Shakti, would you be so kind and pls describe similarities and differences between EA 1200 and EA 2000. Thanks.
The EA-2000 was a big step to the ultimate audio level from Phasemation. The high retail price reflects the high development costs of the Phasemation reference project. As the market demand for a full tube based Phono Stage on a much lower price point was increasing, in became clear, that Phasemation will adress the need,
but a complete new development would be too expensive to achieve this.
So Phasemation decided to use the complete EA-2000 concept as a base and to keep allocating the original development costs taken to the EA-2000 project (instead of splitting).
Combining this with a single box (dual mono, one rectifier) PSU unit and an integrated T-1000 Step Up,
a 3 box design (instead if 6 box EA-2000) became possible.
3 box instead of 6 box plus the cost allocation bonus is giving to the EA-1200 a very attractive market price, in Germany much less than 50% of the EA-2000 retail.
The Phasemation Owner and the Chief Designer do work side on side with project responsibilities.
Their sonic goal in terms of, what is "real" or "natural" is slightly different, as the owner is a classic music conductor, which means he is listening to real classic music in front if the orchestra, hearing all the little details of the instruments in a short distance.
The Chief Designer enjoys classic music frequently live, mostly sitting in row 10 to 15, which enables him to listen to the orchestra as one integrated body of sound.
( I got all this details from the Japanese Phasemation side on their blog about company news, never seen this translated to their English side)
As they presented the EA-1200, they explained, that the EA-1200 is not the "little" EA-2000,
means that you loose some performance with EA-1200, when comparing to EA-2000.*
It is more like, that both units are complementary in terms of a different view to the orchestra, one listener may even prefer EA-1200 over EA-2000, as he likes to see an orchestra from a different distance, with more or less individual instrument details.
These information were my base point to start the comparison, using their entry level cartridge the Phasemation PP-200.
I started with EA-2000 and was blown away about the superb presentation and energy, just great.
So I stopped the comparison approach and spent just some hours of music listening, forgetting all about the associated components.
Next day I started again with EA-2000 and than changed to EA-1200.
To my ears music lost the strom bottom up energy approach of the EA-2000 and became more modern/neutral.
If the EA-2000 makes the picture as painted in oil, the EA-1200 is more a fine line aquarelle.
To bring this into a perspective, the EA-1200 is less bright or focused on details than a typical Allnic Phonostage (H-6500 or H-7000v),
so we are with both Phasemation on the little warmer side of the tonal balance.
My feeling was, that the EA-1200 might be constrained more from the integrated T-1000 step up,
than from the one box PSU design topology, so I connected the T-2000 step up to the EA-1200.
This was a very good idea, as now the EA-1200 was playing in a similar league with a slightly different approach.
The EA-2000 has the focus on a wide and deep stage, playing the orchestra holistic and with a lot of energy.
Comparing to EA-1200 (plus T-2000) is a little less vibrant, but more precise on individual instruments in the room,
the stage is more compact.
The difference becomes mostly clear with live music recordings, the EA-2000 connects you easily with the venue as such and you like to listen to the full concert. The EA-1200 (plus T-2000) shows you a little more of the recording quality.
My decision is to go with the EA-1200 plus T-2000. One more reason is,
that I can use the 3 inputs for MC and MM, means up to 3 MC in total.
EA-2000 can host as standard only 1 MC plus 2x MM. You have to add additional step ups to connect 3xMC.