Creek OBH 9 MC...is it good?

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.

Hi5,What power cord are you using with the Rotel? Speakers/cabling??