EAR 834P + Bent Audio Stepups = greatness?


I have an EAR 834P unmodified and am constantly reading how this amp is certainly one to be on the short list of anyone who wants a decent entry level phono. I have the deluxe version so it can handle low MC carts. When modified, many claim this unit is exceptional competing with units well past its price point. My question, if paired with exceptional step ups from Bent Audio, would the EAR perform in the same league as higher end units? The EAR has a very short signal path, is very simple so there shouldn't be much to lose from the cartridge to the main amp save for problems with the decent but not wonderful internal step ups. throwing in some of the world's best into the chain, would I see a world of difference or would money be better spent on a new phono outright? By that I mean, should I modify the unit and get the Mu's or would that $1600 or so paired with the 900-1000 I might get selling the EAR get me more on the used market?

Thank you in advance
zanth
The Hagerman Trumpet with the Mu SUT is a very good sounding MC phono rig, but...you will need to experiment significantly with resistance to find the right value for your cart AND it will be very sensitive to cabling, as the step up ratio, IMO also makes the cable sound like it is also stepped up in length. IOW, make sure you can keep the cable btwn the step up and the Trumpet as short as possible. Or at $3500, you are in the $ neighborhood of the ZYX Artisan phono stage that works just fine w a 0.25 mv LO MC cart, esp w a ZYX cart. When auditioned against the Doshi phonostage it held up well; w some compressing of the harmonics around the fundamental tone but otherwise very good at a fraction of the cost. If LP was my primary source, the Doshi would be the winner, but... Another option would be the ZYX pre-pre which is essentially an outboard solid state gain stage that goes btwn the TT outs and the phonostage ins.
Dan-ed, take a pill. I'm didn't mean to contradict you - I am just relating my DIY experience. I did not design my phono amp and made no claim to.

What I did was to implement an existing design (Thorsten Loesch's redesign of Arthur Loesch phono) and made it sound "great" to me. It was no more complicated than the application minor circuit and parts changes until I heard what I liked - a minor feat that I feel is well within the capabilities of any reasonablly intelligent stereo nut. I tons of online help - but the actual building and parts choices were mine.

Check out Steven's site here: http://www.izzy-wizzy.com/audio/preampnew.html to review a very interesting example of building and rebuilding a phono circuit to try to bring it to perfection. What Steven has done is exactly what commercial manufacturers do to create new iterations of their products. Many times this process is more about perspiration than inspiration.

Mike
Mgreene,

Several folks around here use Stephen's C3a based phono pre with excellent results, though I've never heard one myself - he too utilizes the S&B SUT in his design wired at 1:20.

I have a pair of the copper S&B/Bent TX-103 SUTs and they are excellent - I used them for many years with fine results. However, comparing them with Kevin Carter's latest SUT offering, the Lundahl LL1931, there's little comparison (disclosure: I use the K&K maxxed-out phono preamp with the LL1931 built in). To my ear, the S&B SUT has a very slightly metallic byproduct in the upper midrange to lower treble, and tends to be just a wee bit ripe and fuzzy at around 150-200Hz (which makes for a pleasantly euphonic midbass). The Lundhal SUT connects to the music and has an immediacy and palpability that simply eludes most SUTs I've heard in comparison. They are extremely transparent in the higher frequencies and convey excellent power and purity throughout the spectrum. They take a LONG time to break in.

So, is this merely a matter of another set of connectors and a bit of wire between point A and B? Is it the difference in loading between the two SUTs (the S&B/Bent loads on the secondary, the Kevin's K&K/Lundhal on the primary). All food for thought. I would jump at the chance to try John's new Bent Audio SUT - he worked long and hard to find something comparable, if not better than the S&B. I also know he is including the option to load on either side of the transformer, which would be fun to experiment with.

There is no magic bullet with analog, or audio for that matter. Use whatever appeals to ear and soul - there is no right or wrong answer, merely shades of gray. Beyond all else, have fun. Good listening,

-Richard
Mgreene,

I appologize, I didn't mean to come off that way. I'm posting quickly between tasks at work (it is what keeps me sane )so sometimes my thoughts don't get fully formed.
Cheers Dan and Richard. I had heard that the Silk XFs were marginally better than the S&B's but the guy I bought from also had the RIAA modules in a package deal. The S&B are known to be able to take a little DC, making Thorsten's last public design possible.

Stephen's web is pretty facinating. I am using a version of his PS in my LCR RIAA.

Mike