Which phonostage is a heavenly match for a XV-1S

A follow on from an earlier thread in which one suggestion was that my Sutherland Phd was maybe not upto the task of allowing the very best performance from the XV-1S. I would appreciate the experiences from other owners as to which Phono stage resulted in the XV-1S having a beautiful mid range and bass along with a deep soundstage.
I have the Einstein Turntables Choice (unbalanced version) phono preamplifier and it works great with my XV-1S and my VPI HRX.
I have not, however, auditioned any others to compare.
I agree with Aquaman regarding the Einstein phono stage. The Manley Steelhead is another great choice, which would give you a bit more bloom and dimensionality than the Einstein.

The Dynavector XV-1s is a great cartridge with relatively low output (0.3mV) and internal impedance of 6 ohms. So you want a phono stage that offers at least 65dB or so of gain, and you will want the flexibility to dial in an impedance loading of about 150 to 200 ohms.
better watch out here :-) 'cause that Manley Steelhead will use a step-up in the MC section as well. Just in case that was not entirely clear.

The Einstein: Design discrete (24 single transistors per channel) i.e. no tubes

Two VERY different pres those aught to be hm.

Ecka, most definitely you would do well with a better phono stage, your ears will thank you continuously.

Yes the Einstein, I use a ASR phono exclusive with my Dynavector.
Keep your eye out for a used one, either one, plenty in this hobby need to sell their toy's.
Axelwahl, the Manley Steelhead has plenty of gain in its MM stage (up to 65dB) to run the XV-1s cartridge without the extra gain of the step-up autoformers. In fact, I ran the XV-1s through the MM inputs at the time I was using the Steelhead as my reference phono stage with the XV-1s.

I preferred the sound of the XV-1s run through the MM inputs as opposed to using the step-up autoformers that are in the signal path when using the Manley's MC inputs. The sound using the MM inputs was more transparent and immediate, whereas the autoformers seemed to cast a subtle veil.
Another vote for Einstein.

I have heard/compared many top phono stages and Einsteinis is as good or better than most. PM me if you want to know more.

A shameless plug, I am selling one. But I have both RCA and XLR, selling one of it and still staying with Einstein.
How about the TRON Seven. I've heard the XV-1s several times on a Graham Phantom, Raven AC through tubes and Avantgarde Trios - divine.

Dear Cincy bob: Can you load the cartridge at 100 ohms through that MM stage?.

Thank you in advance.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Yes, Raul, the MM stage in the Steelhead offers the ability to load the phono inputs at any one of five settings: 25, 50, 100, 200 or 47k ohms.
Thanks for the responses. I would be grateful if those who recommend the the Einstein could indicate which phonostages they compared it to.
THE BEST PHONO-STAGE (never mind heavenly :-) is one that is **INSIDE** a good line-stage.

No extra cables, connector plugs, different power supplies, doubled up gain-stages, etc.

That will make your pickings a lot easier in deed. And there are some you should consider.

If you want to do it RIGHT, I'd say consider going all the way.
Ecka, I have compared the Einstein phono stage with the Manley Steelhead, the Vendetta Research, and the phono stage that is built into the darTZeel full-function preamp. I also compared the Steelhead with the Lamm LP2 that I had previously owned as my reference phono stage prior to the Steelhead.
My tonearm is RCA wired but, I was wondering if the benefits of the Einstein balanced version would still be evident if I got a very high quality short Rca to Balanced adapter made.
Can the Einstein accept 2 phone inputs as I have a second turntable ?
Don't discount Dynavector's own stage. I've become less a fan of mixing and matching "best" components assembled from high-end magazine lists, and more a fan of common-sense "synergistic" or at least engineered and tested combinations.

So, consider using the Dynavector stage, and the no-load setting, which is optimized for use with Dynavector cartridges (obviously). I have a 20XL, Dynavector stage, VPI Aries, and JMW 10 arm. I'm told Harry at VPI uses this exact setup for demos, and yet you won't assemble this from "Best of" lists from the magazines. Why is this so? Food for thought.
>THE BEST PHONO-STAGE (never mind heavenly :-) is one that >is **INSIDE** a good line-stage. No extra cables, >connector plugs, different power supplies, doubled up gain->stages, etc.

This is a good point, as well.
NO! That is not true. There is nothing intrinsically better about a phonostage inside the pre-amp. In fact, there are many reasons to not put the phonostage in the same box with the same power supply.

It is ALWAYS about implementation.
>>> It is ALWAYS about implementation <<<

very true, but top **inside** implementation aught to outperform top **outside** implementation.

The problem with a lot of good circuits is actually IMPLEMENTATION.
Any really good discrete component will cost often > 10x the price of one that ~ also can do...

I learned that lesson big time during x-over upgrading. No reason at all to think this be ANY different at all with other components.
Dan_ed, It is hard to argue with your proposition, but in the case of inside vs outside, I personally far prefer built-in, for two reasons: (1) In-built phono stages, if properly designed, will usually not require a buffer stage (cathode-follower or emitter-follower) at the output to lower output Z, because the output leads need only be an inch or two long, whereas outboard phono stages usually do, because they have to drive the capacitance of the IC. The buffer invariable adds a coloration that I do not find pleasant, and (2) Built-in phono stages eliminate the need for an interconnect, which is yet another source of coloration (and cost), for good or evil. It is usually possible to design the power supply of a phonolinepreamp so as to ameliorate any problems related to having both units in the same box. In fact, it is entirely conceivable to have two discrete supplies in an all-in-one design (need two chassis, at least).
So, I have two built-ins to recommend, Dynavector's own preamp, the L300, and another that I love, the Crimson 710. Both are blessedly better than many out there, have remote, and work great with the XV-1S.
Yes, Lew, those are some good points about a built-in. Here are some good points about why I believe separates can sound better if done properly.

1- Power supply modulation of the phono stage by the line stage.
2- keeping the phono section off when not needed
3- ability to use the phono section closer to the source
4- more real estate in the box for loading options, dual MC sections etc.
5- it actually sounds better though this is the territory of diminishing returns. Many people may well be better off putting the extra cost to solving other issues in their systems.