Creek OBH 9 MC...is it good?

My friend bought the Rotel and have heard it several times.Positively not in the same class as the P-75.

http://202.186.86.35/audio/story.asp?file=/2004/8/19/audiofile/19dyna

Check out this review. RHQ 10 is superior in MC mode than P-75.

cheers

I just finished the above reading.I use the P-75 with tubes and in its' PE "enhanced" mode.It mates very well with the Shelter 501.The Rotel is more forgiving of poor cartridges,vinyl and associated equipment,though there are better/more costly phono sections available when the power cord is factored in to its' purchase.

I've read that particular article a couple of times, and the way i read it was, the guy was saying how the p-75 betters the rotel, and how he was amazed that it did, with the rotel costing so much more.

The paragraph that I mentioned, forget PE mode..it just like subsonic mode

Moving on to the standard MC setting with a Benz Micro L0.4 on a Roksan Xerxes-RB300, the result was similar to that heard with MM, though comparison showed the Dyna’s advantage in low-level subtle detail retrieval over the Rotel was reduced (the RHQ-10 is more transparent through its MC setting than MM).

However, I felt that the P-75’s sound in both standard modes was slightly short on body. The RHQ-10 produced richer, more fully fleshed out sonic images which, while softer-edged and less detailed, had a truer-to-life density – for example, Luka Bloom’s voice on Fertile Rock appeared that much more like emanating from a real human head, and I felt I heard more of the acoustic guitar’s body’s characteristics. The Rotel also had the edge when it came to sound stage depth and sounding big and bold, if a little fruitier in the lower ranges. Heavy hitting drum work (a swing big band playing Sing Sing Sing) had gutsier thwacks to them.