>>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.
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.
