2. analog
  3. 1430516175

Evaluation of the Coincident Statement Phono Stage

I am evaluating this unit as I will eventually end up with 4 arms and need another phono stage to go along with my AMR PH77. I will start by saying all evaluations were performed using my Kuzam 4 Point arm, MC Anna Cartridge and an Artisan Fidelity SP10 MK3 NG TT fed into my AMR DP777 used as a Preamp and my Graaf Modena amp feeding some modified Axis Voice Box Speakers.

The music selection I used was Sade, Enya, Jennifer Warnes, FIM's Telarc 1812 Overture (Eric Kunzel Conducting) 1st 1000 pressings.

The unit is built nicely, not exceptionally, but nicely, the packaging is very nice in my opinion and it should arrive to any location safely.

Upon my first listen I suspected that this unit had SUT's installed (later confirmed), I recognized that tell-tell signature of a SUT in the chain. The unit was powered for about 5 days and played off and on and this unit does have some time on the clock.

The overall signature is just to the warm side of neutral offering a nicely filled soundstage with a very nice flow to the music. The soundstage is nice sized and the unit offers a nice fullness and weight to the music with a nice amount of information being conveyed along with adequate dynamics. I will note that the phono stage is very very quiet, noise is NOT an issue with this unit.

Listening to the unit compared to the PH77 was pointless as the AMR is simply altogether in a totally higher league in areas of information retrieval, speed, dynamics (micro and macro), shading, instrumental and vocal vibrato, PRAT and the ability to scale...etc. In all fairness it also costs twice the amount of the CSPS. I consider the PH77 a reference unit, to my ears the CSPS is not in the league of a DSA II or Burmester phono stage but again we are talking 11k and up-to +30K.

I used my ifi iPhono for comparisons from here on out and that was interesting. I made digital file copies to compare and they are SURPRISINGLY close. Once the iPhono is run in with over 100 hours it is very different sounding than when new. It is also quite sensitive to loading, 100 ohms sounding a little dead and 300 just too lit up and ethereal (in my system) whereas 250 ohms was perfect in weight, excitement and PRAT.

The CSPS offers a more cavernous sound, i.e. I can hear a bit more of the venue and it has a tad bit more decay in some instances and a tad (but noticeable increase in overall beauty with female vocals). Tube Magic? I have heard this before with my former Graaf GM70 and Ortofon ST80 SE SUT. It can be beguiling, but I find it not real sounding and it tends to make everything sound slightly time delayed and homogenous and thus a bit more electronic. The iPhono had the weight and fullness of the CSPS without the opaqueness I perceived in the CSPS. The ifi, however, did not quite have the decay or minutiae in low level vibrato.

Where the iPhono was clearly superior was speed, overall information retrieval and bass solidity and control especially on the 1812 piece. The ifi peace also did not suffer from the perceived rhythmic slow-down thus I found my right foot tapping and myself smiling where this really was not the case with the CSPS.

I am not knocking the unit, but 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.

To sum up I think it is a very pleasant sounding unit that does not offend in any area and the small things I hear were more omission than commission.

If you have a brighter sounding system or you prefer an Art Audio Diavalo to say the Reimyo PAT777 300B amp I would say check out the CSPS:)

Hope this was of help to someone. Happy listening.
audiofun
dougdeacon
3,338 posts
 
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.
larryi
4,070 posts
 
The crazy expensive Audionote M-10 phonostage is a MM stage that is intended to be used with, presumably, their own external step up transformers (also crazy expensive). I have heard this setup in a nice sounding system, but, I have never had it at home. If I were interested in that setup, I would actually prefer that the preamp come with my choice of step up built into the unit (one less set of interconnects and RCA jacks, presumably ideal location/orientation of the step up to minimize hum and RFI issues).

I did get to try the top end Audionote stand alone step up in my system, but, I cannot really comment on how it sounds. Not too long ago, I bought a custom-built preamp. Although I did not really want a phonostage built into it, the designer convinced me to get it that way because the addition would not be really that expensive. To try out the phono section, I borrowed the top-of-the-line Audionote step-up from my local dealer. Unfortunately, the combination of the external step-up and the built-in phonostage resulted in a slight bit of hum. I was too lazy to exhaust all ways to kill the hum and simply resorted to just using the new preamp as a linestage and using my phonostage(Viva fono) which has a built-in step-up transformer.

As a general note, I like systems with tube-based phonostages fronted by step-up transformers. I have not any sort of rigorous and exhaustive comparisons with other approaches so this is a general observation.
swampwalker's avatar
swampwalker
5,138 posts
 
From my reading and some limited experience, it appears that SUT selection is very cartridge specific and that interconnect effects are "multiplied" when you go that route. If you have the time, patience and $$ to make those determinations, then so be it. In my case, I do not. I have been very happy w the active devices from ZYX (both the head-amp and the Artisan phono stage) and my all active Doshi, driven by a ZYX cart.

Of course, if you are a committed analog first guy w a world class TT/arm/cart, you may want to go w an SUT, recognizing that if you change carts, you may need to get a new SUT.
larryi
4,070 posts
 
I have gotten very good results with the two cartridges (Lyra Titan and Transfiguration Orpheus L) I use with my phonostage with a built-in SUT and matching has been no problem because it is quite insensitive to loading changes and no additional loading works well. A friend, who put Jensen transformers in his phonostage, gets really nice sound with it regardless of what cartridges he uses (Transfiguration, Lyra, Dynavector).

I think that Art Dudley of Stereophile is correct in suggesting that regardless of the theoretical ideal in matching gain and source impedance of the cartridge with particular transformer characteristics, it doesn't matter that much; as he put it: "I never met one I didn't like" (or something like that).

I don't see why transformers are any more specific in matching requirements to the cartridge and the rest of the component chain than ANY other type of phono amplification, whether it is active solid state or active tube stage.
More to discover