Best phono stage?

[G T Audio]

You have to know and understand at circuit level what it takes to make the finest sounding phono stage. To get the very best sound the RIAA circuit needs to be very simple with very few parts in the signal path and no switches or display screens, preferably a single-ended circuit using a couple of triodes and with zero feedback. Using a balanced circuit means the signal will be traveling through at lease double the parts and double the number of active stages that it needs to, then feedback will be needed to keep everything in check and this will compromise the audio performance. Also, I can't think of a worse place to use a digital screen and a micro processor than in a phono stage, due to all that RFI and digital noise that will be generated inside the phono stage case. The noise generated by any microprocessor used to control the display screen could be as much as the audio signal the phono stage will be trying to amplify. There should be no place for that sort of circuitry inside a high performance phono stage, if the conversation is about getting the best or the finest performance. Don't forget if the audio signal has to go through a number of internal switches, say for switch inputs, switching loading, switching between MM to MC, or different MC gains, as all these will heavily compromise the signal at its lowest level before any amplification, so you are not going to get the best performance from your turntable, tonearm and cartridge.

 

[Salectric]

You have to know and understand at circuit level what it takes to make the finest sounding phono stage. To get the very best sound the RIAA circuit needs to be very simple with very few parts in the signal path and no switches or display screens, preferably a single-ended circuit using a couple of triodes and with zero feedback. Using a balanced circuit means the signal will be traveling through at lease double the parts and double the number of active stages that it needs to, then feedback will be needed to keep everything in check and this will compromise the audio performance. Also, I can't think of a worse place to use a digital screen and a micro processor than in a phono stage, due to all that RFI and digital noise that will be generated inside the phono stage case. The noise generated by any microprocessor used to control the display screen could be as much as the audio signal the phono stage will be trying to amplify. There should be no place for that sort of circuitry inside a high performance phono stage, if the conversation is about getting the best or the finest performance. Don't forget if the audio signal has to go through a number of internal switches, say for switch inputs, switching loading, switching between MM to MC, or different MC gains, as all these will heavily compromise the signal at its lowest level before any amplification, so you are not going to get the best performance from your turntable, tonearm and cartridge.

My feelings exactly. I don’t discuss my electronics very often in this forum since they are all DIY but you just described my phono stage—-two tube stages per channel (D3a and 5687) with nickel output transformer, no loop feedback, outboard power supply with tube rectifier, all parts selected for best sound quality including all BlackGate WKZ caps in the power supply. And no switches—just one set of inputs and one set of outputs—-and absolutely no screens, microprocessors or other nonsense.

 

[Zeotrope]

What is the general view on highest quality phono stage
I am looking for phono stage with at least two inputs three would be better and adjustable loading
I guess SS would be lower maintenance but if tubes were better SQ
Low noise also important as run some low mc cartridges .23 mV
Balanced output would be great but not essential
I am exploring mm carts but not wedded to their sound yet
Thx
A

I mainly listen to classical and timbral accuracy is important

Nagra HD Phono.
In the only reviews of both Nagra and CH Precision I’ve seen, the Nagra won.
I’m sure CH Precision is excellent - it’s a matter of personal preference and subtle differences at this level. And the CH has more flexibility in terms of inputs and adjustments.
Best two phono stages in the world right now are from Nagra and CH.
[edit: oops! The original post is 10 years old, I thought I saw 2024, not 2014!]

 

[Zeotrope]

You have to know and understand at circuit level what it takes to make the finest sounding phono stage. To get the very best sound the RIAA circuit needs to be very simple with very few parts in the signal path and no switches or display screens, preferably a single-ended circuit using a couple of triodes and with zero feedback. Using a balanced circuit means the signal will be traveling through at lease double the parts and double the number of active stages that it needs to, then feedback will be needed to keep everything in check and this will compromise the audio performance. Also, I can't think of a worse place to use a digital screen and a micro processor than in a phono stage, due to all that RFI and digital noise that will be generated inside the phono stage case. The noise generated by any microprocessor used to control the display screen could be as much as the audio signal the phono stage will be trying to amplify. There should be no place for that sort of circuitry inside a high performance phono stage, if the conversation is about getting the best or the finest performance. Don't forget if the audio signal has to go through a number of internal switches, say for switch inputs, switching loading, switching between MM to MC, or different MC gains, as all these will heavily compromise the signal at its lowest level before any amplification, so you are not going to get the best performance from your turntable, tonearm and cartridge.

Which is why the Nagra HD Phono (or Classic Phono) do not have balanced inputs/topology. And also why the digital display and circuitry is physically isolated from the rest of the internals, even to the extent of using optical connections between them.
From why I heard, the CH P10 will need to have its display manually shut off to have the best sound. I have not noticed this with the Nagra HD.

 

[sbo6]

You have to know and understand at circuit level what it takes to make the finest sounding phono stage. To get the very best sound the RIAA circuit needs to be very simple with very few parts in the signal path and no switches or display screens, preferably a single-ended circuit using a couple of triodes and with zero feedback. Using a balanced circuit means the signal will be traveling through at lease double the parts and double the number of active stages that it needs to, then feedback will be needed to keep everything in check and this will compromise the audio performance. Also, I can't think of a worse place to use a digital screen and a micro processor than in a phono stage, due to all that RFI and digital noise that will be generated inside the phono stage case. The noise generated by any microprocessor used to control the display screen could be as much as the audio signal the phono stage will be trying to amplify. There should be no place for that sort of circuitry inside a high performance phono stage, if the conversation is about getting the best or the finest performance. Don't forget if the audio signal has to go through a number of internal switches, say for switch inputs, switching loading, switching between MM to MC, or different MC gains, as all these will heavily compromise the signal at its lowest level before any amplification, so you are not going to get the best performance from your turntable, tonearm and cartridge.

and yet the CH Precision is lauded as the best phono pre by many..

 

[sbo6]

Nagra HD Phono.
In the only reviews of both Nagra and CH Precision I’ve seen, the Nagra won.
I’m sure CH Precision is excellent - it’s a matter of personal preference and subtle differences at this level. And the CH has more flexibility in terms of inputs and adjustments.
Best two phono stages in the world right now are from Nagra and CH.
[edit: oops! The original post is 10 years old, I thought I saw 2024, not 2014!]

Can you please send link(s) to those reviews?

Also, I find a good data point is often - what do reviews with the funds and connections to procure the best of the best own? One example - Fremer and Harley both own CH Precision. ;-)

 

[Zeotrope]

Can you please send link(s) to those reviews?

Also, I find a good data point is often - what do reviews with the funds and connections to procure the best of the best own? One example - Fremer and Harley both own CH Precision. ;-)

I posted links on the Nagra HD Phono thread.
The Brazilian reviewer is probably the most detailed, thorough, reviewer of audio equipment I have read.

Fremer needs a phono stage with a wide range of inputs and settings. The Nagra would not be as well suited for his tasks, as he has to review many different TTs.
I wouldn’t read into what he, or any other, reviewer buys. Fremer has an OMA K5 TT - probably the only unit OMA has sold, and he paid next to nothing for it. Does that tell you anything? Not really.

These are all great machines at this price point. It’s much more about preferences than “sound quality” when you are comparing the likes of Nagra, CH, and any others in this league.

 

[sbo6]

I posted links on the Nagra HD Phono thread.
The Brazilian reviewer is probably the most detailed, thorough, reviewer of audio equipment I have read.

Fremer needs a phono stage with a wide range of inputs and settings. The Nagra would not be as well suited for his tasks, as he has to review many different TTs.
I wouldn’t read into what he, or any other, reviewer buys. Fremer has an OMA K5 TT - probably the only unit OMA has sold, and he paid next to nothing for it. Does that tell you anything? Not really.

These are all great machines at this price point. It’s much more about preferences than “sound quality” when you are comparing the likes of Nagra, CH, and any others in this league.

Thank you. Are you comparing the Nagra to the 4 - box CH phono pre? BTW, I've heard both the CH 4 box and the Nagra and as good as the Nagra is, the Ch is simply more resolving and tonally accurate.

 

[Zeotrope]

Thank you. Are you comparing the Nagra to the 4 - box CH phono pre? BTW, I've heard both the CH 4 box and the Nagra and as good as the Nagra is, the Ch is simply more resolving and tonally accurate.

You have heard the Nagra HD Phono that just started shipping?

I'm personally not comparing anything.

The reviewer I mentioned preferred even the less expensive Nagra Classic to the more expensive CH (true, not the latest version of it, but last year's model).

 

[sbo6]

You have heard the Nagra HD Phono that just started shipping?

I'm personally not comparing anything.

The reviewer I mentioned preferred even the less expensive Nagra Classic to the more expensive CH (true, not the latest version of it, but last year's model).

No, I heard the Nagra about 8 months ago, so as not the latest.

 

[Zeotrope]

It's also system synergy dependent, especially with the phono cart you are using. The Nagra HD Phono is also considerably less expensive than the 4 box (and even the 2 box) CH.
In my case, since I went with the Nagra TT and cartridge, it was a no brainer.
Ideally, one would audition both and decide, but that's really difficult.

 

[djsina2]

Fremer has an OMA K5 TT - probably the only unit OMA has sold, and he paid next to nothing for it.

What did he pay for it?

 

[airbearing]

maybe Air Tight ATE 3011

www.audiocirc.com

 

[bonzo75]

maybe Air Tight ATE 3011

www.audiocirc.com

thought Allnic DHT was your favourite?

 

[G T Audio]

and yet the CH Precision is lauded as the best phono pre by many..

And do these "many" know what it takes to design and make a really good phono stage? If they did, it wouldn't include any screens or digital circuitry. It would be a purist totally analogue design, and probably a tube design to boot...

 

[Atmasphere]

You have to know and understand at circuit level what it takes to make the finest sounding phono stage. To get the very best sound the RIAA circuit needs to be very simple with very few parts in the signal path and no switches or display screens, preferably a single-ended circuit using a couple of triodes and with zero feedback. Using a balanced circuit means the signal will be traveling through at lease double the parts and double the number of active stages that it needs to, then feedback will be needed to keep everything in check and this will compromise the audio performance. Also, I can't think of a worse place to use a digital screen and a micro processor than in a phono stage, due to all that RFI and digital noise that will be generated inside the phono stage case. The noise generated by any microprocessor used to control the display screen could be as much as the audio signal the phono stage will be trying to amplify. There should be no place for that sort of circuitry inside a high performance phono stage, if the conversation is about getting the best or the finest performance. Don't forget if the audio signal has to go through a number of internal switches, say for switch inputs, switching loading, switching between MM to MC, or different MC gains, as all these will heavily compromise the signal at its lowest level before any amplification, so you are not going to get the best performance from your turntable, tonearm and cartridge.

The phono cartridge is a balanced source.

So if you have a balanced input the cable can have less influence on the sound- perhaps none at all.

If the internal circuitry is fully differential and balanced, you have more immunity to the power supply. You also have in theory 6dB less noise per stage of gain.

The statement highlighted above is false and is a common myth about balanced operation. We have only two stages of gain in our fully differential balanced phono section, which is zero feedback with passive EQ (executed in the differential domain, so no issues with tube drift and the same number of parts as you see in a single-ended passive EQ circuit) and it works fine with LOMC cartridges straight in. There is not 'double the parts' nor 'double the number of active stages' because to execute a differential amplifier you do not need twice as many parts as the same gain stage executed single-ended.

What you get instead is a simpler signal path; most phono sections that can work with LOMC cartridges require three stages of gain or two stages with an SUT; either way more frequency poles (especially if an SUT is used) than in a fully differential circuit.

 

[sbo6]

And do these "many" know what it takes to design and make a really good phono stage? If they did, it wouldn't include any screens or digital circuitry. It would be a purist totally analogue design, and probably a tube design to boot...

"These many" = data points based on listening, not based on your (and others) often lauded conventional design approach and myopic view.

Also, the end goal is the what - the sonics not the how. Should all customers know the exquisite details of how their products are designed?

 

[bonzo75]

FM 223 phono ( cheap by FM standard ) maybe an issue if you use it with other preamp. Tried FM222 , serious humming problem & too low gain. However with FM preamp it's magical . For money no object my favourable combo would be FM 268c ( 125,500 CHF) with FM223 phonomaster (43960 CHF). Otherwise u may want to consider Vitus masterpiece phono selling for about euro 40+ . Understd there is a enhancement to reduce noise level a further 19db

Is this conclusion of yours from 2014 still holding strong

 

[mtemur]

And do these "many" know what it takes to design and make a really good phono stage? If they did, it wouldn't include any screens or digital circuitry. It would be a purist totally analogue design, and probably a tube design to boot...

But that would be a product (actually there are products as you described) for people who really care about SQ and for people who concentrate on lifelike reproduction of music both emotionally and acoustically.

IMHO questionable reviews, marketing and high price tags are selling audio products these days. Very few care about SQ. People heard from other people that heard from other people who has said “good” about a product, not by real experience. And expensive is better is becoming common sense.

When a regular audiophile describes the sound background blackness, transparency and image depth are all in his arsenal or similar words to these ones. Those are not tangible qualities rather they’re very relative. How much image depth and transparency is right nobody knows. It becomes more bizarre when you realize microphones are located in front of each instrument while recording. So, actually no depth. What about dynamics, energy without listening fatigue and faithful sound of instruments and vocals? They’re more related with SQ and tangible in the search of faithful reproduction but being rarely mentioned.

 

[G T Audio]

"These many" = data points based on listening, not based on your (and others) often lauded conventional design approach and myopic view.

Also, the end goal is the what - the sonics not the how. Should all customers know the exquisite details of how their products are designed?

When you get to this level, the customer should have some understanding of the design/implementation to know what is good and what is bad, in order to make sure the system is coherent so that every piece of electronics complements each other. Its not uncommon these days for Audiophiles to buy blind based on a review that someone has written, especially due to the scarcity of HiFi dealers and the availability of equipment these days.