view.

My experiences had, where using two identical design Phonostages have had one with a typical chassis mount RCA and the other with a Low Eddy design RCA.

Using Low Eddy RCA's for terminating a Cable in conjunction with Low Eddy RCA's mounted on a chassis has had a outcome where the impression made has been with much more substance than that from a typical RCA Cable > Chassis configuration. A Low Eddy RCA used to terminate a cable being used in conjunction with a typical chassis mounted RCA, does not separate itself much from a typical RCA configuration. The real magic occurs when Cable and Chassis are using Low Eddy RCA's to create the connection.

As said this is not a expensive interface to create, it is the one I intend on aiming for throughout my system. 

Are you referring to what used to be called "Eichmann Bullet Plugs" and are more lately called "KLE"? Those are a low mass, therefore low eddy current design.  They are my favorites, but they are no longer a new thing; they've been around maybe for 10 years or close to. FWIW, bona fide engineers and physicists to whom I have spoken about eddy currents in audio level signals were not credulous that eddy currents are an important problem. I have no opinion, being untrained in that discipline; I just know KLE plugs continue to sound best.

I have an early version Mr Nixie DIGNA Valve Hybrid MM/MC Phonostage that has undergone modification that enables the 6922/ECC88/E88CC Tubes to be used.

Even more recently I have been introduced to the use of Low Eddy RCA connections used on both Chassis and Cables. This is another adaption not carrying too much expense to achieve, that is very much worthwhile considering if one feels there is more desired to be extracted from signal path of a electrical device. 

In a system I am very familiar with and one that has been used when I have been a participant in offering ears as part of development works for Audio products being produced. As part of R&D, I have been A/B compared a SS Phonostage and Interconnect Cables with original supplied RCA's and as the design with the RCA connectors swapped to Low Eddy models. The impression left on myself after experiencing the Low Eddy RCA's mounted onto the Chassis and Terminating the Cables, is that this is something I intend on adopting within my own system where it is possible to achieve. The veil/smearing that is removed, alone as a perceived improvement is quite something. The additional perceivable benefits where the  shaping and envelope of the notes and vocal that manifested is totally wanted to be experienced again. 

Any device out of Warranty could easily undergo such an alteration. 

Pindac, in what phono stage are you experiencing the benefits of tube rolling? The Steelhead and probably the Chinook use a hybrid cascode (FET/6922) for gain at the input. In that topology it’s not surprising that differences among 6922s would be muted if not inaudible.

I stand by my suggestion that experiencing a Valve Exchange, could prove to be all that is necessary to discover the sonic that is more of an attraction to yourself, and even possibly an attraction that comfortably fends of other Phon' Models. I am not seeing where the method fails to be a experience that could prove to being cost effective, as a means to make a change. 

For myself to have my E88CC Phon' superseded, it took a Bespoke Built Valve Input/Valve Output design to achieve this. The E88CC is still used and has proven to be my most preferred with a Head Amp coupled to it. It is not one that is a relegated to being a 'sell on' item or to being a 'storage' item either.

The CCa referred to earlier was a Matched Pair demo'd in my DAC, but the Siemens & Halske early 60's E88CC's were the ones selected over all Tubes offered as a loan for the Tube Rolling experience.

Early 60's Mullard E88CC's were selected for the Phon' over the ones used in the DAC and all others loaned.    

I did replace some of the putative MC load resistors in my Steelhead with TX2575 resistor equivalents. (TX2575 are the best most transparent phono load resistors I have ever heard and by general consensus.) That may have improved SQ in the MC circuits; I would not swear by it.

By the way, as regards the autoformers in the Steelhead, I get the feeling that my Steelhead sounds best through its MM outputs, where there is no autoformer in the signal path. Interestingly, in the Steelhead, I have read (never tried it) that you can get up to the max 65db of phono gain via the MM outputs.  

This has been widely reported-that the MM input with MC often sounds best-by various reviewer and owners. I have tried it and agree. 

There are two tubes that would make a difference so far as "matching" goes. Those are the tubes that provide gain in the L and R channels, respectively. In the Steelhead these provide the "top half" of a cascode where the bottom half is probably an FET. The other two tubes are used to create an output stage that is very low in output impedance; in effect they form an unusual type of cathode follower (a stage that turns voltage into current). There is no added gain in the output stage, so the sound of tubes in a cathode follower is generally thought of as not a prominent factor in the overall presentation. I think tube matching is overrated, because tubes are aging as we use them, and no two tubes will age in exactly the same way or rate. So what "matches" today may not match tomorrow. And yet, I am guilty of perceiving that some tubes of any type sound better than other tubes of the same type. In my Steelhead, I use Siemens CCa, I think. I would not shed a tear, however, if some day I had to use some other brand.

By the way, as regards the autoformers in the Steelhead, I get the feeling that my Steelhead sounds best through its MM outputs, where there is no autoformer in the signal path. Interestingly, in the Steelhead, I have read (never tried it) that you can get up to the max 65db of phono gain via the MM outputs.  To me that suggests the autoformers are more for impedance matching to MC cartridges than for their potential to step up voltage.  Also, if you look inside, you can see that for each input R setting available via the rotary switch, there are discrete pairs of resistors whose values match the choices offered via the rotary switch. (If the autoformers were used like SUTs, you would think that the different input impedances would be mostly the product of what pair of primaries is selected.)  It's a bit of a mystery to me.  Manley are very secretive and certainly will not provide a schematic; I have asked.

@tablejockey thank you for the information 😁.  PL offers great value. 

 

@pindac  the Chinook came with Tungsram as these were the choice of tubes by Upscale. I believe this is why it was named the SE MK2. Now it comes with EH I think because NOS is getting scarce.  

I am user of a Phon' and DAC that uses 2 x 6922/ECC88 Tubes.

The Chinook has 4 x 6922 in the circuit. I would class this as fortunate as seeking out a quad matched tube set can be a challenge but not impossible.

I have done extensive Tube Rolling along with a friend with a similar device using 2 x ECC88's.

Our discoveries have been Jaw Dropping in relation to how a Tubes influence can transform the presentation and create a sonic not wanting to be changed.

There is good news and bad News in the earlier Trials, it was Tubes from the early 1960's that proved to be the very best selection.

My friend who is a Two Generation Tube collector, has continued trying different Brands and discovered a Tube easier to acquire, that offers a substantial amount in comparison to the Vintage Tubes.

My suggestion is, before the Chinook is demo'd against a more expensive Phon' Model, it may be well worth the time and nominal expense to experience the Phon' with different Tubes.

Disclaimer: Both myself and friend use Valve Power Amp's and ESL Speakers and are adverse to Valve Bottom Frequency Bloom, as well as a Projected Presence of the Upper most Frequencies.

We both share an attraction for what would be considered, a Bias toward the Mid Range and Upper Frequencies being in Harmony with each and the Bass has a clear defined edge at it decays.      

To the op i have a REF Phono 2se > REF 5se w Kuzma CAR-40…. imo running single ended with your REF 6 is leaving a LOT of performance on the table…. 

Probably no coincidence both my main phono stages use FET front end Tube back end… as @lewm said …. The relatively high output MC i use allow me and some close friends who use both those and the low output Lyra to evaluate the impact of FET…. my own judgement is yes there are artifacts but trying to hear them defines audiophile vs music lover…

best to you in your search

Yeah, I guess you could, but not much bandwidth in a Variac.

Sounds like I could "borrow" my son's Variac, connect it up backwards, and have a step-up autoformer!

Happy holiday and a healthy new year to you Lewm. 

Autoformer, not SUT. No secondary makes a big difference. But ya got me. I forgot about that.  You get 50db of phono gain without an Autoformer. Then the Autoformer(s) add up to 15db more, for a max gain of 65db. Happy holiday to all.

From the owner's manual to the Steelhead;

An effective means of varying the load seen by the MC cartridge has been included in the form of a 5-position rotary switch. This switch selects various taps on a specially manufactured dual-primary bi-filar wound, high-bandwidth low-resistance and multiple-shielded nickel-core step-up autoformer. A drama to make, the autoformer permits the minute MC cartridge signal power to be efficiently and transparently transformed from low-volts/high-current to high-volts/ low-current. By avoiding conventional parasitic cartridge termination resistors, none of the MC cartridge’s tiny signal power is thrown away before amplification. This results in improved system signal-to-noise ratio. Quite worthwhile provided, as in the STEELHEAD, the autoformer has the necessary performance for the job. This pivotal component has had engineering attention lavished upon it in the only way possible or practical: The Manley Labs magnetics department. In-house transformer prototyping and manufacturing capabilities permit realization of extraordinary transformer designs.

Since an autoformer only differs from a transformer by having no secondary winding I don't understand your comment Lewm. 

Also from the manual:

5. SWITCH-SELECTABLE AMPLIFIER GAIN

Cartridge output levels and downstream line-level interconnect drive voltage requirements can vary greatly between manufacturers. Hence a four-step amplifier-block gain control has been included to accommodate these differences, as well as differing cartridge sensitivities. You may select from 50 to 65 dB of gain in 5 dB steps. The gain figure is referred to amplifier gain at 1 kHz. Notice that the pre-amp gain is about 20 dB higher (10 times) at 20 Hz and about 20 dB lower (0.1 times) at 20,000 Hz. The MC step-up autoformer may also provide approximately 2 to 12 dB of additional voltage gain depending on cartridge source impedance and load switch setting.

Again, if the Chinook is like the Steelhead in its gain stage, it uses a hybrid cascode consisting of a transistor on the bottom and a high transconductance tube on top. This topology can develop tremendous gain, wide bandwidth, and low noise relative to an all tube gain stage and on par with most all SS gain stages. No SUT inside.

"How does the PL differ in presentation?"

samzyx12-

For whatever reason, the PL is more convincing/realstic. 

I don't know why it would make a difference, but the PL is all tube-MC gain and rectification. 

Manley and most others are FET/transformer gain and SS rectification. 

Not a "better" thing, just what my ears like. The phonostage I demoed against the Chinook and a couple others before I had the PL, is all tube. 

Tube gain is noisier for the "ear to the speaker type."