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
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
Zanth, I ran across your thread about upgading the Ear (I have considered the same quandary and was doing research). The Ear 834P is lovely, for what it is, but the low-output Grados, fine cartridges that they are, are not moving coil designs. It was difficult to get a clear answer about this from Ear and particularly Grado, but Jim Hagerman, (despite a slight preference for transformers, when they are appropriate) understood the issues perfectly and made no bones about it: the low output Grado Statement (and Statement Reference) are incompatible with ALL moving coil stepups. The Grado design requires an active step-up stage. In a way, Raul was correct about this (but not so much, in social grace.) Hagerman Labs’ Piccolo (an active FET based design) into the Ear 934P MM input was a tremendous improvement over the internal Ear transformers (as well as Peerless 15095’s, which I tried). Since the alternatives were as to ditch the Grado or the EAR 834P at a loss, the Piccolo was well worth the relatively modest cost (much quieter than transformers, too). I would guess that almost any active “mc” step ups would be better with the low-output Grados than even the best transformers. IMO Grado should be more forthcoming about this in their marketing materials. Jim Hagerman, Ear’s distributor and Grado’s elderly factory expert were all nice, responsive and did their best to help me get to the bottom of this issue, but of the three, only Jim Hagerman really understood it and could give a clear answer – and he was right.
Thanks so much for your impressions and for the information regarding the Grado carts! I had no idea. Dang, this is going to make for some touch decision making. So the FET is the only option for best results? Not even something as flexible as the Steelhead? If I have to go solid state I think I may want to stay within the EAR family and save up for a while to get at the 324.

At least I have some information to go on and can work with the family of carts. Solid information, thank you very much.
Zanth, I do not own a Steelhead (I wish!), but it uses "autoformers" and is probably incompatible. Anyone with a Steelhead will surely get better cartridges than a Grado, anyway. I don't think you're limited to FET's, any active stepup should work. BTW, the EAR 324 uses transformers on the MC input, so it is probably not ideal for a Grado Statement Statement, either. The low-output Grados are just in a class of their own.