What will beat ear 834p by a margin

I've owned the fully modified (Mitch) 834P and Rhea. I did not think the Rhea was noisier than the 834P. In comparison, the 834P isn't really all that quiet. The Rhea was more dynamic across the frequency range. Much more bass extension. However, I think the 834P was more even in the presentation of the frenquency range it does support. The mid-market Aesthetix gear tends to push out, or emphasize the mid-range which can work very well depending on what music you listen to and the rest of your system. I could be wrong, but I don't think battery powered pre and phono stages will be fast enough to respond to really dynamic passages. Maybe with enough capacitive storage.

I would venture to guess that the K&K is better than the 834P (even modified), but it is just a educated guess based on Kevin's work. The only way your will ever answer your questions for yourself is to get some of these into your system.

I'd like to comment some on the Sutherland PHD, as I own one. It was an upgrade from a McCormack Micro Phono Drive. Before I continue about the Sutherland, I'd like to say that the McCormack was a nice little Unit, felt is was very good for the cash outlay, was dead quiet, was musical, had good dynamics, and good clean bass response. Certainly a Unit one could easily live with, but also certainly no doubt there's better, and much much better out there if you want to drop the $$$.

When I got the Sutherland PHD (Used, but like new-mint)
I did not notice any loss of dynamics, so if you're referring to Michael Fremer's review of the Unit, it may not be a wise decision to take stock in just one man's opinion on the Sutherland, and if you can, audition the Unit yourself.

Please don't get me wrong, no, I'm not being insulting to Mr. Fremer, as I'm sure he knows mucho more than I do in evaluating Phono Stages, and when he commented about the Sutherland (Yes, I read the review too) was specifically comparing the Sutherland to other world class, Stereophile Class A no holds (or cost) barred Units.

The immediate differences I noticed in comparison versus the McCormack (with my own HW-19jr w/MK-IV Platter Upgrade AQ PT-8 Arm-Benz Hi-Output Glider)
were better separation of instruments, and vocals, each seeming to have better individuality, dynamics were much improved, giving Bass, and Mid Bass more slam, definition, articulation, coming very near to my CD set-up as far as dynamical sound, the Mids, and Highs did not lack in any way, but definitely were smoother, purer, with less grain. The Sutherland also prooved as others have noted, and absolute dead silent background.

I believe this one characteristic quality of the Sutherland definitely helped contribute to much better analog playback. My take is, no matter how good a phonopre-amp sounds, if you can audibly hear background noise, it's going to cloud, an unfavorably influence the presentation-recording. Many in RFI infested areas claim to finally be free of these maladies with the Sutherland (Such as my own personal freind Thomas Back who's done a mini-review of it on the Acoustic Sounds Site)

I personally love tubes, and I know many do, and swear by tube driven gear, particularly Phono Stages, but I'm also glad of one fact, and that is I'm not ever going to be tied down to the hassle, and expense of Tube Rolling, or ever have to be at the mercy of the Tube Dealers, with their exhorbitant prices.

Just the other day, I saw an ebay auction end that I was eyeing myself for a pair of Sylvania 5751 3-Mica BlackPlates for my CAL Alpha DAC. The auction ended at what I feel is an absolutely ridiculous price of $179.02 for two tubes. Geesh! Mark

Pedrillo sez:

(a phono)... is about synergy and taste

I don't think so (well, taste, maybe).

A phono has to equalise and strongly amplify a small signal with as little loss as possible, as wide-bandwidth as possible and in as linear a manner as possible with as few phase anomalies as possible.

The "synergy" with the source is achieved by playing with the phono's input (the "loading").

It's a tool: an equaliser with powerful amplification. It's a somewhat complicated tool, at that:)

My comments on battery powered stages has nothing to do with any reviewer's comments. I don't read any audio magazines. My opinion, and again I may be wrong, is my own. I am an electrical engineer, not that it makes me an expert or anything. There are very sound reasons why many very well regarded pre's and phono stages have massive, seperate power supplies. But in the end it all comes down to how it sounds and in my own experience the differences can be deceiving until components are compared head to head in the same system. As always, everyone should decide for themselves based on listening and not on what I or anyone else says.

Well since you want a poorman's Aesthtix, I suggest you audition the K&K Phonostage to start with. Other than that, just save up 10% of your paycheck every two weeks until you can afford a Aesthtix (this may take several years).

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Best as I can tell there appears to be three things the K&K does not do. 1. walk on water. 2. cook you dinner 3. walk your dog. Although the right woman does at times seems to be able to do so. At least mine does. (the woman, not the phone stage. My phone stage isn't near as good as yours.)