Use of a Schiit Loki with Dynaco PAS 3x

I own a Schiit Loki mini EQ and am very happy with it for use with modern solid state gear.  However, I have a second system that is all vintage vacuum tube gear and the Loki input impedance makes it incompatible as is.

In my case, I want to use the Loki in the “tape loop” of a Dynaco PAS 3x preamp. Like many vintage tube preamps, the phono stage of this amplifier is unbuffered, and it is necessary to add a buffer circuit in order to include a modern equalizer in the mix. But I have found that with a very simple modification the Loki can work perfectly with this preamp, and I would like get opinions on this.

Here is the issue.

The Loki has an input impedance of about 50K. The PAS 3x phono stage (at its Tape Out jacks) wants to see an impedance of 225K or its frequency response will suffer. When I connect the unaltered Loki the bass response drops by 6dB at 20Hz due to the excessive loading of the Loki.

This is exactly in line with published test results as shown here:

http://www.audioregenesis.com/documents/PAS_Phono.pdf

I decided to have a little fun. I opened the Loki to examine its circuitry and found that the input to the first SS device consists of a 475R series resistor followed by a 47.5K resistor shunt to ground. This was indeed producing the 47.5K measured input impedance. As an experiment, I replaced the 47.5K resistor with a 220K resistor on one channel and it appears to work perfectly this way. I plan to modify the other channel to match.  With this higher input impedance the Loki can now be used with my Dynaco PAS 3x tube preamp with no loss in bass due to impedance mismatch, and I have not been able to detect any other change in performance.

I have swept the frequency response and both channels appear to perform identically. This resistor does not appear to be used as part of a bias setup. There was no measurable DC change on the input to the first 3 terminal device this network feeds.I do not know what the device is, but I assume it is a BJT. THere are two in parallel on each channel.

I would like to know if this is a good way to fix this problem, and if there is any technical downside to this modification. If this is not the proper place for a technical post I would appreciate a redirect.

Thanks so much!