As I put it in my original post, “The founder of Leben has indicated that his inspiration for his phono pre (i have one) was the HK Citation IV, which apparently featured CR-type RIAA equalization (no negative feedback).” So I made clear that I was talking about the use of nfb, or lack thereof. This is consistent with the description on the Leben website:
“There are two major types of RIAA phono equalization systems, one is NFB(Negative Feedback) type and the other is CR type.
A representative preamplifier equipped with NFB type equalizer is the MARANTZ Model: 7.
This is a 3-step amplification NF equalizer based on 12AX7, which applies NFB from the 3rd stage cathode to the 1st stage cathode.(so-called "K-K type").
The advantage of the NFB type is that it does not require a high gain level and is not very sensitive to tube quality. However, the impedance of NFB at high frequency range becomes very low and results in a negative effect - the sound becomes hard and dry.
The NFB type is usually used as it is an easier way to attain a good signal-to-noise ratio.
As for the CR type, a masterpiece preamplifier equipped with the CR type equalizer is the vintage Harman-Kardon Model: "Citation IV".”
The Leben discussion is consistent with the discussion of the topic all over the place, including, for example, on the Allnic Audio website:
“There are four de-emphasis methods that can be applied at playback:
A. Active filters (Negative feedback types): Different quantities of negative feedback are applied, with deeper feedback to the high frequencies and shallower to the low frequencies. The benefits of this method are improved signal to noise ratios, low cost and consistent operation. Some of the shortfalls are looser bass reproduction and possibly a pinched and compressed high frequency playback due to excess feedback ratios.
B. Passive filters (CR type): The frequencies are filtered to fit the RIAA specification by varying the amount of attenuation at different frequencies through a complex capacitor-resistor network. This technique results in no voltage overload, purer reproduction (because there is no feedback), and more accurate RIAA compensation. However, there are problems because the system provides no gain, and insertion loss and impedance matching issues arise.
C. Hybrid filters (use of both CR and negative feedback types): In this method, both types of filters applied separately; an active filter is applied to the low frequencies and a passive filter to the high frequencies. Unfortunately, both the advantages and disadvantages of each of these two types of filters, already discussed, affect the playback system at the same time.
D. LCR filters, which are used in the Allnic’s H-7000V : Two pieces of a linear reactor (a kind of choke coil) comprise the main part of these filters, assisted by precise CR filters, in order to lower impedances and insertion loss. In vacuum tube circuits, active and passive filters usually are operated on one hundred plus kilo ohms of impedance. An LCR RIAA filter’s impedance is a constant 600 ohms. Furthermore, an LCR RIAA filter’s series resistance is less than 13 ohms (as a comparative, some famous ones are 31 ohms). The lower the impedance, the more dynamic is the sound reproduction, with better bass response and speed. But LCR RIAA units have drawbacks as well. These drawbacks are high cost and the difficulty of impedance matching; the latter has been the primary hindrance to the commercialization of this superb method in the construction of phono stage amplifiers. However, Allnic Audio manufactures a high quality LCR RIAA unit and has developed a 600 ohms impedance matching method.”
But hey, what do they know?
|
|
|
@mdalton
Your post on active vs passive vs LCR RIAA equalisation is all well and good, but the Marantz 7 ( I have 2 - one modded, one original ) leaves the Leben phono ( which I've had in house ) in the dust. The Leben is very low resolution ( and low gain ). It's a dog.
In a LCR phono the inductors have their own issues - there are positives and negatives whatever road you take.
|
Leben is free to invent jargon but a phono stage with NFB uses C and R to effect the NFB. Hence it’s still a “CR” phono stage. But now I see where you got your idea. Like Dover said, you can also implement RIAA using inductors, plus R and C. There are even a very few that use LR.
|
The reason "NFB" goes hand in hand with "active" gain in a phono stage is that by implementing NFB there is an inevitable loss of overall gain. (With NFB, some of the voltage output of the stage is reverted back to the input or some earlier stage in the circuit. Thus there is less net voltage gain at the output.). So an extra active device is implemented somewhere in the RIAA filter to compensate. But this has nothing to do with what parts one chooses to build the circuit (capacitors, resistors, or inductors).
|
Yes, I agree that it is interesting that there were no stand alone phonostages back in the 1950's and 1960's, but, that was just not a thing. All gear had to have a phono section so not many companies chose to unbundle the phono stage. Separates, except for tuners was not a thing. Tuners were such complicated devices I can see why some chose to make high end separates for tuners.
It would be interesting to see how good is the phono section of some classic preamplifiers.
|
@dover
You’re right, the Leben is lower gain than typical, though I don’t think it’s quite as significant as their published specs (23.5 db) suggest. John Atkinson measured it at 37.1 db back in 2011. Regardless, paired with a Leben integrated and using a Fern & Roby SUT with an Ortofon SPU, I haven’t had any issues at all with gain (vs. a Gold Note phono pre, for example). In fact, I was surprised how good it sounds, and I’d be surprised if the Leben, in a proper setup, was “dusted” by a Marantz Model 7, modded or original, but alas, unlike you, I haven’t been able to make that comparison. Regardless, calling it a “dog” seems a little harsh. As I’m sure you know, system synergy can be hit or miss.
|
The fact that most audiophiles used a "full function" preamplifier back in the 60s, 70s, and even into the 80s, rather than a dedicated phono stage does not in my book mean that phono was taken for granted or given the short end of the stick. In fact in my view the current trend toward separate linestages and phono stages is to some degree a way of extracting more dollars from audiophiles, on the part of manufacturers. There is no reason why a preamplifier, including both a line and phono stage of the highest quality, cannot exist on one chassis. To get to Nirvana, most such gear uses an outboard power supply. A linestage is a very simple add-on to a great phono stage. When I see $20,000 and up stand alone linestages, I am shocked. Shocked I tell you!
|
@lewm +1
totally agree with your last post.
|
They can exist in the same chassis, but the advantage of these being separate should be obvious.
|
To be clear, there were separate high end phono stages in the 70's & 80's - just not in the magazines. There are audio companies outside of the US.
Examples would be Analog Devices AD-E1 ( Japan, price 1.7million yen in the late 80's ), Burmester ( Germany, 838 phono in 83 ( cheapie ) ), Final Audio/Takai Labs ( Japan, 70's, bespoke phono stages with up to 4 phono inputs ), Mactone ( Japan, 60's ). There were plenty of others.
|
They can exist in the same chassis, but the advantage of these being separate should be obvious.
No it's not obvious. One could argue the opposite. Don't believe the all the marketing bs and hype.
|
In the 70's I believe I bought my first Album ever which was one produced by the Monkees. The Group had probably disbanded when I bough my Album, but TV made them attractive to a young person.
In the 80's Vinyl LP Album collecting became much more intense, weekly purchases will have been common.
In the Late 80's / Early 90's I recollect Stand Alone Phonostages becoming regualar tipics of conversation during the 90's I had a SS Phonostage commission built for me. This is still owned today and has been out on a Long Term Loan for more than 2 Years.
Nearly 30 Years Later I am having another SS Phonostage Commission Built for me with a different approach to the Spec's.
I am assured the Spec's being produced are very very high spec, whatever that means, I look only to Power On and listen and not get too bogged down in the measurements.
My Wife worries about Valves used for Amp's, I am making available to her in her own requested pace for a System Set Up. My SP 10 MK II and the new SS Phon', will be loaned as a MM set Up with a Neurochrome Amp' and New High Efficiency Speakers. The above apart from the New SS Phon' will be gifted to her for her own Vinyl Replays when the home is refurbished and moved back into.
I will get the 90's SS Phon' back as well to see how things have changed.
|
What Dover said. I can give you some "obvious" advantages of a full function preamplifier vs separate line and phono stages. Provided you allow for the luxury of an outboard PS for the full function preamp, I would argue that is the inherently superior configuration, all other things being equal of course.
|
I can think of a few great preamps from the "golden era" with good phono stages, including the Marantz Consolettes (never heard them with the "bridge") and the tube 7 (often called a 7C but the C was for the cabinet). The ARC SP3-a-1 was great in its day and there is apparently an update for it. I ran an ARC SP-10mkii for years- great sounding, but it was very microphonic.
I think the trend toward "separates" probably coincided with the advent of digital front ends- why pay for a phono stage if you don't need it? And there was a period where there were not as many phono stages marketed as there are now. I remember when I was setting up the system I have now- and trying to hunt down an Expressive Technologies step up to use for the SP-10. Pretty scarce in the wild.
I wound up going the line stage-phono stage route. I requires an extra piece of interconnect, which is a potential downside. On the upside, I roll the power supply tube in the phono stage, which makes a huge difference in the overall voicing of the system.
|
@dover your list of vintage standalone phonostage is very interesting. I will check them out one by one.
Having a phonostage inside a preamp or outboard is notional. A preamp with phono and external PSU is probably the best thing. Where I was coming from was, there was no cutting edge work going on in phono, like it was happening for amps, preamps, CD players and Turntables. In the 60s we got Marantz, Mcintosh, Quad for tube amps. In the 70s came in ARC, Naim, followed by Mark Levinson Class A, Krell Class A etc. Then there were Japanese giants like Sansui, Pioneer, Yamaha building the best of the seperates. Take any phonostage (other than the Marantz 7 which I have heard great things about) built inside these components, they cannot be considered in the same league as the remaining of the amplification chain. No cutting edge work on phono. They sound noisy and midfi.
|
I think your experience must be limited, and I disagree with your premise. Not to say those vintage units were better than what we have now, but only to say you might be surprised at the similarities between old and new circuit designs. We simply have better parts today and the benefit of hindsight. For one example, the Marantz 7C originally used selenium rectifiers, because that’s what they had available. If you simply upgrade the rectification, the SQ takes a leap forward.
|
The Sansui AU III is a commonly listened to by myself as an Amp used for driving Stacked Quads.
If I can say it has one advantage in comparisons to other same models that might have been heard by others. Which is where it has been fully overhauled where Components are concerned and Tube Rolled for across many Years. With the permutation for Tubes in use, it makes the option to Bi Amp with the spare AU III quite an expensive consideration.
The Phonostage on the AU III Model has been heard on different occasions with a range of SUT's or Head Amp's in front of it. Where during these occasions as a device for replaying LP's, it has proved as impressive a the Modern Day Design Phon's that have been loaned for use at the same arranged session.
Very experienced individuals with audio equipment, as a result of their listening to the Vintage Phon' have found criticism, only good appraisal has been shared.
|
@lewm I agree I have not experienced too many vintage phonostages but I am trying to find good ones and the shortage of it is appalling. It is well known that they had lesser quality parts but if it was only that then just like the Mcintosh, Quad, Naim amps, we would have had phonostages from that era reissued with better parts. Where are they? I would love to find them actually. Marantz is one unit I am very intrigued and will try it. I still feel the innovation around phonostages is at its highest today which is quite opposite to the innovation around other audio components
|
in the 60’s, 70’s analog circuitry was quite common. It was usually discrete components, no IC’s.
Most of the experienced engineers had good knowledge on how to build an amplifier. There was no reference component (IC) that was used. Rather many different designs. The standard to follow were the riaa curves as you noted.
Now, there are many electrical engineers in the US (and likely other countries) that are not experienced in analog circuitry, as it simply isn’t common.
|
Arnieco, your thesis is the opposite of Pani's.
Any phono stage requires lots of gain, more than any other audio component, and a filter that conforms to the RIAA standard de-emphasis curve. Except for tubes, today's parts (discrete transistors, ICs, capacitors, resistors, inductors, diodes, etc) are simply superior to even the very best available 50 years ago. Furthermore, the RIAA standard has not changed since the 50s, and there are only so many ways you can build that filter into a phono gain stage. In fact, there are on line calculators that would allow anyone to build an RIAA network any of several ways. The designer does not even have to be a genius. So it stands to reason that today's electronics can be superior to anything available 50 years ago, if the manufacturer cares enough. But likewise I think the old gear can be modernized using the superior parts now available. So there is no real issue or certainly no tragedy.
|
I'm not sure whether it qualifies as a "reference" component or technology (and who is even qualified to make that judgement), but I will forever be a fan of my strain gauge setup. The strain gauge cartridge does not use or require an RIAA playback filter and represents a radical departure from the standard MM/MC setups. It's magic to my ears and I wish there were more modern options for them, but I suppose I'm fine as long as my old equipment keeps on trucking. Cheers!
|
I have no dog in the fight, but some would argue that it takes some circuitry to make playback using a strain gauge conform to the RIAA pre-emphasis that is built into every LP during the production process. In other words, without some filtering the strain gauge output won't conform closely to RIAA. Whether you can hear that error or not is a matter for dispute.
|
Strain gauge cartridge output is dependent on the amplitude of the movement of the stylus while most other cartridges have output dependent of the velocity of the stylus movement. Amplitude sensitive cartridges can sort of get away with no equalization--the frequency response curve will not be perfect, but it is, arguably good enough. SoundSmith originally went with no equalization with their cartridge, but relented when the market complained about this approach.
|
Being one who does not get too involved with the Math, but am one who does put a lot of faith in individuals who are totally understanding of what is required when getting involved with the Math.
It seems those with a Proper Understanding of the Math will be best placed to give the best advice as to what a Phon' can aspire to be today in relation to the measurements being taken and could what a Phon' could not be when produced during eras 20-50 Years in the past.
|
Except for tubes, today's parts (discrete transistors, ICs, capacitors, resistors, inductors, diodes, etc) are simply superior to even the very best available 50 years ago.
Not necessarily true. I have components using teflon insulation and exotic materials dating back to the early 50's. I have components from the 50's with metallurgical properties that are now too expensive to produce.
The magic is in the circuits, their design and topology etc. You can put the best components made today into a circuit but if the circuit sucks, you'll just expose the flaws - lipstick on a pig.
A good example would be my old Theta tube preamp from the 80's - its unmodified apart from some coupling cap upgrades, still the original power supply components, resistors etc - but it's good enough to pull out of the cupboard, and see off many much vaunted modern high end phono's that cost north of $5k, particularly in the area of information retrieval, resolution. It decimated my Klyne System 7 phono. Last time I took it over to a guy that was auditioning an Audio Reference top of the line pre in his home - the Theta smoked it.
The most obvious improvement in today's high end components should be stability and low noise floor. I say should be because it often isn't.
But how do you explain a product like the CH where you can buy a phono for $70k and then buy another for another one for $70k to run mono, which according to users sounds a lot better, then spend another $70k for an additional external power supply, which according to users sounds a lot better, and then another $70k for another additional power supply to get to dual mono stage and power supply ( 4 boxes ) - $280k all up. It's a joke.
High end is now about bling and brinksmanship. They get away with it because folk no longer know what real music actually sounds like. Go to any audio show, the higher the fi the less it sounds like you hear at the local concert hall. And unfortunately when you compare some the top components to some products of the past that were exceptional, from massively expensive solid state that is not that transparent to exotic valve gear that presents a horribly coloured sound with speakers that are horribly coloured to match.
Years ago I auditioned the $1m full monty Kondo system - sounded very nice until I I put a full orchestra recording on - no power, no control over musical timing - a mess. It fell apart.
Similarly I have heard a few ( I won't name them ) current much vaunted as state of the art, $50-100k solid state components that are not as transparent as my trusty modded Marantz 7/Bel 1001 monos. Dogs, expensive dogs, unless you are buying them for the price, number of boxes, looks and want to impress the neighbours with your moolah.
The good news is that there are good products out there, but you have to look hard to find them.
|
@dover your list of vintage standalone phonostage is very interesting. I will check them out one by one.
@pani
I only gave some examples, there are many more. But from your posts, with all due respect, you would be better off looking at recent products that you can audition and that can be serviced. Spot buying vintage ss components that may need extensive restoration is a recipe for disaster unless you know what you are doing.
Tube gear less so unless it is using obsolete valve types.
|
Seems the OP has 2 premises:
Audio components should progress at a similar rate. I disagree, phono stages much more sorted out and limited to improvements vs amplification.
All components classes (turntable, phono stage, amp…) should have desirable vintage gear. This assumption seems baseless. The market for say turntables is much different than for phono stages - Micro Seiki, Garrard 301, Thoren TD124, rim/direct/belt drives… is not the same for phono stages
|
@lewm
Some agreed upon algorithm for pre-emphasis and de-emphasis was essential owing to the nature of magnetic phono cartridges
Yes, before RIAA stepped in, a number of competing companies had their own formulations. I have an old Quad 34 pre-amplifier which was explicitly designed with controls to tame errant recordings. Quad 34 preamplifier Sam Tellig | Stereophile.com
Talking of formulations, the RIAA curve is generated from a relatively simple formula. It is not an algorithm, though a digital phono stage would use an algorithm to model the curve.
|
I agree a lot with @dover about high end not co-relating with sound of real music.
When it comes to phonostage, what makes it high end exactly?
RIAA accuracy? It is a given. In fact most phonostages have very low RIAA deviation (even entry level ones)
Resolution? Yea that definitely costs more and depends on quality of parts
Dynamics? Thats a big one. The factor which seperates the men from boys is dynamic range. High end phonostages today have the ability of startle with lifelike explosive dynamics which is one of the reasons vinyls sound so much more special than digital. I am yet to come across any vintage phonostage which has that kind of dynamics. They all sound mid-fi in the dynamic range department.
I don't think upgrading some parts with better quality equivalents of today is going to bring it to the level of a big boy dynamics of a Pass Labs XP27 or Burmester PH100. It is the circuit and design with big PSUs to provide that drive and DR. These kind of elaborate designs I don't see in the past.
|
High end phono is no different than anything else in audio--any given model will be liked by some and disliked by others. I have not gone on any sort of careful exploration of the subject, nor have I made that many direct comparisons in my own system or systems that I know well enough to judge the sound. I tend to like tube phono stages and of current brands; I like those made by Audio Note (uk) and Lector (italian). Of the other brands that I am less familiar with, I liked what I hard from Zanden and Doshi. The big disappointment to me was the Boulder which sounded too dry and analytical for my taste.
How I arrived at the one in my own system is an embarrassment. I bought it without hearing it from a friend who was the US distributor for the brand. He had to sell the one he used for audio shows because the power supply unit sustained some cosmetic damage so he sold it to me for a small fraction of the retail price. The offer was too tempting to pass up. I got lucky--I like how it sounds.
|
@pani Description being presented by yourself are quite askew.
I have been in front of Phonostages on at least five occasions where approx' 10 -15 Phon's have been brought along for A/B Comparison demonstrations, where Phon's to be demo's are built by Commercial entities, Commission Built or Built by Very Adept EE minded Types and then the New Builder Type as well.
Phon's on a Line Up have been typically SS, Valve Hybrid, Valve Input/Output with a price range from a few hundred £'s to near $2K for a BOM for a Phon' and through to a Under £1K to £10K+ for Commercial offerings.
A Phon' producer who knows a thing or two about a Phon' for not many hundreds of £'s is quite capable to produce a Phon' with an end sound that is not separated to higher priced phon's when these fall into the under £4K price range.
With this I have heard Phon's with a BOM of near £2K be unapproachable in a comparison by Phon's costing north of £7K.
There is the odd Phon' at the highest price that has been capable to separate itself as a very very attractive option and if monies were not limited would be a consideration for a short list.
My own experiences have assured myself when it comes to the end sound being produced only.
Where demo's that have been heard, has been on systems that can have a costing up to £200K. There are Phon's being produced for less than £1K and then extending towards close to £2K that are so impressive as an end sound, a little extended time in their Company would be so satisfying, why would finding another £8K to £10K need to be parted with to have a at hand musical experience that is not too separated from a much more affordable option.
It is the Person who has put their thought into the Phon' that really matters, and People only know what they know, being influenced by their limitations of know how.
|
I'm guessing you never listened to the ModSquad Deluxe Phono preamp. To say that weren't very many good phono preamps prior to 2000 is really not a very true statement. I sold hi end audio in europe in the 1970's and there were many very nice sounding phono preamps and cartridges during that time period.
|
I’m going to add to the chorus: there were MANY great phonostages in the 1990s. That was when designed separated the linestage from the phonostage. There was Tom Evan’s Groove phonostage, Audio Research has had phonostages since the early 90s, Mares, Musical Surroundings Phenomena. And I owned a Vendetta SCP 2A back in 1992.
I’m thinking you’re very young, or you came into the audiophile community in the 2000s. That must be why you think phonostages only came of age in the 2000s, but clearly, as you can see, that was never the case.
|
I was very impressed back in 1980 when Crown international came out with the SL One preamp which came with an adjustable input sensitivity adjustment for different cartridges gain characteristics. A great idea for a $600.00 preamp. Not many other manufacturers did that in that price range. For about 5 years, they made excellent best for dollar Hi Hi. Mine lasted 45yrs, (PA and Pre A.) sounded great. Retired because of worn switches, older components. Carver was also a great deal back then.
|
There were/are a number of excellent phono stages out there. I have a Vendeatt that I had John Curl update and it has compared very well against more current Herron units. Other older designs like the CJ Premium 15 and the on board stage in preamps like the Classe DR7 also hold up very well - I own both and so have had the opportunity to compare.
|
Love my Audia Flight FL Phono.
|
As a 2 1/2 decade owner of a modded Marsntz 7C (following personal guidance from Saul Marantz for the modding!), and a greater than four decade owner of an Audio Research SP6B with lots of experience tube rolling in both, I am intimately knowledgeable of their sound.
That said, the performance of modern separate phono preamps and line stage preamps together far exceeds the performance of both models as either line stages ir phono preamps. I began to understand this when for kicks, I subbed my little Schiit Saga preamp (with a Sylvania “Bad Boy” 6SN7) for my SP6B and heard more resolution. Shocked me- the “palpability” of instruments, the air around them, wasn’t quite as well produced but it did better pretty much everywhere else.
I don’t have the best phono preamp- it’s a Hegel V10- but it’s ability to easily change loading (as opposed to in the SP6B only be able to change a resistor by soldering with the cover off, along with the inability to change loading capacitance, and only a one step gain switch that in high gain didn’t provide enough gain to support anything but high output moving coils) made the Hegel a far better match to modern phono cartridge design. It elicits far more information from the record grooves, partially due to better phono cartridge loading flexibility.
I truly loved those Marantz7c and SP6B preamps, but my Hegel/Cary SLP05 combo is on another level. Now I just need to replace my Grace 707 tonearm with something friendlier to medium and low compliance cartridges!
|
I have heard the McCormack phono drive (not the modsquad deluxe phono designed by him). It is good. But it still sounds like a well done $1000 phono of today. An EAR 834p kills it in the same system.
|
Subjective Assessment ( Evaluation or judgment that is based on personal feelings, opinions, and experiences rather than objective facts or data).
Subjective Assessment used by myself when encountering a 834p as a EAR Design or a Variant Clone Design has never been an experience where I feel compelled to make an inquiry about how the Model is produced and learn how to acquire a model. In my assessment, there is not a end sound produced that generates an attraction to myself, that is wanted to be pursued for being available as readily at hand to be used.
Does the 834p fill a room with Sound that is able to be listened to and not wanted to be avoided? Answer is Yes.
The subject of Phonostages and only giving the designs credit as a result of subjective assessment, is going to produce a mass amount of models to be suggested.
Objective Assessment (A method of evaluation where the questions or tasks have a single, clearly defined correct answer. These assessments are fact-based, unbiased, and measurable, minimizing subjective interpretation. They are often used to gauge knowledge, skills, and understanding of specific facts and concepts).
As stated by myself in an earlier Post and now with a edit:
" It seems those with a Proper Understanding of the Math will be best placed to give the best advice as to what a Phon' can aspire to be today as a finished design. In relation to the measurements values that can be taken from a modern design and measurement values that was not possible to be taken when produced during eras 20-50 Years in the past."
|
I Think many so called "audiophile" integrated and standalone phono stages have flattered to decieve and done a disservice to what can still be achieved in the vinyl playback world.
One such design I can vouch for, is to be found within the truly great pre-amplifier designed by the late genius Tim De Pavaracini. One of his legacy products EAR 912 has an extraordinarily capable phonostage.
Concieved in the late 90’s but brought to the maket in the mid 2000’s The 912 sports Transformer-Coupled Inputs for moving coil cartridges, it uses his custom step-up transformers, which preserve signal integrity and reduce noise as no active gain stage is needed at that point.
RIAA Equalization is achieved without relying on op-amps or digital correction, instead it uses hand-wound inductors for RIAA EQ,
It results in delivering a more natural, analog sound with huge headroom and low-frequency stability.
Dual Phono Inputs are provided so two arms can be plugged in at the same time and MM and MC inputs are fully supported, with switchable gain and impedance settings. That means you can fine tune on the fly to match your cartridge and sound.
Five PCC88 (7DJ8) Valves as used, three soley dedicated to the phono stage, these tubes are known for low noise and long life, contributing to my EAR 912’s lush, detailed sound.
I love the Studio-Grade VU Meters not just for show, these let you visually monitor levels and optimize gain settings, especially useful when dealing with over-compressed or dynamic recordings.
I like that his design offers Balanced and Unbalanced Outputs, Transformer-coupled line stage ensures signal purity whether you’re running XLR or RCA.
There is something magical about my EAR 912 that I believe comes from Tims deeper immersion into the recorded music world via his renown and respected innovation founded in studio environments. I always get the ferling I am having my music revealed to me as opposed to it being reproduced to me.
It isnt everyones elxir in the looks department but I have yet to hear a phonostage be it a standalone or integrated that bests the one inside this hugely capable pre amp.
|
EAR 912 is a good call for an example of something extraordinary. Someone above mentioned the Mares Connoisseur. I have not heard it, but I heard the version Lyra licensed and built and it sounded great—very dynamic and vivid sounding. The Lyra Connoisseur is one of the few solid state preces I would welcome in my system.
|
