My photo was sent to me today by Reinhard. I guess it's okay anyway if it can be added back.Here's a picture of the mk2 version. Notice the two grounds and also the "parking spots" for single coil mono. Maybe your picture is an old one?
Thoress Phono Enhancer vs. Aesthetix IO Signature
- Thread starter bluepearl
- Start date
i owned the Thoress Enhancer for 2 months a few years back and was very impressed by the performance and by Reinhardt. a true pleasure to deal with. i recommend it highly. very musical and flexible. beautiful point to point wiring and build quality.
i only sold it because my Herzan active isolation used a SMPS (switch mode power supply) which caused noise, and it was sitting under my tt so could not move the Thoress far enough away from it.
now i have linear power supplies for my active isolation so it would not be an issue. i would consider buying it again.
What types of inputs do you need, i.e. what cartridges will you use?
The Thöress is very versatile, but it can't handle everything and especially not everything at the same time.
Right now I have a Ben LP-S, Ortofon Anna and Ikeda 9Gss. Could you elaborate about the aspects that might cause issues? I would expect other Lomc cartridges to be added later. Thanks
Ok, the LP-S has moderate output but very high impedance, but it will work very good. The Ikeda won't be a problem with moderate output and very low impedance. The Anna has very low output, you may need a SUT for that.
In fact, just the three cartridges you mention a very different which means any phono stage should handle them differently.
Well, the Thöress has possibility for very high gain (something like 60dB, I'm not sure because it is not revealed), and it uses a cascoded pcc88 without feedback for active amplification.
It is very silent and very fast and powerful.
It is also very precise, and you may customize each input with resistors to suit a specific cartridge loading.
But, of course you have to choose. You can't plug anything to any input and expect it to fit.
In short; what I mean is that there's a big difference between cartridges.
A very interesting possibility is to ask Reinhard to fit one input for tape eq.
Ps. I don't own the Phono Enhancer myself. I own the Super Preamp, so it only has riaa eq.
Input resistors;
Transformer;
Montesquieu had the thoress on demo with both an Ikeda cart, Miyajima, and SPUs. He also tried my Allnic 7000v and then bought the same Allnic for himself. Both of us think it is better than thoress. However you need to change the recti on the Allnic. The 5000/8000 is much better but too expensive
Dear Howie,
If I remember correctly the Thoress gain is fixed. 62 db is no high. You could possibly have it customized to the level of gain you want but it will be fixed. In fact if you have tape you could even have him do one input for tape phono. For me gain matching is very important getting a good drive from a cart. Having a variable gain is definitely a plus to people who like to play different carts. Even my EMT phono is quite versatile, i still could not get a good matching with Red Sparrow and Grado Epoch. I had the Thoress in my system once a long time ago. It sounded nice. I also cannot recall how the loading can be adjusted.
Kind regards,
Tang
Thanks Tang. I do not like to muck around too much with my phono. Just set and forget otherwise there is no time for listening but i see your point about not enough gain. I'm not sure i want to go down the route of having SUTs littered all over the place unless it really is called for (e.g. Kondo IOM). I will ask Reinhardt about the gain. I did also consider the P1mono + 2XL but 4 boxes is a LOT of space to use up.
I slightly different kettle of fish, but I had an aesthetix Callisto signature with Avantgarde Duos for a number of years. It sounded glorious.
Straight from the horses's mouth. Gain on Thoress is 70db and not adjustable. Should be enough imho. Reinhard also sent me a few links. He really is amazingly responsive. Kudos. He strongly believed that matching to a tube preamp is preferable to SS.
That is definitely increased over the Mk1 version then. That's good. Reinhard always has excellent timely responses with lots of detail.
On Thöress Phono Enhancer i assume.
That is impressive.
I don't know of any other tubed phono stage with 70dB gain. Must be difficult to keep it linear.
On the input resistors:
I had a few issues with the Thoress that left me thinking that it might suit some people but could never suit me. I did send a lengthy email to Reinhard explaining my reservations but he chose to argue with me rather than listen (bit of a German trait sadly) which is a shame as my needs as an owner of multiple, removable headshelll tonearms one of which is reserved solely for mono I think are far from unique and deserve a hearing.
Anyway - apologies for the length of what follows but I actually feel quite strongly about the Thoress:
1) It's not SUT friendly. Ok, there is a philosophical divide between people who like to amplify LOMCs all the way directly, and people who prefer SUTs or head amps. I'm very much in the SUT camp and use the Miyajima ETR-Stereo and ETR-Mono SUTs (but have also owned ones from Hashimoto, EAR, Music First, Kondo, AN-UK etc etc etc). I like to switch cartridges around, in particular to accommodate early and later mono which need different tip sizes. Really, you need SUTs for that sort of flexibility. Yes there were different gain and impedance settings on the different inputs of the Thoress, but for me it was too much of a pain to be swapping cables from input to input when changing headshells. Also the MM input in the dem unit I tried was far too high gain but I guess that's fixable if you pre-order.
2) No mono button or sensible mono option. Yes it's possible to faff with cables and mess around to make mono work, but it's not easy to use, and it all has to change again if you want to go back to stereo. There is no plug and play option for for mono and I had (ultimately) some serious hum problems that were a real downer for the demo I had. Maybe Reinhard has found a better workaround in the last year but I doubt it somehow.
3) No independently switchable inputs and outputs - this is really whats needed to address the above, you need the ability to have more than one input, and more than one output connected, independently switchable between. Not possible. Which led to many of the problems above.
4) Equalisation adjustment is non standard - I am used to having adjustable turnover and rolloff, the two dimensions that control the EQ curve, to give adjustability where a record uses non-RIAA EQ. But Reinhard insists on having three knobs, which don't relate directly to manipulating turnover and rolloff, instead operate like a tone control. I don't understand why he did this but it's impossible to dial up specific curves for specific labels, it's all done by ear. Seems like a totally daft way of doing it.
Anyway my conclusion was that the Thoress would be a reasonable option for someone who philosophically is happy with direct to MC amplification (personally I've never heard one that sounds better than a decent SUT but each to their own), uses a fixed cartridge in a fixed headshell on a single tonearm, and doesn't listen to mono. But if that's the target customer why all the complication? I just don't get it, it seems like the real needs of a multi-arm, multi cartridge, multi format (mono and stereo) user simply haven't been properly considered.
To be honest the Allnic has a few flaws too.
1) It has correctly implemented variable EQ (turnover and rollof) but this is limited to four steps for each, when you really need six each to be comprehensive for 78s (four is just about OK for early mono LPs). So it falls a bit short of being a proper archival phono stage.
2) The head amp in the H7000V seems to have insufficient gain to be practical at least with my low output, low impedance, low compliance choice of cartridges, is not adjustable for gain and needs resistors swapped inside to be adjustable for loading. For me it seems a bit pointless and, frankly, ill thought through.
3) The presence of the head amp has a significant down side in that it's not possible to access the SUTs from both MC inputs - you are stuck with one MC input with SUTs, and the head amp on the other MC input. When ordering new prior to manufacture you can specify SUTs accessible from both and no head amp, but this is not possible to achieve retrospectively after manufacture. For all its four inputs (two MM, two MC) practical use of the MC inputs is consequently somewhat limited in practicality.
4) And of course - it has no mono button either, due to the dual mono design. However using the two possible output options (balanced and unbalanced, which are switchable), I was able to use balanced out for stereo, and fudge the mono issue, using one (obviously mono) output from the Miyajima mono SUT into one Allnic MM input, and a Y cable to provide two channel mono out of one side's unbalanced output, a solution that works extremely well sonically with no trace of hum. The only down side is that moving from stereo to mono and back again requires switching both the input to the phono stage, and the input to the preamp, but at least unlike the Thoress it can be done from the knobs on the system, there is no faffing about plugging and unplugging.
Ultimately though the the main reason I favoured the Allnic over the Thoress was that the Allnic sounded better ... it feels freer, less constrained, more musical, more natural than the Thoress which for all its high quality always sounded like hifi by comparison ...about what you'd expect from a tube/fet hybrid straight-MC phono stage with 70db of amplified gain (always a bad idea in my view, YMMV), compared to a decent SUT into a top qualify LCR MM input as with the Allnic. Also, compared to the Thoress, the Allnic's foibles were things I could live with or work around, rather than being complete show-stoppers.
On the Allnic, the internal SUTs, which have four gain settings, are actually very good (better than the ones in my previous EAR 912 - I was able to try back to back) but top quality externals like my Miyajimas can be better than the internals, and in the Miyajimas' case also offer more flexibility. I am keen at some point to try out one of the external Allnic head amps, though going from my own past experience I doubt it will be preferable to a good SUT. But I guess we'll see. Most Allnic owners will not feel short-changed at the SUT performance.
Anyway - apologies for the length of what follows but I actually feel quite strongly about the Thoress:
1) It's not SUT friendly. Ok, there is a philosophical divide between people who like to amplify LOMCs all the way directly, and people who prefer SUTs or head amps. I'm very much in the SUT camp and use the Miyajima ETR-Stereo and ETR-Mono SUTs (but have also owned ones from Hashimoto, EAR, Music First, Kondo, AN-UK etc etc etc). I like to switch cartridges around, in particular to accommodate early and later mono which need different tip sizes. Really, you need SUTs for that sort of flexibility. Yes there were different gain and impedance settings on the different inputs of the Thoress, but for me it was too much of a pain to be swapping cables from input to input when changing headshells. Also the MM input in the dem unit I tried was far too high gain but I guess that's fixable if you pre-order.
2) No mono button or sensible mono option. Yes it's possible to faff with cables and mess around to make mono work, but it's not easy to use, and it all has to change again if you want to go back to stereo. There is no plug and play option for for mono and I had (ultimately) some serious hum problems that were a real downer for the demo I had. Maybe Reinhard has found a better workaround in the last year but I doubt it somehow.
3) No independently switchable inputs and outputs - this is really whats needed to address the above, you need the ability to have more than one input, and more than one output connected, independently switchable between. Not possible. Which led to many of the problems above.
4) Equalisation adjustment is non standard - I am used to having adjustable turnover and rolloff, the two dimensions that control the EQ curve, to give adjustability where a record uses non-RIAA EQ. But Reinhard insists on having three knobs, which don't relate directly to manipulating turnover and rolloff, instead operate like a tone control. I don't understand why he did this but it's impossible to dial up specific curves for specific labels, it's all done by ear. Seems like a totally daft way of doing it.
Anyway my conclusion was that the Thoress would be a reasonable option for someone who philosophically is happy with direct to MC amplification (personally I've never heard one that sounds better than a decent SUT but each to their own), uses a fixed cartridge in a fixed headshell on a single tonearm, and doesn't listen to mono. But if that's the target customer why all the complication? I just don't get it, it seems like the real needs of a multi-arm, multi cartridge, multi format (mono and stereo) user simply haven't been properly considered.
To be honest the Allnic has a few flaws too.
1) It has correctly implemented variable EQ (turnover and rollof) but this is limited to four steps for each, when you really need six each to be comprehensive for 78s (four is just about OK for early mono LPs). So it falls a bit short of being a proper archival phono stage.
2) The head amp in the H7000V seems to have insufficient gain to be practical at least with my low output, low impedance, low compliance choice of cartridges, is not adjustable for gain and needs resistors swapped inside to be adjustable for loading. For me it seems a bit pointless and, frankly, ill thought through.
3) The presence of the head amp has a significant down side in that it's not possible to access the SUTs from both MC inputs - you are stuck with one MC input with SUTs, and the head amp on the other MC input. When ordering new prior to manufacture you can specify SUTs accessible from both and no head amp, but this is not possible to achieve retrospectively after manufacture. For all its four inputs (two MM, two MC) practical use of the MC inputs is consequently somewhat limited in practicality.
4) And of course - it has no mono button either, due to the dual mono design. However using the two possible output options (balanced and unbalanced, which are switchable), I was able to use balanced out for stereo, and fudge the mono issue, using one (obviously mono) output from the Miyajima mono SUT into one Allnic MM input, and a Y cable to provide two channel mono out of one side's unbalanced output, a solution that works extremely well sonically with no trace of hum. The only down side is that moving from stereo to mono and back again requires switching both the input to the phono stage, and the input to the preamp, but at least unlike the Thoress it can be done from the knobs on the system, there is no faffing about plugging and unplugging.
Ultimately though the the main reason I favoured the Allnic over the Thoress was that the Allnic sounded better ... it feels freer, less constrained, more musical, more natural than the Thoress which for all its high quality always sounded like hifi by comparison ...about what you'd expect from a tube/fet hybrid straight-MC phono stage with 70db of amplified gain (always a bad idea in my view, YMMV), compared to a decent SUT into a top qualify LCR MM input as with the Allnic. Also, compared to the Thoress, the Allnic's foibles were things I could live with or work around, rather than being complete show-stoppers.
On the Allnic, the internal SUTs, which have four gain settings, are actually very good (better than the ones in my previous EAR 912 - I was able to try back to back) but top quality externals like my Miyajimas can be better than the internals, and in the Miyajimas' case also offer more flexibility. I am keen at some point to try out one of the external Allnic head amps, though going from my own past experience I doubt it will be preferable to a good SUT. But I guess we'll see. Most Allnic owners will not feel short-changed at the SUT performance.
Last edited:
A captive SUT like in the Allnic is less flexible, however. You can't optimally match both low and high impedance carts regardless of the SUT load provided. So, despite an extra interconnect needed, external is simply more flexible as it allows you to get the most out of any cart by selecting a SUT that is best suited.
Wow. I have a lot to learn about phono amps....luckily for me the phono amp is merely a way to get sound out. Whilst i might one day hope to involve myself in as much detailed analysis as you have done, right now my priority is merely to get a phono amp with 3 or more inputs that will provide me with as good or preferably better sound than my AR ref 2 which has been my steady companion for many years at a reasonable price. I have considered a few others like the P1, EMT etc. Your comments about the Thoress being ‘hi fi’ Sounding just worry me a little as that is not what i want. I guess it would be system dependent too. Food for thought though. I presume the Allnic is not in the same price range as the Thoress?
Agree. And it should not be necessary.
For very low output cartridges, I think it will be excellent with a low ratio sut like 1:2 or 1:4, and nobody should need more.
I understand Reinhards decision to keep all circuits clean.
I think it's aimed for customers using multiple tonearms, and for those who don't want to change cartridge every time they want to play a non-riaa LP.
Yes, good point.
I think this design decision by Reinhard comes from the fact that the standard eq time constants doesn't give you a flat response anyway, because that is dependant also on the record, cartridge and phono stage. Tons of factors may alter the signal.
With Reinhards design, you may take these factors into account, to "calibrate" whatever non-riaa eq in the actual system.
Similar threads
- Sticky
