Valve phono stage

I did a head to head comparison with the Herron, the aesthetics rhea signature and a Zesto and the Herron was favoured by all three present.

Interesting...what was the rest of the system & cables? What differences did you hear?

Chakster, perhaps your problem is that you have been into an NOS vintage tube equipment and maybe not into the best modern tube equipment. And for sure another problem is that you are conflating phono stages with amplifiers. In my opinion, the output transformer of a classic tube amplifier is the weak link in the chain. Nearly all of the qualities of such amplifiers that are denigrated by those who prefer solid state (bass definition, warm coloration, perceived treble rolloff, etc) stem from the use of a coupling transformer at the interface between the output stage of the amplifier and speaker. But that has absolutely no bearing on the consideration of vacuum tubes versus solid-state when it comes to phono stages. In that case of course there typically is no coupling transformer. Huge swings of energy are not required. It’s a completely different ballgame, and the goals of a quality design are completely different mostly because a phono stage has to impose RIAA correction on the signal and because the signal is very tiny in terms of voltage swing. Most likely you know all this, so I wonder why you couch your argument against tubes based on your experience with power amplifiers. And you don’t name what tube amplifiers you’ve played with either.

@lewm You’re right that phono stage is not the amp, i have no experience with tube phono stages yet and that’s why i am asking why valve is better than no valve? For practical reason i know it’s not better at all.

My ex tube amp was WLM Minueta integrated (made by Trafomatic Audio for them), it’s a modern push-pull class A tube amp that i’ve been using with the best NOS tubes from the 60s/70s era. NOS tubes are much better that new tubes of that class, no questions. Mr. Srajan Ebaen reviewed WLM on 6moons with Zu Audio speakers. Here is a picture of my rack with this amp and below there is First Watt B1 preamp and WLM Phonata phono stage that i am still using. The power amp is First Watt F2J barely seen on that picture. 

From the review: " The mini in Minueta refers to the smaller chassis as well as the tiny output tube called 6BQ5 or EL84. The quartet of output glass here is good for 14wpc in Ultralinear, 5wpc in triode - and class A push-pull in either case. Power wise, it positions the Minueta between single-ended 2A3 and 300B amps on the low side, between 300B and 6C33C SETs on the high. In popular hifi opinion, the EL84 doesn’t rank as highly as direct-heated triodes and the beefier pentodes like EL34s, 6550s and 5881s. Yet true valve connoisseurs shopping with their ears and not through the nose know how sonically advanced the Minueta’s choice could really be. "

Any tube fan can explain me what is the advantages of the tube phono stage compared to the great SS design?

It can be explained. Whether you accept the truth of the matter is a different thing altogether.
The primary advantage of a tube phono section is reduced generation of higher ordered harmonics. This is why tube phono sections tend to sound smoother than solid state.
As I pointed out earlier on this thread, another advantage is that it is much easier to design a tube phono section that has good overload margins and good resistance to RFI (semiconductors more easily rectify Radio Frequency signals since they have diodes built into their structures). The advantage of this is less ticks and pops during playback. This phenomena is not well-known; nearly all of the phono preamps in Japanese amps and receivers on the 1970s clear though the 1990s were not good in this department and so made a lot more ticks and pops than are actually on the LP surface. So an entire generation of audiophiles grew up thinking that ticks and pops are endemic to the media. In fact such is not the case!
We should not ignore the 'cartridge loading' issue, which is related to this latter point. Cartridges need to be loaded with many phono sections, not because it helps the cartridge in any way, but because the inductance of the cartridge combined with the capacitance of the tone arm cable creates an ultrasonic/ RF resonance that is driven into excitation by the energy of the cartridge. This resonance can be a good 30-35 db more powerful than the signal from the cartridge (IOW over 1000 times more powerful) and many phono sections (in particular solid state) really don't like the RFI thus presented at their inputs and so don't sound right. This is why overload margin is so important- the overload caused by this resonance is where many ticks and pops originate.
Now if you have to load the cartridge to get it to sound right, what happens is the energy from the cartridge has to drive that load since it is a direct shunt to the cartridge signal. The result is that the mechanism of the cartridge becomes stiffer and less able to track, especially at higher frequencies. This is very similar to how an amplifier damps a loudspeaker cone and is easy to demonstrate. If you doubt me on this, take a raw loudspeaker and tap its diaphragm, then short its terminals and do it again. You will see that the speaker got a **lot** stiffer- the same thing happens with a cartridge, as the operating principle is the same.

So the ability of the phono section to operate correctly with the stock 47K load is pretty important- when you load the cartridge at significantly lower impedances, like 100 ohms, you are robbing the cartridge of its last bit of performance!
If you think I'm making this stuff up, talk to JCarr of Lyra, he has written extensively on this topic. He is by no means the only one, here is a helpful article from Jim Hagerman on the topic (which does the math on cartridge resonance):
http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html

In a nutshell, the result is that a good tube phono section will often be less irritating (smoother sound, less ticks and pops) than a good solid state phono section and for the reasons stated, can have greater resolution too (extracting more detail from the LP).

@atmasphere thanks for pointing the facts

as a disadvantages i can add:
Tube Microphonics, Tube Noise, Tube Rolling effect (you change the tube and you change the sound). The price for each good tube, the tube estimate hrs and short life of the tube (not good for very expensive nos).  

In general tube rollings is like cartridge loadings, people looking for "the right sounding" tubes expecting more bass or more lush etc and so on. 

manufacturers recommends 47-100kOhm sometimes 30-50kOhm for their MM cartridges. This is the reason i like MM phono stages with rca plugs (load resistors), alternate loading will change the sound if needed (smoother or brighter). 

Ok, so in your opinion: "smoother sound, less ticks and pops , reduced generation of higher ordered harmonics, good overload margins and good resistance to RFI (semiconductors more easily rectify Radio Frequency signals since they have diodes built into their structures)".

How many great tube phono stages available for less than $1k , not for $3k? Just curious.