Phono Preamps with "balls" ?


taking the cue from another thread about speakers with "balls" - what are some phono preamps that you have found to be the most powerful, dynamic and yet still sound clean.  
i turn on my digital sources and they are often much more robust sounding and would like to know if there are phono preamps that can deliver.  thanks in advance  
avanti1960
Mola Mola Makua preamp with phono module. Extremely versatile loading set ups for up to six MM or MC cartridges. Very high spec. Take a look on the Mola Mola website for more details.
Dear @atmasphere : As I said the problem is not in the phono stage ( I mean the main problem. ) but  the huge differences that exist in both proccess: recording and play where digital is way way different to how things goes with analog where almost all " thousands " of steps/stages where the signal pass through degrades the signal and you can't argue nothing about because are facts, no matter what. Example other that how the bass is recorded in digital:

analog pass through not one but two terrible huge equalization proccess because the LP medium limitations, these equalizations are the RIAA standard.
Only these proccess ( where does not exist in digital because it does not need it. ) impedes to mantain  what the microphones pick up during the recording sessions but is worst that what we can imagine because the second RIAA eq. ( inverse. ) procces that happens in the phono stage is to even the  original recorded frequency range and this " even " never  never happens ( especially in the bass range. ). First because the RIAA eq. in the phono stage just does not " knows " exactly each single deviation in the eq. curve made it in the whole recording proccess ( so it can't exist that " even " ever. ) and second because all the inverse RIAA eq. curve comes with different frequency deviations all over the frequency range and those deviations over the curve normally stays over 0.2 dbs that at not only affects at each single discrete frequency where is happening but affects too at least two octaves because each single discrete frequency depends  and affects the next one.

Not enough?, ok: at the very first time that the cartridge stylus hits the very first LP groove it can't reads what in reality is that groove or in all LP grooves because the tracking error in the choosed alignment and additional to that tracking error this error develops tracking error distortions that additional these distortions are incremented by other distortions that depends on each cartridge tracking abilities.
All these happens inside a " perfect " tonearm/cartridge alignment set up but " perfect " does not exist so the distortions goes even higher and normally affects more to both frequency extremes.  LT tonearms? has other problems too, forgeret.

Your : "  Nah. ", means nothing other than nah.

If you want more just ask for it because  there are more FACTS about.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.


The Parasound JC3+ has absolutely killed my upgrade fever. The sound is impeccable. Balls for real. I use LO MC cartridges (the Dynavector XXII MK2 gets the most play) on a Pro-Ject X-Tension 10 piped through a PS Audio BHK stack - vinyl sounds high Rez. It’s amazing. Since I couldn’t best the Parasound, I added an EAR MC4 step up transformer and used the MM setting on the Parasound. The micro dynamics and detail coming out of vinyl, while retaining every bit of high and low extension and warmth, were astounding to me, but it was just too much gain, even using the highest impedance circuit on the transformer. Finally took the EAR out. Oh yeah, the JC3+ has balls baby!
As I said the problem is not in the phono stage ( I mean the main problem. ) but the huge differences that exist in both proccess: recording and play where digital is way way different to how things goes with analog where almost all " thousands " of steps/stages where the signal pass through degrades the signal and you can't argue nothing about because are facts, no matter what. Example other that how the bass is recorded in digital:
@rauliruegas This is one of those areas that because you are not in the recording industry, there are things that you don't know, and you don't know that you don't know them.

Here is an example: When a project is mastered for CD or other digital release, quite often it is compressed. This is because CDs are played in cars. When the same project is mastered to LP, the compression is less or non-existent. This is because there is no expectation that the LP will be played in a car. You can talk all you want about dynamic range, but the fact is the industry doesn't care and they want it to work in a car.

Several other points- the LP has since the late 1950s bandwidth well past 30KHz. Playback apparatus has had that ability since the late 1960s. Our (older) mastering electronics are bandwidth limited to 42KHz but could go much higher without the filter at the output of the mastering amps. Digital has never had this sort of bandwidth.

Actually the EQ used by the LP system works pretty well. If we record a 20-20KHz sweep tone, we can play it back with no variation (within 1/2db) on our playback system that we use for testing of cuts, which consists of an old Technics SL-1200 with a Grado Gold, running into a Harmon Kardon HK430 receiver made in the 1970s. Your remonstrations notwithstanding, LP EQ is far more accurate than you make out; the real devil in the details is actually the master recording itself and how much EQ was applied to that before we ever see it.

So 'Nah' is simply 'what is'; right now the digital isn't out there to do the job. I have hopes that it will be and by all indications it is still improving. But you have to wonder why in the heck vinyl is so much easier to find these days (1992 was the year of least vinyl production, over a quarter of a century ago); if it isn't obvious, it is that as a prior art, the succeeding art failed to be better and the market knows it. That simple fact is really all anyone needs to know about this.
@atmasphere : I have not the time rigth now. Wrong, you still live in the past.

Latter on,
R.