Evaluation of the Coincident Statement Phono Stage

Arthur,

Thanks for your views and experience, however some of your assumptions are incorrect... at least in my case.

I've used a pair of Bent Silvers (with five different types of loading resistors... months of experimentation to find the best). I've played them into the MM inputs of my Doshi Alaap preamp and compared directly with its (actively amplified) MC inputs. This particular SUT does not compete with the speed, dynamics (macro and micro) or low sound floor of this particular active MC stage.

I've also used the ZYX CCP-1. If that's the finest active MC stage you've heard, well... you need to hear some others. The CPP-1 is a decent if "polite" MC phono preamp (I concur that the Bent Silver's can better it) but it doesn't come close to the Alaap's active MC stage.

Of note, my Alaap is a pre-production model from 11 years ago. Doshi has since made several upgrades. I've had him do as many as my unit will accommodate, but there are some that it cannot. Also, my unit is an integrated phono/line preamp (with separate power supply). Doshi now also offers separate phono and line stages, each with its own separate power supply). Each of these changes made sonic improvements, which I've heard in multiple systems. From experience I can confirm that any new Alaap provides even better performance than what I've described.

As to availability, the Alaap has been discussed on this forum for ten years. It's readily available and quite a few members here own one. It can be purchased as a standalone phono stage, as one half of a phone + line stage pair, or as part of an integrated, full-function preamp.

As I'm the one who introduced you to the ZYX UNIverse-X-SB and first reviewed the UNIverse II-X-SB, both of which you subsequently reviewed and lauded, I hope you'll take these findings seriously. I've no loyalty to any particular brand or type of equipment. My loyalty is to the best available sound within my budget and I've described what I've heard.

Cheers,
Doug

It is FAR FAR more difficult and costly to design and build a well executed “QUIET” completely active phono stage than it is to place a xfrmr in the circuit.

+1

It's not easy and it's certainly not inexpensive. But it can be (and has been) done.

Arthursalvatore:
Hi. I want to say that this was a review of my impressions of the Coincident CSPS, not a commentary on the efficacy of SUT's. I waited for a long time to read a non-pro review of the CSPS and when it didn't happen I took it upon myself to share my "real-world" listening impression of this unit with others who like me may have desired a consumers viewpoint.

Arthur wrote:
"It appears that ALL the anecdotal evidence is based on the performance of full preamplifiers, and/or phono stages, where the active step-ups are fully integrated with the MM/RIAA stage. This means the step-up's own unique performance can NOT be separated and/or independently evaluated and verified." You may want to re-read the review and some comments:

I clearly stated that I used my former Ortofon ST80 SE ($1,680.00) with the MM input of my Fully active (formerly owned) Graaf GM70 Phono stage and the MM input of my Fully active iFi iPhono MM input. In both cases the MC input outperformed (based on what is important to MY ears) the MM inputs with the OUTBOARD SUT.

Dougdeacon wrote: "Regarding Shindo, I've heard the Monbrison + SUT (don't recall which, sorry) vs. my Doshi Alaap (all active gain). It wasn't close. The owner put his kit up for sale and ordered an Alaap."

Also recall that I wrote: "I think what I am finding is that I may prefer the greater speed and (to me) realism of non SUT based phono stages be it all tube, (SOME all SS) or a hybrid. "

Arthursalvatore wrote: "In fact, if an active device is so obviously superior, I don't understand why there are not several such components available today, especially considering the enormous amount of money that audiophiles are willing to spend today on superior performance. "

It is FAR FAR more difficult and costly to design and build a well executed “QUIET” completely active phono stage than it is to place a xfrmr in the circuit. It is less expensive to install a lundhal (very nice quality) or a Chinese xfrmr in a circuit as I have seen done before. Allnic, Hagerman and others produce standalone head-amps.

Transformers are wonderful devices but realize I also own 3 OTL amps. Transformers are answerable to hysteresis, parasitic capacitance, inductance, insertion loss core material.., etc. Active devices tube or solid state are no panacea but to my ears thus far they ring truer when dealing with voltages at the millivolt level. Now maybe when I get the Ypsilon and MC20 I will hear differently.

I wanted to address some of the assumptions I perceived you as having made. This is not a rule, each of us liked what we like and that is COOL. I have NEVER looked to the masses to inform me of what is right or sounds good. I know what I hear.

I would, however, humbly ask that if this is a topic which is important to you that you start another thread. I would like this review to remain on topic and not get bogged in the mire of ideologies. I believe you when you say you prefer SUT's 😊

Happy Listening!

To Audiofun:

Thank you for the reply and your time and effort for your review above.

>>>I want to say that this was a review of my impressions of the Coincident CSPS, not a commentary on the efficacy of SUT's.

I understand, but the thread has since evolved. There was your original post and then 8 replies before mine. The first four replies dealt with the Coincident, while the last four were about the efficacy of a SUT, with no further mention of the Coincident.

>>>I clearly stated that I used my former Ortofon ST80 SE ($1,680.00) with the MM input of my Fully active (formerly owned) Graaf GM70 Phono stage and the MM input of my Fully active iFi iPhono MM input.

True, but the MC step-up you prefer is strictly INTERNAL, while the "outboard SUT" is EXTERNAL, which is the main point of my post.

>>>I would like this review to remain on topic and not get bogged in the mire of ideologies.

I agree, but this already occurred prior to my post. I was simply attempting to provide a broader perspective.

I don't have an "ideology" concerning this issue of step-ups. I don't claim that a SUT is inherently superior in all cases, though the 4 finest EXTERNAL step-ups I've heard were all a SUT. This issue is important for those audiophiles who already have a MM phono stage and require an external MC step-up.

To Doug,

Thank you for your reply as well.

>>>some of your assumptions are incorrect... at least in my case.

Maybe, but I don't believe so.

>>>This particular SUT does not compete with the speed, dynamics (macro and micro) or low sound floor of this particular active MC stage.

I accept your conclusion, but you are also comparing an external SUT with an internal active step-up, this time inside the Alaap, which is again the main point of my post.

The Alaap internal step-up also can not be used with other MM phono stages (such as my Jadis), so its actual performance as well can not be independently evaluated.

>>>I hope you'll take these findings seriously.

I ALWAYS take your "findings seriously", which should be obvious to anyone by now. Your influence on me is so documented that we've even been accused of collusion (by a moron) in the past!

To Everyone:

I did my best to make myself clear in my post above, but I obviously failed, since no one directly addressed my concerns. So I'll try again...

My concern is that there is an implied consensus, or "rule", that appeared to become the heart (or primary "lesson") of this thread, which I disagree with due to the lack of relevant and direct evidence.

I believe it is unfair and misleading to make any generalization concerning EXTERNAL step-ups based on comparisons only with INTERNAL step-ups, but this is exactly what is described in the respective iPhono and Alaap comparisons.

A clear distinction must be made between External and Internal step-ups because of the existence of dedicated MM phono stages.

This is why I used my "integrated amplifier" analogy. Can there ever be a consensus concerning separate line stages based only on what is observed with the line stages inside integrated amplifiers?

External active step-ups must be compared to External passive step-ups (a SUT) before coming to a general consensus as to which is superior as an External step-up. It is prejudicial to assume that just because an active step-up is superior internally, it must also be superior externally (or because a SUT is inferior internally, it must also be inferior externally).

I also have a problem with this statement as well.

>>>It is FAR FAR more difficult and costly to design and build a well executed “QUIET” completely active phono stage than it is to place a xfrmr in the circuit. +1

That is true of course, but Spectral and other solid-state companies built "completely active" models decades ago. I know because I actually sold them (as well as hearing them almost every day, and they were "quiet"). I was never that impressed with their sonics, but they did exist.

ARC, MFA, Counterpoint and others also built some high gain models using tubes, which I preferred, although none of these models equalled the performance of the Jadis with an excellent SUT.

However, I never mentioned building a "quiet active phono stage", but instead an external, active MC step-up device, which can directly replace a SUT. A high quality SUT can sell for $ 5,000 or more these days. So there's plenty of room to build a competing active step-up, with no RIAA/MM stage, or line stage or volume pots etc.

I don't understand how someone can design and build a complete MC phono stage, with outstanding performance, and not be able to also design and build a dedicated active MC step-up with the same level of performance as its own internal version. If not, why not?

Finally, Doug claims to have heard some outstanding active EXTERNAL step-ups, which he described as much better than the ZYX. Maybe they are also better than the Bent Silver SUT. If so, I would like to look into these components myself.

Arthur,

To continue our many years of profitable non-collusion (lol)...

It's true that this thread has not addressed active external MC gain stages. That would be far afield from the OP's original intent, which was to review the CSPS as it is sold and make sonic comparisons to other MC+MM phono stages.

I don't understand how someone can design and build a complete MC phono stage, with outstanding performance, and not be able to also design and build a dedicated active MC step-up with the same level of performance as its own internal version. If not, why not?

One reason might be a perceived lack of market. The large majority of MM-only phono stages offer less than world class performance. Why build a world class MC-only device with no RIAA equalization when the true market for such is so small?

Another (related) reason would be if a designer believes it critical to use optimally matched components. Doshi, for example, spent 5-6 years optimizing the impedance, gain, power modulation and grounding interactions between his MC and MM sections (and also between his MM and line sections) before offering his first preamp to the public. Several of his subsequent product upgrades further refined these areas. I helped Beta some of those and can attest to the significance of swapping just one resistor for another in a key location. Splitting a carefully integrated design apart and selling pieces of it, to be plugged into who-knows-what, may simply not interest a designer who operates at that level. So far as we know, Stradivari did not sell standalone finger boards to be glued onto the violin body of the user's choice.

Finally, Doug claims to have heard some outstanding active EXTERNAL step-ups, which he described as much better than the ZYX. Maybe they are also better than the Bent Silver SUT. If so, I would like to look into these components myself.

Actually, I never said that and never have heard such.