2. analog
  3. 1240225358

Einstein Turntable's Choice vs EAR 834P + MC4

I have been contemplating a phono stage upgrade from my EAR 834P and MC4 transformer, and have compared it to a couple of highly rated phono stages. My 834P is un-modded, apart from using JJ 12AX7 tubes. The MC4 step up is a major upgrade over the internal transformers, but effectively doubles the price of the 834P. I am using it with a Nottingham Ace Spacedeck, Micro Seiki MA505 arm and Koetsu Rosewood cartridge.

A few weeks ago I borrowed a Tom Evans GrooveX, which had adjustable loading and capacitance. This is a very highly regarded phono stage but I found it severely disappointing. While it was extremely quiet and tonally neutral, it lacked real dynamics. Guitar strings, cymbals, drums all lacked that speed and snap that vinyl does so much better than CD. While initially impressive, I gladly returned the Groove after a few days.

Over the last few days I have been listening to the Einstein Turntable's Choice. This is about 50% more expensive than the 834P/MC4 combination and has been getting rave reviews, regarded as comparable with some of the best phono stages at any price. It comes with a number of different impedance plugs so that it can be matched with any cartridge.

The Einstein TT is much better than the Tom Evans stage. It produces dynamics as well as a rich, liquid sound, and is extremely quiet and resolving. This time the comparison with my 834P/MC4 was not all in the EAR's favour. The EAR phono now sounded a little noisier, with a little more hash and grain, while the Einstein sounded smooth, quiet and liquid. I was almost ready to order the Einstein.

However, again I had some subtle misgivings, which I couldn't quite put my finger on. So I made some 24/96 digital recordings of both and switched back and forth between the files. The Einstein is dynamic, but I felt that the EAR - despite being a tube design - was just a touch faster and more rhythmic. The Einstein is also darker sounding (the 834P has a reputation for sounding dark, but the MC4 brightens it up considerably), and its "liquid" sound was just a little overdone - I normally like a smooth, liquid sound, but here it seemed as if all the intruments were connected in one "flow". The 834P/MC4 gave instruments their own space and a better defined sense of texture, even if the Einstein had better resolution and was quieter.

At the end of the day I preferred the EAR 834P and MC4 step up. The Einstein Turntable's Choice is an excellent phono stage and I could easily live with it. But I felt that the EAR combination was, for me, more musical. Obviously, this is a personal view and other people will have a different take.

I guess it also goes to show that the 834P is a remarkable design at its price. Even in stock form it sounds truly excellent (although it has a few detractors). Add a great transformer, such as the EAR MC4 and it is comparable with phono stages costing a lot more, and may even be preferable, depending on your tastes. Rather than looking for a new phono stage, I am now planning to have my 834P modified by upgrading the capacitors and resistors - hopefully this will increase its resolution and reduce its slight amount of grain, to the point where it is much better than the competition.

Again, this comparison was made using my equipment, my ears and my preferences, and should not be taken as definitive. Nevertheless, I hope it may be a useful data point for anyone contemplating buying any of the phono stages mentioned above.
rossb
opus88
530 posts
 
In reference to Downunder's reply, yes, there is a switch inside the 88PB which can be set to 4 or 40 ohms. Based on my direct experience as well as my communication with Jerry Siegel at 10 Audio (see his excellent online site where he reviews the 88PB as well as other components) and Dan Meinwald, importer for EAR, the 4 ohm setting nicely handles cartridges in the 4 to 100 ohm range, while the 40 ohm setting can accommodate cartridges from 100 to at least 500 ohms. For higher values from roughly 1K ohms on up, one can use loading plugs with the soldered in resistors. I use a variable resistor which allows me to tune the load as high as 10K ohms, which by the way, gives me what I hear as a fuller, more musical sound than much lower loads with my Dynavector XV-1S.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,043 posts
 
Dear Rossb: As I told you the important subject is what you like because is you who are hearing it and are your music sound reproduction priorities that are different from mines.

I know what you and other owners of that EAR are listening and there is no doubt ( from my standards/priorities. ) that even like a " entry " level is a faulty/distorted/colored audio items ( along the MC4) ( that can't do justice to the recording. ) and this is a fact that you or any one of the gentleman that already posted here can't argue against it, even exist a very detailed measures on it. Anyway enjoy it.

I respect you like it, fine for me.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
rossb OP
185 posts
 
>>I know what you and other owners of that EAR are listening and there is no doubt ( from my standards/priorities. ) that even like a " entry " level is a faulty/distorted/colored audio items ( along the MC4) ( that can't do justice to the recording. ) and this is a fact that you or any one of the gentleman that already posted here can't argue against it, even exist a very detailed measures on it. Anyway enjoy it.<<

Raul, I'm struggling to understand what you are saying, and I appreciate that English is not your first language, but I will try to respond. I think even those who like the 834P acknowledge that it is not the quietest phono stage out there and, certainly using the stock transformers, is a little coloured. But to suggest that it "can't do justice to the recording" is patent nonsense. The fact that so many people regard this phono stage highly, even against much more expensive phono stages suggests that if there is one thing it can do, it is to do justice to the recording. Again, to suggest that this is a "fact" and that I and others on this thread "can't argue against it" is also nonsense. If you have "very detailed measures", please post them, but they will not alter this conclusion.

I should also add that this thread was not created to suggest that the 834P is the best phono stage there is, or is uniquely capable of reproducing music. Of course it isn't. This thread was created to compare the 834P (with MC4) with the Einstein phono stage. As I acknowledged in my first post above, the EAR is slightly noisy, grainy and hashy compared to others such as the Einstein, although I suspect from your comments that you barely read what I wrote, but jumped to conclusions about what you thought I was saying. You clearly have different musical priorities to mine, and that is of coure fine. But to suggest - and in such a condescending way - that yours are somehow better than mine, or that your preferences are objectively more valuable is ridiculous.

I have yet to hear any audio component at any price that does not provide an individual perspective on musical reproduction. Sometimes that perspective is in the form of tonal colourations, sometimes spatial effects, timing, decay or other differences. Even components which *measure* perfectly can *sound* completely unnatural, unrealistic or unsatisfying. I think everyone who has been involved in audio for a while understands this phenomenon very well.

Therefore, to suggest that there is only one correct way of reproducing music is not only completely wrong, it is contrary to our experience.

You believe that the Einstein phono stage is truer to the recording than the EAR phono stage. Well, it isn't. It may measure with less noise and distortion (and these are undoubtedly good things) but it has a unique colouration and presentation of its own, and this does not enable it to accurately produce the recording. You may prefer this presentation. I and others do not. That is the only fact.
fcrowder
191 posts
 
Raul has, for me, an interesting perspective on music and sound reproduction. After having been a hobbyist for many years and modifying his own equipment, he became a manufacturer. This has allowed him to hear his product (preamp/phonostage) in many systems and to compare it with some of the best units available. He also has through his own listening developed an encyclopedic knowledge of turntables/tonearms and cartridges and how they interact. He has been a guest at my home on two different ocassions. Each time we spent many hours listening to vinyl on my Rockport, first with my Einstein/Einstein combination then with his own preamp. At the conclusion we discussed the pro's and con's of each. He was able to easily indentify on one ocassion that I had made a tube substitution and then forgotten to return the tube that I normally used which was a better choice. He was also able to identify room anomalies. He is a critical and discerning listener and is polite but honest in expressing what he hears. I think that what becomes clear from the posts is that the posters seem to have very different priorites with respect to playback. This difference could be characterized as solid state vs tube or perhaps more succinctly as Kodachrome vs Ektachrome for those of us who dable in photography. To my mind, the Einstein has lower noise, better detail and transparency, better image focus, better speed and better dynamicsand better controlled bass but at the expense of some warmth in the upper bass and lower mids. I will admit that I have heard a few phonostages that better certain aspectsd of the Einstein's performance but at a significantly higher price or with other trade-offs. I suspect that those of you who love the EAR would be in heaven with the top of the line Aesthetix phonostage. Again, it becomes a matter of priorities.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,043 posts
 
Dear Fcrowder: +++++ " Again, it becomes a matter of priorities. +++++ "

I agree, that's all about.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
More to discover