WTD maybe: best of all worlds pre amp

[Mr.Ian]

Since selling my John Wood pre/power combo I have been trying to find a pre amp that delivers on every front but doesnt cost an arm and a leg. Its a challenge, especially when it needs to drive a pro-audio equaliser with a 10k input.

Right now I have;

DCB1 turbo
looks great and sounds fantastic. Smooth with loads and loads of detail. but I am maximing out the volume. I need more gain.

Philips Back Tulip AH380
dates from 1979, drives the equaliser with ease and has loads of gain. This sounds really dynamic, loads of PRAT. The detail is there too but compared with the DCB1 its a tad grainy and coarse. Toying with some cap upgrades which I am told will help - but I am not sure it will get to the smoothness of the DCB1

Toft LBPA5
rare as hens teeth, made by the legendary Malcom Toft, once the CD is padded down this is somewhere between the above 2 and in many ways a good step in the right direction but in direct comparisons the sound has slighly less body and details plus a mild shrillness on some tracks.

In the past I have tried a range of valve pre-amps but from memory they seemed to gloss over the detail, create a nice sound but having listened to the above I want to hear the detail too.

I am guessing that I could probable get close to £1500 if I sold all three of the above pre amps but I like them all in their own individual ways so am thinking is there another way?

I need to marry detail, clarity, PRAT and warmth for under £500, best of all worlds means cheap too


stand alone 10-20db gain stage for the DCB1 that will drive a 10k load?
a different pre - chinese, vintage, other?

[Bigman80]

Since selling my John Wood pre/power combo I have been trying to find a pre amp that delivers on every front but doesnt cost an arm and a leg. Its a challenge, especially when it needs to drive a pro-audio equaliser with a 10k input.

Right now I have;

DCB1 turbo
looks great and sounds fantastic. Smooth with loads and loads of detail. but I am maximing out the volume. I need more gain.

Philips Back Tulip AH380
dates from 1979, drives the equaliser with ease and has loads of gain. This sounds really dynamic, loads of PRAT. The detail is there too but compared with the DCB1 its a tad grainy and coarse. Toying with some cap upgrades which I am told will help - but I am not sure it will get to the smoothness of the DCB1

Toft LBPA5
rare as hens teeth, made by the legendary Malcom Toft, once the CD is padded down this is somewhere between the above 2 and in many ways a good step in the right direction but in direct comparisons the sound has slighly less body and details plus a mild shrillness on some tracks.

In the past I have tried a range of valve pre-amps but from memory they seemed to gloss over the detail, create a nice sound but having listened to the above I want to hear the detail too.

I am guessing that I could probable get close to £1500 if I sold all three of the above pre amps but I like them all in their own individual ways so am thinking is there another way?

I need to marry detail, clarity, PRAT and warmth for under £500, best of all worlds means cheap too


stand alone 10-20db gain stage for the DCB1 that will drive a 10k load?
a different pre - chinese, vintage, other?
Maxing out the volume on the DCB1? What source are you using!

[Mr.Ian]

Maxing out the volume on the DCB1? What source are you using!

I know I know, its not a usual occurrence, direct to my balanced input power amps its brilliant but thats not how i am using it now.

It isnt what comes before it but rather what comes after it, a pro audio equaliser with balanced 10k inputs. Artificially increasing the input impedance to get the bass back cost 10db and splitting the single ended signal to balanced cost another 12db ? the power amps take a balanced input so no conversion gain. The power amps are looking for 2.5 volts.

I did try to find a dspeaker dual core and see how that fared, i had one before but sold it get rid of the ADC/DAC conversion. Using it fully digital was a pain. Have ads running for one on some forums but nothing yet

[Bigman80]

I know I know, its not a usual occurrence, direct to my balanced input power amps its brilliant but thats not how i am using it now.

It isnt what comes before it but rather what comes after it, a pro audio equaliser with balanced 10k inputs. Artificially increasing the input impedance to get the bass back cost 10db and splitting the single ended signal to balanced cost another 12db ? the power amps take a balanced input so no conversion gain. The power amps are looking for 2.5 volts.

I did try to find a dspeaker dual core and see how that fared, i had one before but sold it get rid of the ADC/DAC conversion. Using it fully digital was a pain. Have ads running for one on some forums but nothing yetSeems a shame to have an amplifier setup that's going to Rob you of the DCB1. However, I hope you sort it out.

SQ245134 (or whatever the numbers are) uses a BPBP with balanced connections. If you can find him on another forum, it may be worth seeing what he has to say.

I nearly bought a BPBP. Supposedly supreme like the DCB1.

[hifinutt]

Have a look at the bel canto pre 3 I am selling , it has an organic sound and pretty detailed but not clinical.some folks use them with etc active. I am not sure of the technical match but it worked beautifully with my msb .firebottle made the psu for it.

[Lawrence001]

Xiang Sheng 728A, loving my new one. It's got a few quirks but once you find your way round them it's great.

Sent from my POT-LX1 using Tapatalk

[Firebottle]

...... especially when it needs to drive a pro-audio equaliser with a 10k input.


From my point of view it would be a lot cheaper and more effective to have your equaliser modified to raise the input impedance.
I am sure it would be a very simple job as the inputs will without doubt be an op-amp circuit.

I can take a look at it if you wish but not right away. You could then dispense with the attenuators and keep the DCB1 in circuit.

[montesquieu]

I recently ordered a Model 5 preamp (fourth generation) from Audiopax in Brazil. I tried quite a few preamps, valve and solid state, when I was seeking to replace my EAR 912 phono pre - and this was streets ahead of anything else I had a go with even with a pricier sticker. Mine will be a custom new build from the manufacturer (fully balanced construction, the only custom option left now that previous 'SE' enhancements have been rolled into the main product') but there are a few around second-hand. I recently heard that Greg at g-point audio sold one for £1600 which is an excellent price for one of these.

There has been one kicking around for a few years being sold by a chap in Scotland, that's the one I demo'd, that particular one was very early (from 2004) and when I had it it was a bit flaky in operation (kept cutting out) and had a noisy power supply. (Perhaps the seller has fixed it by now). But what I heard from it when it was working seriously impressed, to my mind bettering the ten grand EAR 912 as a linestage (of course the EAR's main thing is its phono capability). And that was the first generation model.

Anyway - worth looking out for one as a possibility. My view on it was that it has all the immediacy and transparency attributes of a decent passive solution, but with all the drive and spatial dimensionality of a good valve pre - truly the best of both worlds, and in my view an instant cure to anyone hooked on the passive cult.

I currently have its big brother, the L50, in my system, on loan pending delivery of the Model 5 and it really is an exceptional bit of gear. A few write-ups online.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2222/0805/products/Model-5-34-view-Red-1024x680_4000x.progressive.jpg

EDIT oops read this wrong I thought you were looking to spend £1500 which is not impossible for a s/h one of these, at £500 it's probably not in the running.

[Mr.Ian]

From my point of view it would be a lot cheaper and more effective to have your equaliser modified to raise the input impedance.
I am sure it would be a very simple job as the inputs will without doubt be an op-amp circuit.

I can take a look at it if you wish but not right away. You could then dispense with the attenuators and keep the DCB1 in circuit.

Hi Alan many thanks for your input. I know we have chatted about this before but I guess I thought the solution would always give the same voltage drop. I am now thinking it may mght be worth while bringing the key bits to you and seeing if you can sort it. Will drop you a message on Monday

[Mr.Ian]

Re model 5. Your views and input are much appreciated. If I can't solve the problem at 500 then I may have to sell and spend more

[antonio]

That's hifi for yer. :doh:

[Macca]

I know I know, its not a usual occurrence, direct to my balanced input power amps its brilliant but thats not how i am using it now.

It isnt what comes before it but rather what comes after it, a pro audio equaliser with balanced 10k inputs. Artificially increasing the input impedance to get the bass back cost 10db and splitting the single ended signal to balanced cost another 12db ? the power amps take a balanced input so no conversion gain. The power amps are looking for 2.5 volts.

I did try to find a dspeaker dual core and see how that fared, i had one before but sold it get rid of the ADC/DAC conversion. Using it fully digital was a pain. Have ads running for one on some forums but nothing yet

I'd rethink the whole system. :D

Or just stop using balanced connection?

If you decide to sell your Black Tulip let me know.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

If you view your source equipment as having the audio you actually need, then anything in -between
to your power amp that changes that audio is detracting. Your source equipment should have
sufficient ability to not be upset by an attenuator.

I would deal with attenuation firstly - to get the best possible transfer, and I think you know
the direction I would advise.

With a good basis of attenuation be it balanced or unbalanced you then can properly assess your requirements.
I would also study the schematics for your power amps to see if sensitivity can be improved

[killie99]

If you want to go the DIY route then maybe a Salas DCG3 pre would fit the bill. Configurable gain from 2-4, very nice pre, I'm just finishing mine. https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analog-line-level/296406-salas-dcg3-preamp-line-headphone.html

Here's a picture of mine nearing completion!

https://i.postimg.cc/9QRhKNxs/dcg3-3.jpg

[Bigman80]

If you want to go the DIY route then maybe a Salas DCG3 pre would fit the bill. Configurable gain from 2-4, very nice pre, I'm just finishing mine. https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analog-line-level/296406-salas-dcg3-preamp-line-headphone.html

Here's a picture of mine nearing completion!

https://i.postimg.cc/9QRhKNxs/dcg3-3.jpgIs that alps pot in the signal path?

[killie99]

Yes, it's just temporary hence the reason for the hokey connector. Looking for a remote volume solution.

[Bigman80]

Yes, it's just temporary hence the reason for the hokey connector. Looking for a remote volume solution.Phew!

I thought, "all that beautiful work and then he's stuck an alps blue in!" lol

Have a look at the Acoustic Dimensions Stepped attenuator. Bit smaller than the khozmo and every bit as good.

[Firebottle]

+1 to the that. The difference in clarity is quite surprising.

[Miller]

The ifi iTube2 is shockingly superb as a valve pre-amplifier with or without gain (9db) putting many an 'audiophile' product to shame and with facilities galore like a Swiss army pocket knife..... It can also be used as a buffer to increase gain and give a 'tube' sound..... I used it with a Western Electric 396A double triode valve and it was outrageous.....

Thorsten Loesch and the Abbingdon Music Research crew of which iFi is a subsidiary nailed it so much so that I now use the iFi Pro which is a linestage/headphone amplifier....

The most complete separate valve and separate solid state pre-amplifier I've ever assessed or owned..... Good luck....

[anubisgrau]

there is audiopax model 5 for sale on wam though the price is hefty.

[Lawrence001]

Back to basics: why do you need an equaliser?

Maybe this would do?

https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/schiit-loki-tone-controls.232066/

[Mr.Ian]

I have some very nasty room induced boom circa 100hz. The equaliser tames it. It is a pro audio dn410, 5 bands of fully adjustable parametric
Eq a channel and very transparent. Using REW I can target the offending frequencies. It is far far more precise than tone controls

[Lawrence001]

Furry muff, unless you don't have a computer only source then you can't use DSP in the digital domain there.

If you were heading down the M1 you're welcome to have a listen to my Xiang Sheng. If there's one thing it's not missing it's transparency and detail, in fact it's the best I've heard. A DCB1 came close, but it lacked the holographic imaging and soundstage I get from this. Of course YMMV.

It also has high and low impedance outputs and the bass control has removed a slight resonance I was getting.

[Mr.Ian]

That's a generous offer, but London is a tad too far. I didnt think about this pre amp at one stage but was put off by a less than glowing repair report I saw on line, it implied to me that the build quality was poor and they needed local fettling, which I suspect you have done. I will try to find it when I have a minute. But if you think better than a dcb1 it might be worth the effort

[Bigman80]

That's a generous offer, but London is a tad too far. I didnt think about this pre amp at one stage but was put off by a less than glowing repair report I saw on line, it implied to me that the build quality was poor and they needed local fettling, which I suspect you have done. I will try to find it when I have a minute. But if you think better than a dcb1 it might be worth the effortDepends on the DCB1 you're using id suggest.

Your DCB1, if it's my first one, is not as good as the one I use now. Better choices made in important resistor locations, better choices made all over actually, and also running at 1.2A rather than the 200mA I think that one is?

Unless the one compared to the XS was of this spec, I wouldn't read anything into the comparison personally.

Also, if the XS is a Valve pre, I'd bet my house that distortion figures are higher with the XS than with a DCB1, so it's highly unlikely that it's more transparent in ultimate terms.

Not trying to piss on anyone's choices of kit, but facts are facts.

You may actually prefer the XS depending on what you like listening to. Harmonics are very pleasant on the ear and I understand that, as I enjoy them myself.

Whatever you choose will be the right choice in the end.

[montesquieu]

Depends on the DCB1 you're using id suggest.

Your DCB1, if it's my first one, is not as good as the one I use now. Better choices made in important resistor locations, better choices made all over actually, and also running at 1.2A rather than the 200mA I think that one is?

Unless the one compared to the XS was of this spec, I wouldn't read anything into the comparison personally.

Also, if the XS is a Valve pre, I'd bet my house that distortion figures are higher with the XS than with a DCB1, so it's highly unlikely that it's more transparent in ultimate terms.

Not trying to piss on anyone's choices of kit, but facts are facts.

You may actually prefer the XS depending on what you like listening to. Harmonics are very pleasant on the ear and I understand that, as I enjoy them myself.

Whatever you choose will be the right choice in the end.


I have to say Ollie it's a bit of a stretch to say that any transistor-based buffer however well implemented is automatically more transparent than any valve preamp. Different kinds of devices have different kinds of distortion as I'm sure you are aware, a tiny amount of odd-order distortion as generally put out by solid state devices has been shown to be far more impactful on the ear than relatively larger amounts of even-order distortion (most of it octaves) typically seen in a typical valve environment.

A buffer such as the B1 may measure fairly well and obviously that can be improved through particular attention to implementation, but it's not a given that it will sound better in all circumstances, particularly where there is insufficient gain in the system. Similar applies to passive devices which may suit high-gain situations but which often fall flat and lacking in energy where sources and power amps are expecting the gain normally provided by a fully active preamp.

For my ears I have pretty much always found a good (and I emphasise good - there are many so-so preamps around that don't do much more than adding switch capability + a bit of extra noise) will run rings round any passive, an in general also sound better than an active, zero gain buffer. The exceptions I have experienced are limited to relatively few cases where there have been high output sources, high sensitivity power amps, or both, where any kind of gain at all causes a problem - in this case I've generally found (as indeed you have) that an active buffer like the ones from Pass or Burson is an improvement over a straight passive of whatever kind (TVC, stepped attenuator, film pot, LDR - I've owned all of these at various times).

But many power amps are designed with sensitivity that expects an amplified signal; sources vary enormously in their characteristics; people need different cable lengths, have balanced or other complex switching requirements. A good active preamp is designed to cope with these scenarios, maintaining the musical integrity of the signal, ensuring that impedance issues are managed, that levels can be in the optimum range, that bandwith is maintained without drop off over switching arrangements or cable distances. It follows therefore that the simplistic, dogmatic view .. 'the best preamp is a straight piece of wire with attenuation' .. turns out to be something of an over-simplification.

As with everything Ollie, there are no absolutes or panaceas in audio, and I would suggest that your assertion 'facts are facts' in this context is a bit misleading.

[Bigman80]

I have to say Ollie it's a bit of a stretch to say that any transistor-based buffer however well implemented is automatically more transparent than any valve preamp. Different kinds of devices have different kinds of distortion as I'm sure you are aware, a tiny amount of odd-order distortion as generally put out by solid state devices has been shown to be far more impactful on the ear than relatively larger amounts of even-order distortion (most of it octaves) typically seen in a typical valve environment.

A buffer such as the B1 may measure fairly well and obviously that can be improved through particular attention to implementation, but it's not a given that it will sound better in all circumstances, particularly where there is insufficient gain in the system. Similar applies to passive devices which may suit high-gain situations but which often fall flat and lacking in energy where sources and power amps are expecting the gain normally provided by a fully active preamp.

For my ears I have pretty much always found a good (and I emphasise good - there are many so-so preamps around that don't do much more than adding switch capability + a bit of extra noise) will run rings round any passive, an in general also sound better than an active, zero gain buffer. The exceptions I have experienced are limited to relatively few cases where there have been high output sources, high sensitivity power amps, or both, where any kind of gain at all causes a problem - in this case I've generally found (as indeed you have) that an active buffer like the ones from Pass or Burson is an improvement over a straight passive of whatever kind (TVC, stepped attenuator, film pot, LDR - I've owned all of these at various times).

But many power amps are designed with sensitivity that expects an amplified signal; sources vary enormously in their characteristics; people need different cable lengths, have balanced or other complex switching requirements. A good active preamp is designed to cope with these scenarios, maintaining the musical integrity of the signal, ensuring that impedance issues are managed, that levels can be in the optimum range, that bandwith is maintained without drop off over switching arrangements or cable distances. It follows therefore that the simplistic, dogmatic view .. 'the best preamp is a straight piece of wire with attenuation' .. turns out to be something of an over-simplification.

As with everything Ollie, there are no absolutes or panaceas in audio, and I would suggest that your assertion 'facts are facts' in this context is a bit misleading.Tom,

Just to be clear I'm not talking about "sonic preferences" or how good something sounds in someone's opinion. I am merely saying that when you choose valves over Transistor based products at the level the DCB1 operates, you are not doing so for transparency, you doing so for personal preference.

Claiming the XS had more transparency than a DCB1, even in its standard construction just inst possible due to the distortion and noise floor when using valves. That's been my experience and is routinely the case when measured.

In terms of transparency, distortion and SINAD, Valve kit does not outperform Transistors.

It's not a stretch to claim that at all. My transistor amplifier has distortion levels below 0.0005% thd (IIIRC)

Show me any proper valve kit that can claim to equal or improve on that and then I'll accept any argument against my claim.

[montesquieu]

Tom,

Just to be clear I'm not talking about "sonic preferences" or how good something sounds in someone's opinion. I am merely saying that when you choose valves over Transistor based products at the level the DCB1 operates, you are not doing so for transparency, you doing so for personal preference.

Claiming the XS had more transparency than a DCB1, even in its standard construction just inst possible due to the distortion and noise floor when using valves. That's been my experience and is routinely the case when measured.

In terms of transparency, distortion and SINAD, Valve kit does not outperform Transistors.

It's not a stretch to claim that at all. My transistor amplifier has distortion levels below 0.0005% thd (IIIRC)

Show me any proper valve kit that can claim to equal or improve on that and then I'll accept any argument against my claim.

It all depends Ollie, if you read my post, on what the nature of that distortion is - even or odd - and how it's achieved (eg, gobs of global feedback).

The particular rabbit hole you are jumping down was well explored in the 1970s, just as the transistor age was getting into its stride. The Japanese in particular got into competitions on how low they could get distortion figures - and many amps of the time produced to this goal thoroughly underwhelm today. A classic case is actually the Radford Zero Distortion range. Conscious that his valve amps were being outclassed in the distortion wars of the time, old Arthur produced the solid state ZD range - ZD for zero distortion, that is, distortion that was close to the measurable limits of the equipment of the day. (Given that Arthur's other business was making lab equipment, he knew what he was taking on).

The specs of the ZD range are impressive even today - this for the ZD100:

https://i.imgur.com/mu4p1ad.jpg

But it didn't sell well, even to the studios he once dominated where engineers were supposedly seeking 'transparency' and Radford returned to valves for his final (successful) valve amp, the TT100, an evolution of the STA100 I used to own, with a solid state front end which was easier to maintain than the old one.

I didn't have you down as a measurebator given your penchant for subjective opinions ... in my view measurement is absolutely essential for amplifier designers or builders, or in a repair workshop, ensuring things are operating up to spec, but no more than a general indicator (at best) of a piece of equipment's real world performance.

[Bigman80]

It all depends Ollie, if you read my post, on what the nature of that distortion is - even or odd - and how it's achieved (eg, gobs of global feedback).

The particular rabbit hole you are jumping down was well explored in the 1970s, just as the transistor age was getting into its stride. The Japanese in particular got into competitions on how low they could get distortion figures - and many amps of the time produced to this goal thoroughly underwhelm today. A classic case is actually the Radford Zero Distortion range. Conscious that his valve amps were being outclassed in the distortion wars of the time, old Arthur produced the solid state ZD range - ZD for zero distortion, that is, distortion that was close to the measurable limits of the equipment of the day. (Given that Arthur's other business was making lab equipment, he knew what he was taking on).

The specs of the ZD range are impressive even today - this for the ZD100:

https://i.imgur.com/mu4p1ad.jpg

But it didn't sell well, even to the studios he once dominated where engineers were supposedly seeking 'transparency' and Radford returned to valves for his final (successful) valve amp, the TT100, an evolution of the STA100 I used to own, with a solid state front end which was easier to maintain than the old one.

I didn't have you down as a measurebator given your penchant for subjective opinions ... in my view measurement is absolutely essential for amplifier designers or builders, or in a repair workshop, ensuring things are operating up to spec, but no more than a general indicator (at best) of a piece of equipment's real world performance.No, I'm not a measurbator but it does have its uses.

I don't disagree BTW about your comments, and yes, in real life things often shouldn't sound great, but do and vice versa.

As I said, whatever the OP picks, it will be right for him

[User211]

I've gotta say I am glad you have ditched the EAR, Tom. After a short initial positive feeling with the EAR 868PL I owned I soon grew to realise it wasn't that great. What it lacked was any degree of liveliness and engagement. It was just a bit bland when it really boiled down to it. For my tastes, anyway.

The Audiopax system I head in Rio was anything but bland. Lively, engaging and high resolution for sure.

[montesquieu]

I've gotta say I am glad you have ditched the EAR, Tom. After a short initial positive feeling with the EAR 868PL I owned I soon grew to realise it wasn't that great. What it lacked was any degree of liveliness and engagement. It was just a bit bland when it really boiled down to it. For my tastes, anyway.

The Audiopax system I head in Rio was anything but bland. Lively, engaging and high resolution for sure.

Tougher call than you'd think Justin. The phono stage on it is excellent, indeed in my view (formed from quite a lot of trialling stuff) comparable to anything out there at the full asking price of the whole preamp - it's a superbly implemented LCR design. But in the end I was bypassing the SUTs (because I preferred my Miyajima ETR-Stereo and ETR-Mono ones) and bypassing the linestage, taking the phono from the tape out - so it made no sense to keep it. It took the Allnic H7000V (not cheap) to beat the internal phono stage .... what really impressed was how well the EAR's internal phono fed the various preamps I tried, it was the opposite of a bottleneck, it was always really clear what the preamp was doing (or not doing) to such a high-quality phono output.

I agree that the EAR 912 linestage is not quite at the level of the phono stage - it is a bit dry and studio-ish - though some people do like it that way and it can be to some extent modified by valve choices. But as an overall package, it took me more than six months of heavy auditioning to find a combo of separates to beat it.

[Lawrence001]

That's a generous offer, but London is a tad too far. I didnt think about this pre amp at one stage but was put off by a less than glowing repair report I saw on line, it implied to me that the build quality was poor and they needed local fettling, which I suspect you have done. I will try to find it when I have a minute. But if you think better than a dcb1 it might be worth the effort

It has a few quirks and I meant to update my thread on it, will try and do it tonight once the children are asleep.

[Lawrence001]

Depends on the DCB1 you're using id suggest.

Your DCB1, if it's my first one, is not as good as the one I use now. Better choices made in important resistor locations, better choices made all over actually, and also running at 1.2A rather than the 200mA I think that one is?

Unless the one compared to the XS was of this spec, I wouldn't read anything into the comparison personally.

Also, if the XS is a Valve pre, I'd bet my house that distortion figures are higher with the XS than with a DCB1, so it's highly unlikely that it's more transparent in ultimate terms.

Not trying to piss on anyone's choices of kit, but facts are facts.

You may actually prefer the XS depending on what you like listening to. Harmonics are very pleasant on the ear and I understand that, as I enjoy them myself.

Whatever you choose will be the right choice in the end.

I'm happy to call it perceived transparency, I at least partly agree with most or all of your points. I just go on what works well to my ears in my system at the time, and it has changed a bit since I tried your first DCB1, so comparisons are far from perfect.

[Bigman80]

I'm happy to call it perceived transparency, I at least partly agree with most or all of your points. I just go on what works well to my ears in my system at the time, and it has changed a bit since I tried your first DCB1, so comparisons are far from perfect.Yep, no worries on my side.

Whatever works, is the right piece. That's always my advice.

[User211]

Tougher call than you'd think Justin. The phono stage on it is excellent, indeed in my view (formed from quite a lot of trialling stuff) comparable to anything out there at the full asking price of the whole preamp - it's a superbly implemented LCR design. But in the end I was bypassing the SUTs (because I preferred my Miyajima ETR-Stereo and ETR-Mono ones) and bypassing the linestage, taking the phono from the tape out - so it made no sense to keep it. It took the Allnic H7000V (not cheap) to beat the internal phono stage .... what really impressed was how well the EAR's internal phono fed the various preamps I tried, it was the opposite of a bottleneck, it was always really clear what the preamp was doing (or not doing) to such a high-quality phono output.

I agree that the EAR 912 linestage is not quite at the level of the phono stage - it is a bit dry and studio-ish - though some people do like it that way and it can be to some extent modified by valve choices. But as an overall package, it took me more than six months of heavy auditioning to find a combo of separates to beat it.As a point of note I definitely think my Trichord Diablo and NCPSU was better than the 868 phono stage.

I know the 868PL isn't the same as the 912 in terms of phono stage but I believe the line stage is for all intents the same.

The weekest link in my system should be the far cheaper Chinese Cayin pre, but I much prefer it to the EAR. I wonder whether it's the valve rectification that helps it sound as good as it does. There probably is better out there for my tastes, though. I need to experiment more.

I never seem that keen on valve phono stages but I definitely like valve preamps. That said I have never been as serious as you about vinyl and just haven't experimented with very high end valve phono stages.

I hold out high hopes for that Audiopax. I am not sure which one Silvio had hooked up when I was there as it was in another room. I will email him.

[montesquieu]

As a point of note I definitely think my Trichord Diablo and NCPSU was better than the 868 phono stage.

I know the 868PL isn't the same as the 912 in terms of phono stage but I believe the line stage is for all intents the same.

The weekest link in my system should be the far cheaper Chinese Cayin pre, but I much prefer it to the EAR. I wonder whether it's the valve rectification that helps it sound as good as it does. There probably is better out there for my tastes, though. I need to experiment more.

I never seem that keen on valve phono stages but I definitely like valve preamps. That said I have never been as serious as you about vinyl and just haven't experimented with very high end valve phono stages.

I hold out high hopes for that Audiopax. I am not sure which one Silvio had hooked up when I was there as it was in another room. I will email him.

There's a lot of disinformation about, even on EAR dealers' web sites and in some of the older reviews. The phono stages in the 868pl and 88PB are FET/tube hybrids with two valves, and are a completely different design to the phono stage in the 912 which has no FET and three tubes - all valve (plus the inductors of course as it's an LCR stage).

However, it woudn't surprise me if the line stage was also different between the 912 and 868 ... it may possibly the same circuit but I doubt the output transformers are the same (not even sure the 868 uses output transformers?), my understanding is that the 912 was made to be unique for example the four SUT options are labelled the same as the stand-alone EAR MC4, but some of the ratios are different.

Well the Audiopax is indeed quite something, it takes a lot to get me to order a bit of kit brand new, serial cheapskate that I try my best to be.

[User211]

From Enjoy The Music. This tallies with other accounts I have seen.

"According to EAR, the $7595 model 868 has essentially the same circuitry and sound as its big brother, the Professional 912 preamplifier. The difference is that the 868 lacks some of the flexibility and features like the D'Arsonval meters of the Pro 912. The preamplifier is a transformer coupled input and output device and that it contains four tubes. The tube compliment includes the PCC88/7DJ8, which is an equivalent to the more common United States spec 6922 miniature dual triodes. Two of the PCC88 tubes are used within the line stage and two more are in the phono amplifier stage. We are told the phono stage is exactly the same as the circuit used in the separate standalone $4995 EAR 88PB."

[montesquieu]

From Enjoy The Music. This tallies with other accounts I have seen.

"According to EAR, the $7595 model 868 has essentially the same circuitry and sound as its big brother, the Professional 912 preamplifier. The difference is that the 868 lacks some of the flexibility and features like the D'Arsonval meters of the Pro 912. The preamplifier is a transformer coupled input and output device and that it contains four tubes. The tube compliment includes the PCC88/7DJ8, which is an equivalent to the more common United States spec 6922 miniature dual triodes. Two of the PCC88 tubes are used within the line stage and two more are in the phono amplifier stage. We are told the phono stage is exactly the same as the circuit used in the separate standalone $4995 EAR 88PB."

Exactly. Total bollocks. How can it be exactly the same circuit when in it uses two tubes and a FET,rather than three tubes and no FET? The line stage may or may not be the same I have no knowledge of that.

Pretty poor show really and demonstrates that reviews, even in from the bigger sites, can't be trusted.

[montesquieu]

EAR 868PL

https://www.hifishock.org/galleries/electronics/ear-yoshino/preamplifier/868-1-ear-yoshino.jpg


EAR 912:

http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/EAR-912/ear-912-7.jpg


Does that look like the same design to you?

[User211]

For the phono, no. For the line stage who knows. I'd need a circuit diagram.

I am missing something? ETM aren't saying the phono stage is the same as 912. I am not saying it is.

But ETM are claiming the info they have is from EAR.

Confused.

[montesquieu]

For the phono, no. For the line stage who knows. I'd need a circuit diagram.

I am missing something? ETM aren't saying the phono stage is the same as 912. I am not saying it is.

But ETM are claiming the info they have is from EAR.

Confused.

Indeed - specifically:

'According to EAR, the $7595 model 868 has essentially the same circuitry and sound as its big brother, the Professional 912 preamplifier. The difference is that the 868 lacks some of the flexibility and features like the D'Arsonval meters of the Pro 912. '

Which is plain wrong.

[User211]

Looking at it I would EXPECT to hear some difference in the line stage. The layout is very different even if it isn't topologically. Given that virtually everything seems to make some sonic difference I don't think my assertion is unrealistic.

If it is topologically the same, I'd expect the difference to be small. But who knows. You'd have to try it by yourself to know and not rely on the accounts of other people, if you catch my drift.

Tim may think they sound the same. I am not sure he is really an out and out audiophile.

[Bigman80]

Those units both have Alps blue pots in.

That is appauling for the cost.

[User211]

And RS Components. Where are the boutique parts apart from the step up trannies?

[montesquieu]

Those units both have Alps blue pots in.

That is appauling for the cost.

Yes Tim is famous for using cheap components - as far as he is concerned the electrical value is all that matters. Where he is strong is in the transformers, he custom winds all of these.

I had an EAR V20 once, had literally dozens of resistors changed out for fancy ones, lots of other components changed out especially in the power supply, the thing was absolutely transformed. I did think about going to town on the 912 to see what the impact might be, but it's a tight squeeze in there to do anything major in the end I decided to make a bigger change.

[Bigman80]

Yes Tim is famous for using cheap components - as far as he is concerned the electrical value is all that matters. Where he is strong is in the transformers, he custom winds all of these.

I had an EAR V20 once, had literally dozens of resistors changed out for fancy ones, lots of other components changed out especially in the power supply, the thing was absolutely transformed. I did think about going to town on the 912 to see what the impact might be, but it's a tight squeeze in there to do anything major in the end I decided to make a bigger change.I am stunned, Tom.

Seriously stunned.

[Mr.Ian]

Have a look at the bel canto pre 3 I am selling , it has an organic sound and pretty detailed but not clinical.some folks use them with etc active. I am not sure of the technical match but it worked beautifully with my msb .firebottle made the psu for it.

Hi Phil

sorry for the delay in replying, the PRe3 looks possible spec wise, albeit over budget but it makes sense to try Alan's suggestion below before I explore anything further.

Ian

[anubisgrau]

Yes Tim is famous for using cheap components - as far as he is concerned the electrical value is all that matters. Where he is strong is in the transformers, he custom winds all of these.

I had an EAR V20 once, had literally dozens of resistors changed out for fancy ones, lots of other components changed out especially in the power supply, the thing was absolutely transformed. I did think about going to town on the 912 to see what the impact might be, but it's a tight squeeze in there to do anything major in the end I decided to make a bigger change.

Yes. This is exactly an echo of a talk I once had in Vienna with the owner of possibly the best system I've ever heard - a famous Austrian underground speaker designer. He is a big fan of TdP topologies but he hates his execution with basic parts. When I was there, he had DAC4 and pre 912, completely reconstructed at every critical detail.

I had no point of reference (I used to own only 864) but this sounded so good that I was gobsmacked. I remember he especially praised 912 phono as possibly the best commercial one, after a few improvements. And this gentlemen is as critical of audio gear as you can imagine.

I had 864, I've always thought that 868 wasn't a step ahead but a side move towards a layout with more accessible/cheaper tubes.

[yolakim]

Indeed - specifically:

'According to EAR, the $7595 model 868 has essentially the same circuitry and sound as its big brother, the Professional 912 preamplifier. The difference is that the 868 lacks some of the flexibility and features like the D'Arsonval meters of the Pro 912. '

Which is plain wrong.

I replaced an 868PL with Tom’s 912 and can confirm that the line stages do indeed sound very different. I was quite taken aback, having ingested the “essentially the same circuitry” line. I’m not really qualified to say if it is or is not physically, but the 912 sounds significantly better.

There is a chance that Tom had installed better SQ valves, but the valve type/brand was the same and I would not expect the difference to be so pronounced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hifinutt]

Hi Phil

sorry for the delay in replying, the PRe3 looks possible spec wise, albeit over budget but it makes sense to try Alan's suggestion below before I explore anything further.

Ian

thanks ian , yes sounded pretty fine with the msb but thats got now so on an integrated amp bender !!

[montesquieu]

I replaced an 868PL with Tom’s 912 and can confirm that the line stages do indeed sound very different. I was quite taken aback, having ingested the “essentially the same circuitry” line. I’m not really qualified to say if it is or is not physically, but the 912 sounds significantly better.

There is a chance that Tom had installed better SQ valves, but the valve type/brand was the same and I would not expect the difference to be so pronounced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did quite a bit of experimenting with various PCC88s ... most interesting were some NOS diamond-base Telefunkens, if using them in all five positions I thought the sound was a bit thin (phono anyway), but used in the line stage only, plus one in the middle position of the three tubes in the phono stage, produced just the right balance, really quite lifted the overall performance especially the line stage. I think that's what was in when it shipped to you, Kim.

[User211]

I replaced an 868PL with Tom’s 912 and can confirm that the line stages do indeed sound very different. I was quite taken aback, having ingested the “essentially the same circuitry” line. I’m not really qualified to say if it is or is not physically, but the 912 sounds significantly better.

There is a chance that Tom had installed better SQ valves, but the valve type/brand was the same and I would not expect the difference to be so pronounced.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkGlad you're happy with it.