Fosgate Signature Phonoamp Sun Valley SV-EQ1616D

Top rack, from L: Aurorasound Vida, Fosgate Signature, Almarro 205A; below: Yamamoto CA-04.

Review: Fosgate Signature Phonoamp
NYC Analog Log (23-4): Sun Valley EQ-1616D, Part II

Sun Valley SV-EQ1616D, Part I

Fosgate Signature Phonoamp

First Impression Very soon after it came out in 2010, I bought one. It's amazing that I have not formally reviewed this, one of my staples, even though I have commented on it many times, starting with my 2011 Retrospective

...Ever since it came out it has garnered much attention, including a review in TAS. There is also a nice review in Audio Beat. This is one of those rare phono preamps with a fully active MC pre-pre section. As noted in the Audio Beat review, the 60 db gain for MC may be a little low for some people but it is perfectly fine in my case, even with the very-low-output Denon DL-304 (0.2 mV), since I mostly use preamps with high gain and efficient speakers. I am happy to report tube rolling is a breeze as the phonoamp does not seen to run the tubes unduly hard and many NOS tubes sound quiet in it. One thing that puzzles me about the industrial design: the two round cans flanking the tubes lead one to think they are input transformers; no, they aren't, this is a strictly active device and those are for decorations only. Incidentally, I think there is a new 10% price hike, but you can still find many selling at the original price of USD 2500. Review later...

Design A word on the patented, and unusual design (the Manual can be downloaded here), in Fosgate's own words:

The design is the result of more then 100 different hand built preamp circuits dating back to the 1970s.

• All amplification is accomplished with the SRPP (push pull) configuration for the best possible linearity, lowest noise and distortion.
• No solid-state devices are placed in the signal path and a tube is used for the high voltage rectifier.
• The power supply is very different and contributes to the high performance. There are no regulated power supplies. Each tube stage is powered by a separate storage capacitor that acts like a battery. These storage capacitors are very large (10 to 20 time's oversize). The power supply simply holds the voltage across the capacitors like a "trickle charger". PC board layout is "Dual Mono". The channels are located on opposite sides of the circuit board in near mirror image with dual triodes in a row down the center.
• The first stage has no NFB to interact with the cartridge. The second and third stages are enclosed in a single feedback loop incorporating both positive and negative feedback.
• The RIAA network is divided into two sections, one passive and one active. The upper half (above 1KZ) is accomplished with a passive network between stage one and two. The lower half (below 1KZ) is accomplished with an active network around stage two and three

Tubes The Fosgate is not demanding on tubes. The stock tubes are not bad at all, but I have swapped in all old-stock tubes, with small but audible improvement in sound: V1/2, Amperex Holland 6DJ8; V3/4, RCA 12AX7; V5/6, stock Philips JAN 12AT7, more recently Mullard ECC81. One should view V1-V3 as within the MC section, and V5/6 as within the MM section. While V1/2 and V5/6 should be matched, V3 and V4 can be viewed as the bridge and they don't have to be identical, enabling one to roll in different tubes. Manual also says you can roll in a 12AT7 in V3 to have a little more treble air. As the unit is perfectly fine sounding I have never tried it. My 6X4 is an old Motorola.

 

Version 1 vs Version 2 Mine is V.1 (the "V" not to be confused with designation of Tube position above), and I have always been puzzled by what is the difference. There is no mention of any revision in circuitry or cosmetics. Finally, I think I have found the answer. In one of the For Sales Ads for V.2, I saw that the rectifier is 12X4, not the 6X4 of the V.1. Voila! The same rectifier with a different filament. As tubes always escalate in price, it's totally understandable why they switched to the cheaper 12X4, which unlike 6X4 is much less used in vintage gear (an exception is the popular Dynaco PAS 3). Minor change indeed, so if you're looking for a second-hand unit (especially after this review), both will do.
 

Over the Years I have enjoyed this phonoamp for many years, in all of my stations and with many of my TTs and cartridges, always with satisfaction. I mentioned it on several occasions:
 

In this article I said:

...The next day I connected the Linn/Koetsu rig to the Fosgate and, as they say, the rest is history. In this system, the Koetsu did even better than on the AQVOX, and perhaps even better than on the Aurorasound. The Koetsu did everything the PC-1 did, but at a somewhat smaller scale, but I feel it has been optimized. What amazes me is that the all-tube Fosgate yields not one iota to either the AQVOX or Aurorasound in the transient portrayal of the leading edge; every emphasis is microdynamically portrayed, no mean feat, with the additional benefit of a smoother sound...

And in this article I said:

...I have never really written a formal review for the Fosgate, but it was in my Best of 2011 article. It has been one of my mainstays and here I have to sing its praise again. Its superb design allows pure tube MC amplification without the use of SUTs, a feat rarely accomplished (this also meant tube rectification for lower noise). A bargain and wonder, but one that is little appreciated. The world is not fair, right?

vs Sun Valley SV-EQ1616D

After I thoroughly evaluated the Sun Valley (SV), it was only natural that I made the comparison with the Fosgate. In design and ergonomics, there are superficial similarities and differences. Similar: both are tube-rectified, not so common at any price; both have tube MM sections. Different: critically, the Fosgate has an all-tubed MC section (a rare beast) and the SV a FET Headamp (common); usefully, SV has 2 inputs while the Fosgate only has 1; usefully, the Fosgate has Loading Selector (100, 300, 500, 1K and 47K ohms), while the SV has none (the MC is loaded at 50 ohm); not so usefully (for most people), the SV has various bells and whistles for EQ; of debatable efficacy, SV also has a Mono button (taken from the L channel).

Sonically, please first refer to the SV review, Part I linked at the top. I used mostly my Yamamoto CA-04 Line Preamp, AES SE-1 and Elekit 8300 300B amps driving various LS3/5As. All I have to do here is to tell you how the Fosgate trumped it:

• Macrodynamics (and Gain) This is the most important difference (the divide is big). Now, remember I use the SV's own FET headamp, and have an active Line Preamp with Gain to help. They have probably about the same gain, but the Fosgate sounds much better, unfolding loud passages with more force, yet with more detail, air and refinement, and even less noise. As mentioned in Part I the SV does better by dynamics with a SUT, yet it loses much finer details, especially compared with Fosgate.
  

• Microdynamics WIth classicals, in the softer passages, such as the Tapiola mentioned in Part I, SV regains a little ground. Its more overt manner (within its comfort zone) makes the Fosgate sound a tad cool, yet the Fosgate is no slouch and within the whole sweep of music this is not at all sufficient to turn the tide. Add the dynamic findings together, I'd think the SV, with or without SUT, is more suited to smaller scaled music, like jazz or vocals, whereas the Fosgate can do everything well.
  

• Loading I note that with the Fosgate I loaded the 2 Denon DL-103 (stock and with Midas) at 300 and 500 ohms (little difference), a theoretical advantage over the SV when its FET section is used (50 ohm). Yet it should be noted that I still prefer the Fosgate over the SV used with SUT (when there is little loading concern). The performance of SV surely can be improved by using more and more expensive SUTs, but is that the way to go?
  

• Resolution and Air The SV in any configuration is a little less resolved. And both have very good tubes in them.
  

• Mod Potential I note that Andy's SV already has V-Caps in them (Kevin opted for Mundorf instead), and the Fosgate is stock, with WIMA caps (pic below). Upgrading them is a definite possibility.

Summary

• Fosgate Signature This is a Masterpiece. Achieving this level of quietness with pure tube circuitry is a miracle! Jim Fosgate had passed at the end of 2022 and it's regrettable we shall not have more innovative designs from him! It's too bad that it has long been discontinued. Second-hand units are probably not too hard to find if one is patient. I don't think it was that popular in its time. One reason for that is likely because a few users in forums posted on the lack of gain in their systems. In this world where many people use Passive Preamps or Preamps with little Gain, that can happen quite often (and indeed with that Audio Beat reviewer). I always say, and I repeat, if you are into vinyl, you should have plenty of gain at the preamp. Little or no gain at the Preamp ruins a lot of analog and SET experience, and people never learn. Just numbers won't do, and Straight Wire with Gain is no more than wishful thinking. My Denon DL-103 is nominally 0.3 (often a bit higher) and I never have any problem. Have you noticed that almost all reviewers now just use their SUTs? This is to sidestep precisely this problem, and also why many more people use SUTs now with MM phonoamps, though I prefer an active MC stage whenever I can. There have been very few notable all tube MC Headamps (whether standalone or built into a phonoamp or full function preamp). Tall achievement! If the SV is Class A in Stereophile, the Fosgate is A++!
  

• Sun Valley SV-1616D While I think this is a very good tube MM (and a competent hybrid MC) phonostage, I think it's on the pricey side (even as a kit).  If you add SUTs for MC use it's even pricier. Its Bells and Whistles are likely to be under-used, if at all. On the other hand, if you already have good tubes and SUTs on hand, it's a better proposition. If you see analog in the long term, buying tubes and SUTs are likely worthwhile anyway, just that it could be a lot of money (and no end to it, but that's part of the fun). If you go the way of SUT, I'd advise buying an external one rather than having some custom made ones built into the SV. This allows for flexibility. Personally I do not buy the SV because in terms of MM phonostage, many of the built in phono sections of vintage full function preamps are just as good, or even better. The Citation I is the best example. If you use its Tape Out it is a formidable phonostage. Similarly, excellent phono sections are the rule rather than the exceptions in older preamps. Just to toss off a few in my collection: MFA Magus, various Counterpoints and ARCs, Melos, etc. And among more recent stuff, second hand markets can still offer good value. An old Shindo Preamp not only offers a great preamp, but one with an exceptional phono section. Not cheap, but worth consideration for a vinyl lover. Of course, there are those unwilling to navigate through the vagaries of the second-hand market - I understand. I personally puzzle at the Stereophile Class A rating, when the FET headamp is basically brushed over, and contingent upon using a SUT and expensive cartridge as HR did. But then, many other things in Class A probably shouldn't belong there in the first place!
  

 

VAS Ebony 103, Hana SL, Denon DL-103 Fosgate Signature Phonoamp

Top, the Hana SL on my Technics SL-1200 Mk II turntable. Coin used to add mass. Pics below show installation and sounding on Andy's Garrard turntable. Click pics to enlarge.

Revised 7/21/19 and 7/22/19.

Three Cartridges: VAS Ebony 103, Hana SL and Denon DL-103

Prelude For the past two months, thanks to Steve of VAS, I got to play with his new cartridge offering, the excellent VAS Ebony 103. Prior to that, I had been evaluating my own Hana SL on and off for several months. I have delayed this for far too long, but this report also benefits from the extra time, as the comparisons are interesting. I shall start with Hana SL.

Hana SL
In a short time, Hana, Japanese OEM cartridge manufacturer Excel's own brand, has garnered rave reviews everywhere and gained a wide following. When it comes to the ridiculous pricing of MC cartridges, $750 for the Shibata models and $475 for the Elliptical ones, all with alnico magnets, seem great bargains by current standards. I got curious and bought one second-hand from a nice fellow in HK but has delayed its installation for the better part of a year due to my move back to NYC.

Backgrounds I have no need to give backgrounds as reviews are plentiful. Perhaps start with Michael Fremer in analogplanet and Herb Reichert in Stereophile (the SL mono also reviewed), but savor the very good TNT report as possibly the "last word", should you be looking for that kind of thing. There are numerous others which I shall not mention.

First Hearing My second-hand sample was presumably already run-in. I installed it in the Technics SL-1200 MkII in my System II (see sidebar). Right from the start, the sound was excellent. Most LPs played in a no-nonsense, straightforward way with good detail and color. Yet, music seemed to be a tad overly controlled and, at least with the solid state LCR Aurorasound Vida (here), with certain records, there was clearly a little brightness in the low-treble region. With big orchestral works, my usual staple, the mild hardening was clearly audible. This improved quite a bit with further run-in, but a trace of that still remained. I tried both the Low and High Impedance and could not decide which was better.

Working around the Phonoamp A more forgiving interconnect to the preamp (like the 47 Labs) smoothed out things a bit, but at the expense of detail and speed. Using a SUT Fidelity Research FRT-3G (here) made a more substantial improvement. This SUT also has both low impedance and high impedance settings. Suffice to say, again I couldn't decide which was better.

Tubed Phonoamp I then turned to my trusty Fosgate Signature (v1) (here), and that solved everything for me. I started with 100 ohms, and the result was excellent, but moving to 300/500 ohms was even better - what little edginess went completely away. The Respighi/LSO/Kertesz (London) album sounded resplendent. It should be noted that the official spec's say >400 ohms for loading, which may be on the ball. Nonetheless, fly in the ointment, even with tonality evened out, the restraining manner of the cartridge never went completely away.

Earlier I also took the cartridge to Andy's to try out on his Garrard 401, which has a proper SME 3012. I heard much the same characteristics.

VAS Ebony 103
Thanks to Steve of VAS I received a brand new loaner of their new offering, the Ebony 103. If you look at the official link, you'll see there are other variations. Aside from the wood housing, the VAS 103 series is obviously based on modification of the venerable Denon DL-103.

Extensive Modification If you look at the spec's. you shall see that although the performance spec's nominally mirror that of the original DL-103, structurally the changes are drastic. The main differences are: 1) Cantilever, much shorter (though not as short as Dynavector) and said to be "Ruby" on my sample; 2) Stylus a hyperelliptical instead of conical; 3) Body now solid wood, making the cartridge much heavier than the original. Also, in a private conversation, I learnt that Steve has also tinkered with the coil and magnet. Details about this kind of thing is usually trade secret so I never pursued it further.

vs other Denon DL-103 cottage industries Attesting to its basic worthiness, the legendary Denon DL-103 has spawned a HUGE number of cottage industries. Most of these are body replacements of wood or aluminum, even gemstone. The Zu DL-103 is an example, a formal offering by a loudspeaker company of a DL-103 in an aluminum body. More extreme is MusiKraft, which takes it further by offering various aluminum shells (outrageously, more expensive than the cartridge) and wood inserts. NONE of these involve changing the cantilever or stylus, not to mention the motor. The VAS Ebony 103 is FAR beyond any of those - it is a rebuild from the ground up. Cartridge Repair VAS could do this because they have long have the skill of cartridge repair (here, and they are on Ebay too), which has a good reputation of being expedient and reasonable in cost.

SONICS Right off the bat, the VAS Ebony 103 startled. The superb transient and phenomenal bass were undeniably exciting. There was a touch of leanness in the treble, which took over 50 hours of run-in to largely ameliorate. During this period, like with the Hana SL, I made adjustments with cables and switched phonoamps. By the time my friend shidi from HK came to visit me, sound had smoothed out mostly. He is a jazz connoisseur as well as a Wagner and Mahler addict. I played him Ellington's immortal Indigo and he was delighted. Ditto the opening of Solti's Die Walkure and Horenstein's Mahler 3rd (still the best recorded sound imho). The Ebony 103 gave a vivid portrait of each of these works: whether it was Ray Nance's sinuous violin line in Autumn Leaves (my favorite cut), or the menacing atmosphere in Wagner, or the brass fanfare in Mahler, the drama was brought out in full measure. 

Not surprising for a drama queen, the VAS Ebony 103 played mono LPs with total command! The first recording of Prokofiev Piano Concerto No.2 (Jorge Bolet/Cincinnati SO/Thor Johnson, Remington) was stunningly full bodied.

The take-no-prisoner aspect of the Ebony 103 has its flip side. When the recording or pressing is not the best, in large scaled orchestral works the string tutti can be a little hard. That is, somewhat unforgiving. But I should not exaggerate this as I lived with this cartridge for 2 months and was mostly satisfied.

Denon DL-103
I have never written formally on this most famous of cartridges - there is no need, as there is info galore on the internet (a good one here). Suffice to say: 1) there has never been a time when I don't have at least one playing in my systems; 2) aside from the brief period on my Thomas Schick 12" arm, I have been using it on much lighter arms, such as Rega RB300 in the past and currently my Thorens TD-309; 3) despite this, I have never heard the fabled negative effects nor mis-tracking; 4) no matter what I use, and what system it is in, I always hear the highly communicative and emotive midrange, good presence and drama.

I have also experienced the effect of an aluminum body in the form of daiwok's Midas (he of lencoheaven fame)(chronicled here and here). As mentioned, these bodies usually improve resolution and bandwidth but can take away a variable amount of midrange magic.

I don't remember whether I have used it on my Technics turntable before, but for the sake of comparison, after I returned the Ebony 103 to Steve, I swapped in the DL-103. Was I shocked! Right away, the leading edge felt slow and the bass woolly. Images were not as etched as the Ebony 103 and there was some loss of detail. But after a period of acclimatization, I realized that the liveliness, presence and midrange magic I so loved about this cartridge were all there as before, just not as upfront as the VAS, but with the D-103 I could play more records with good results - it is more forgiving.

It should be noted in passing that the DL-103, like the Hana SL, also has an alnico motor. I cannot say for sure for the VAS.

Assessment

• My Setup A word has to be said about my choice of turntable. Basically I am lazy, and would avoid mounting and dismounting cartridges as much as I can. For comparison I always use the Technics SL-1200 with its removable headshell. The tonearm is classifiable as medium-weight, which is more disadvantageous to the low-compliance Denon and VAS. In addition, the Hana was mounted on the original Technics headshell, which is of better quality than the generic plastic headshells I used for both Denon and VAS (these also further lighten the effective mass of the arm). All that said, I am confident that the setup (turntable and system) reveals most of what I should know, as it has before with many other cartridges, in particular the magnificent Decca ffss (here). The Technics SL-1200 may be humble, but its virtues far outweigh its perceived faults and I highly esteem it (for details see my Direct Drive Overview). One thing of note, the Technics can sometimes be a tad dry, or have just a little grain in the treble, and you can factor that into your reading.

• Hana SL Of the three cartridges here, for reasons mentioned above, Hana is the one I am sure I have done the most for. However, to my annoyance, it is my least favorite, for 3 reasons: 1) most importantly, even on the pacey Technics, compared to the lively Denon and VAS, the over-controlled demeanor robs the music of some sparkle, and I am a horn user! 2) although there is good soundstage and imaging, I find there is a curious lack of air around the instruments; 3) perhaps because of this, I feel it does not have the best resolution of harmonics so important in classical music (Denon and VAS are better). In the end, my opinion is: the Hana SL is a very good MC cartridge, but it is not the giant killer that the Denon DL-103 most certainly is. I also suspect the Hana SL is more suited to solid state setups, an aspect that I may investigate in the future.

• VAS Ebony 103 I always thought of the Denon DL-103 as drama queen, but it is just a runner-up in this department compared to the VAS. Probably due to its short cantilever, there is kind of a Dynavector sound to the VAS (with its associated pro's and con's). In fact, I don't hear it as an upgraded Denon but rather as something its own. In terms of high fidelity, it scores high on multiple parameters: high resolution (highest of the three), fast transient, tight and walking bass. In terms of values I hold dear, PRaT and Presence, it is even better. Steve himself described it as best for jazz and pop, and I agree. Make no mistake, it plays classical's reasonably well too, just not so forgiving with music on a large scale or bad recordings. It is a good effort and I'd think many audiophiles would not mind having one in his stable for the fun ride. Highly recommended.

• Denon DL-103 You ask, after the fun ride (roller coaster would be an exaggeration) on the VAS, did I become unsettled after my return to the Denon original? The answer is: initially, absolutely; but after a while, the even handedness of the original and its ability to play most LPs well was reassuring, even necessary for someone like me. This quality is not to be confused with "forgiving", for the Denon is not that. It does not sound like the usual spherical stylus seen on many older cartridges and SPUs. Its resolution is actually quite good and under-appreciated - in this outing, for me it betters the Hana SL and is close to that of the VAS. When things are not all right, the DL-103 can be a little grainy too, which is actually the case when it is on the Technics. After this outing, I rearranged my systems a bit and moved my Thorens TD-309 into the system. It sports a DL-A100, which is sonically alike. The Thorens does a better job than the Technics, smoother and an even more seductive midrange. I thought, maybe the VAS would have sounded even better too?

• Fosgate Signature Phonoamp I have never really written a formal review for the Fosgate, but it was in my Best of 2011 article. It has been one of my mainstays and here I have to sing its praise again. Its superb design allows pure tube MC amplification without the use of SUTs, a feat rarely accomplished (this also meant tube rectification for lower noise). A bargain and Wonder, but one that is little appreciated. The world is not fair, right?

• Compare Notes By now you know my findings with the Hana SL are substantially at odds with all of the other reviews, and that is a great number. A couple of reviewers mentioned the "easy" quality of the SL, and what is "easy" to one can be "lack of dynamics" to another (me). Quite a few reviewers used heavier and well regarded modern arms, which would smooth out things. As for their modern turntables, I am sure all are competent but many of those I have no great feeling for and subjectively I think few can better my Technics. In terms of amplification, I also doubt, be it phonoamps or preamps or amps, their equipment are better musically than mine. As for loudspeakers, there is no way I'd trade my YL horn system and 15" woofers for any of them. In the end, I think the difference lies in musical values and beliefs. I am a high efficiency horn user, and I treasure timing, presence and the equipment must deliver good transients and dynamic performances. I can only conclude that many of these reviewers do not listen to music the way I do. I also wonder, by my standards, if their setups have enough resolution, in details, in harmonics, not to mention in dynamics. Aside from Hana, another example is my Aurorasound Vida, which is regarded as warm by most reviewers. Not in my setup! So take my findings with a grain of salt, as YMMV. But there may be another factor: if Hana does not have the muscular and influential Musicalsurroundings behind it, I wonder if it would have so many good reviews so fast. Corollary, I'd like to see at least some reviews of VAS 103 series products from these reviewers.

Review: Aurorasound Vida Phonoamp, Parasound JC3, 47 Labs 4718, AQVOX 2CImkII, Denon DL-A100

Letter from NYC (41) 2015 (3): Vida! Aurorasound gives Life to Vinyl
Review: Aurorasound Vida Phonoamp
Review: Parasound JC-3, Part II
Review: 47 Labs 4718, Part II
Review: AQVOX 2CImkII, Part II
Review: Thorens TD-309 Turntable, Part II
Review: Denon DL-A100 cartridge
Talk Vinyl: Group Review: (Aurorasound Vida, Parasound JC-3, 47 Labs 4718, AQVOX 2CI MkII, Fosgate Signature)
Talk Vinyl: MC Loading, Phonoamp Gain and Matching

Revised 16/9/2016: Reevaluation of the 47 Lab 4718 (see Part III), to its advantage. Relevant sections below appended.

Originally just a review of the Aurorasound Vida, this article is late in coming and months in preparation. To examine various aspects in depth, more and more equipment got dragged in. It is now too ambitious but I hope you will appreciate the care I have taken with these exceptional equipment. For myself, I am gratified that I am finally giving more deserved space to some of my frequently used equipment, like the AQVOX, Fosgate and Parasound phono amps, as well as the Thorens TD-309 TT. Last, but not the least, I am glad, after a long absence I have another Denon DL-103 sibling in my systems here in NYC (for two decades they have been in continuous use in HK).

For highly relevant info on how I view my various analog rigs and many of these phono amps I'd urge you to read (my previous articles):

Group Review of 8 Phonoamps (includes AQVOX)
Shootout of 8 phono amps (includes 47 Labs 4718, Part I)
47 Labs 4718, Part III
Review: Parasound JC-3, Part I
All my Turntables (Arms and Cartridges): A (Rambling) Overview

Review: Aurorasound Vida

Detailed Info can be found on Official Site, with links to several reviews. Readers are urged to read up on its innovative LCR design employing Lundahl coils.

Background When it comes to cartridge manufacturing, aside from the few western brands like Ortofon and Benz-Micro, the lion's share goes to Japan, where the culture is healthy (also serving as OEM for numerous western brands).In Japan, a plethora of small boutique brands (Koetsu, Miyajima, Transfiguration, Phasemation, etc) thrive side by side with giants like Denon and Audio-Technica. Yet, aside from some expensive boutique products, Japanese phono amps (and SUTs) are relatively little known in the West. My experience with them show them to be superior products.

Aurorasound's first product reviewed in the western press, the Vida, uses an LCR design for RIAA (claimed to be a first) and is capacitor-less in the signal path. It immediately grabbed everybody's attention and garnered praise. I first read about it in 2013 when the first (and best) review from HiFi Review came out, and immediately knew I wanted one. Aurorasound must be indifferent to soliciting reviews, since in the intervening two years there have been few reviews in the mainstream press aside from those in Asia (in HK, the Chinese magazines HK Audio Technique and HiFi reviews). There are some less mainstream not covered by the official links (the-ear; hifiwigam, users' thread on theartofsound).

I had to hear it. Although I rarely have time these days to visit audio showrooms, I made an exception for the Vida. Audition at HK dealer was OK, but it did not really further my desire. The setup was good but, with its dry and analytical sound, not quite my cup of tea, though I am experienced enough to know you listen to "potential" at a dealer, not the "final word" (my experience with dealers is that they always stress hifi "virtues", which are "sins" to many).

I also pondered whether I should get a 120V unit to use in the USA, or a 240V one for HK. Recently, with the great help of a friend, I ordered a 120V unit and it was waiting for me when I got back to NYC. I lost no time putting it through its paces.

General Comments

• Options Some reviews don't seem to mention this, but options like balanced connections can be had for a premium. More, for those obsessed with loading, an MC loading selector is also an option. I opted for the cheaper basic version, which DOES have a switch for high (100 ohm) and low MC impedance (10 ohm).

• Voltage Here is a slight quirk. The same transformer is used for both the USA (120V; 125 in my locale) and Japan (100V). The spread is rather large, but I guess the current used is really small (the unit runs slightly warm left permanently on) to be of concern (confirmed by Mr Karaki). Like most other boutique manufacturers, 220V requires another transformer.

• Looks and Built The Vida is fantastic in appearance and relatively small (~2/3 the usual width). In comparison, my Parasound JC3 and AQVOX look positively ugly, the former especially so since it is unnecessarily over-sized. A look inside and one can only conclude that the unit is reasonably priced!

• Ergonomics Possibly aside from lack of a phase switch, the features are all one can desire. I don't know why there are not more phono amps with 2 inputs. The Vida has one MC and one MM input and nicely comes with two grounding posts (those who have more turntables know the pain of fitting two ground cables, particular of different gauge or termination, onto a small single post). The unmissable Mute Switch and Mono Switch are delights.

General Sonic Impressions
I connected the Vida mainly to 2 turntables in one of my Reference Systems:

Turntable 1: Linn LP12-Ittok-Air Tight PC-1
Turntable 2: Technics SL-1200MkII-Denon DL-102
Turntable 3: Thorens TD-309/Denon DL-A100 (used as supplementary source; see below)
Preamp: Manley Neo-Classic 300B
Amp: Wavac MD-811
Loudspeakers: YL Acoustics 4-way horn system

• Attention! Shorting Plug I put this here to catch your attention. The Vida comes with shorting plugs (like the one pictured) into one of the inputs (I forgot which one; I think the MM). I removed them when I installed my 2 turntables. Since initial setup, I have changed turntables a few times and sometimes only one turntable is connected, but I did not use the shorting plug. One time, more than one month into my use, I toggled the MC/MM switch (possibly to an unconnected input) and I heard a "pop" noise and the muting switch light came on (which means it muted itself; the Vida has a protection mechanism for overload). When I tried to un-mute it, no sound came out. I had to disconnect the power supply and reboot to get back normal sound. Sorry my recollection of events is not so precise, but that is what happens when too much time has elapsed between the event and the reporting. My interpretation of this is: if you use only one turntable and do not use the shorting plug, if you toggle the MC/MM switch to the unused input, you may trigger auto-mute and shutdown. My advice is: follow the instructions and use the shorting plugs on the unconnected inputs. The manual only states use of shorting plugs improve S/N ratio, but does not mention the likelihood of auto-muting if they are not used. This is in contrast to my Shindo Monbrisson, which similarly has MC and MM inputs selectable by a toggle switch, but then the Shindo uses transformers for the MC section, so I'd think that is why it is more immune to electrical problems.

• Run-In The unit sounded fresh and vital from the word go. Perhaps initially there was a tiny over-emphasis in the lower treble which went away after a while (regardless of use; I have my unit on all the time - a gross violation of my own die-hard green sensibilities).

• Background Noise What background? There is none. This has the cleanest background of all the phono amps I have. I am no hypochondriac when it comes to equipment, but what is more important to me is that the unit sounds vital even with complete absence of background noise (for my take on this, read a previous article).

• General Sound I cannot describe it better than the review in HiFi News. There is absolutely no trace of the peaky glare or "hardening" (at least in certain frequencies) that could afflict even the better ss phono amps. Rhythmically it is alive and never boring. Treble is perfectly balanced and never tippy; bass is well contoured (not particularly full), tactile and reaches deep. In a word, not a weakness. See below for more detailed comments.

Review: Parasound JC-3, Part II, Second Coming after Minor Restoration
It should be noted that the model is now superseded by the JC3+, with addition of variable loading and various smaller changes. Readers should refer to last year's Review: Parasound JC-3, Part I for my full assessment and a peculiarity of my unit.

General Sonic Impressions At that time, although I was generally immensely satisfied I found the slightly grainy treble of my unit puzzling. My second-hand unit had a resistor factory replaced by a different brand to lower gain. When I got back this year, I replaced them with the original Dale resistors (sent by Parasound) and re-evaluated. Low and behold, the slight treble grain vanished! So do not under-estimate the sound effect of a single component at a critical point in the signal path! Also, as I have witnessed in many cases, the stock component (with which the sound is tuned) is the most even-handed performer. Also, the gain is noticeably higher in stock form, and I could understand the previous user's concern. It is not a big problem to me, even if I have very efficient speakers. After warming up and running in a bit, the unit is truly first-class. See below for more detailed comments.

Review: 47 Labs 4718 Shigaraki MC phonoamp, Part II, a bit Later on 

I am a late comer to 47 Labs. My standard gain (75 db) unit is said to be the last one of this series. The 4718 review by Dick Olsher in enjoythemusic is likely the most useful for most people, as it does not use 47 Labs' cartridge, as the review in 6moons does (Jeff Day, like me, also used the Denon DL-103 as comparison; more of my experience with that below). there is also a negative review of the 4718 in dagogo, but I'd discount that because I totally disagree with the author's statement that the 4718 sounds like the Hageman Bugle - even though I agree the Bugle is nothing special (my review of Bugle2), the dagogo author completely missed the excellent rhythmic ability of the 4718, which the Bugle completely lacks .

General Sonic Impressions My initial impressions in Part I really hasn't changed much after a bit more run-in (though please understand I don't use it nearly as much as the Aurorasound Vida, which did not need much run-in). I'd like to think of my reference system, including cabling, as rather neutral in sound, but my impressions are in contrast to some of reviews which describe a "lush" sound! My impressions are closer to Dick Olsher's. The distinctive house sound is dominated by fast, incisive rhythm allied to a lean mid-bass. Treble extension is a little curtailed. For this classical fan, another negative is its decidedly limited ability to swing large dynamics at higher volume. See below for more comments. Note 9/2016: after more run-in, the 4718 delivered a much better performance (see Part III).

Review: Thorens TD-309, Part II
Usage For my full assessment of the TD-309 with the heavy mono Denon DL-102, please refer to Part I. Since then I have used the TT quite frequently. After moving the Denon to the Technics I have happily rotated several cartridges. This time around, enlisting its service was almost a second-thought, originating from my desire to test more than one MC (I simply don't want to remove the PC-1 from my LP12).

Difficulties in Denon Cartridge Installation I decided on a brand new Denon 100th anniversary cartridge, because the similar DL-103 is a common staple and many can relate to it. The installation proved difficult: 1) Even with the cartridge platform pushed all the way up front, the cartridge came up short for alignment. I re-read the (useful) manual and was relieved to find loosening the top screw in the bearing block enables the arm tube to be pulled out for 3mm. Even so, It was 1mm short for Baerwald alignment. I am no perfectionist, so I just let it be. I re-read the German review by Ralph Werner (see link above) and found he also had the exact same problem with an Ortofon; I suspect my clearance unit was an early one, before Thorens fixed the problem (not apparent from other European reviews that also use the DL-103); 2) I had to lower the arm considerably, almost all the way, to get correct VTA, and I still have to find a small hex wrench to raise the arm-lift! If you use Denon and are considering a second-hand unit, beware. Sonically, as you shall see, things seem OK. See below for more comments.

Review: Denon DL-A100, Old Friend Re-incarnated
I got this when they were clearing it out, and it was not much more expensive than a new DL-103. Aside from the different colored body (but same material), the A100 and 103 are identical in all spec's. The A100 supposedly is more meticulously manufactured and selected. Please refer to the useful review by Art Dudley in Stereophile. This is useful for the purpose of this review as the Denon DL-103 is popular and has much higher impedance than the PC-1, so it is a good foil and test for any phono amp's versatility. DL-103 these days have at least 0.35 V output, and my DL-A100 is no exception, spec'ed at 0.38 V.

General Sonic Impressions Amazing as it may seem for this Denon veteran, I have never heard the DL-103 in my systems in NYC!!! As Art Dudley mentioned, the Denon is known to require considerable break-in time, so for the duration of my stay in NYC and this test it is unlikely in best condition. Despite that, its exceptional timing and musicality shone through the first notes. At this point in time, it does not sound as clean as my Air Tight PC-1 nor my Ortofon Kontrapunkt C, but its inimitable microdynamic ways more than compensate. As mentioned below, even when matched with (theoretically) unsuitable phonoamps it still shines. Although I didn't install it for comparison, based on my two-decade experience with the generic DL-103 my feeling is the DL-A100 has a noticeably cleaner bottom and a faster bass (as mentioned too by Art Dudley), though it is possible that the Thorens arm, designed to take much heavier cartridges, also plays a role. See below for more detailed comments.

Click pic to enlarge. Note that I have switched the dip switches to ON to bypass the output caps. See text.

Review: AQVOX 2CIMkII, Part II
This exceptional fully balanced, fully discrete gem, like the Vida, is a wonder in design. Readers are urged to read the detailed official literature and refer to my Group Review link on top for my previous impressions.

Previous Experience I only use the balanced input. Since my initial review, although I have briefly tried it with most of my turntables (using the adaptor) to excellent effect, I have mostly used the AQVOX only with my Thorens TD-309. The reasons is: I am not about to rewire my turntable leads to balanced connections (most of my phono phonoamps are single-ended) and the TD-309 is my only TT that does not have captured tonearm cables. To get rid of the adaptor, I have made DIY Mogami 2534 RCA to XLR phono cables for connection. For output, I use mostly RCA but have tested the balanced out with DIY Mogami 2534 XLR to RCA cables. Usually I have the gain knobs around 11 o'clock. I re-read the official materials and discovered several things.

Official Tips 1 Not in the manual but in the online info is a little on bridging the output capacitors. I opened up my unit and surely there are two 4-position dip switches at the output. Setting all to "On" bridge the caps and remove them from the signal path. As I use tube preamps, lack of DC blocking is not a concern and I happily did that. Even if I don't always favor no capacitor at the output, it is nice to have that option!

Official Tips 2 Not in the manual but hidden in a "Setup Info" download are some startling advices, the likes of which I have never read in a phono amp manual! To quote just a little: "...the PHONO2CI’s XLR-input is a current-amplifier what means a nearly shortcut to the cartridge.This requires to realign/readjust the cartridge/tonearm for a correct bass response. For more or less bass please try:

• Tonearm weight (max. 0.5 g more or less than recommended by the cartridge manufacturer) More weight mostly results in more bass.
• Tonearm heigt (higher or lower) The rule that tonearm and record should be parallel is not true. You really need to try it out. Mark your start position and try a slightly higher and lower position of your tonearm. Maximum 10 mm higher at the base..."

Most users, including this one, are unlikely to go to the suggested limits. I agree tonearm and record do not have to be parallel, but I'd think the cartridge body and record should be roughly so. In any case, 1 cm higher at the tonearm bass? That sounds like a lot. I think I may experiment a little, but not to the draconian limits suggested. 

General Sonic Impressions The AQVOX has always delivered a very detailed and clean sound, perhaps not the last word in bloom but not etched either. But to these ears its strongest suit is its effortless delivery of rhythm and pace, and top-class microdynamic nuance. Theoretically it should not suit high impedance/inductance cartridges; but see further comments below.

Phonoamps Comparison

Although I played many LPs, I will use primarily three LP's for illustration. Due to the long time span and equipment re-deployment, nearly all, but not all combos were tried.

Using Air Tight PC-1
The PC-1 was heard with all phono amps except the AQVOX (though I have heard that combo before to excellent effect). Here I will concentrate on comparing the Vida and JC3.

Vida vs JC3 The first LP is probably the best known: Khachaturian conducts Spartacus and Gayne Ballets (London CS-6322), long on HP's list and now available as an 180 gm re-issue. On the Sabre Dance cut, both presented the full galore of the orchestra. The Aurorasound is a little fleeter and more open; the Parasound a little darker and weightier. Interestingly, this difference is audible as the more life-like return-bow of the celli on the Parasound. Also, the hall ambience appears better resolved by the Parasound.

The second is Dupre and Barenboim's incandescent Brahms Cello Sonatas (Angel S-36544). More than most others, this excellently recorded LP astutely reveals how each phonoamp treats spatial clues. No two phono amp sound the same with this LP, which is not to say one can easily come up with a preference. This LP was one of the first I heard on the Vida, and I remember vividly my wide-eyed wonder at the open sound that also conveyed the urgency of the performance. Here, although some tonal aspects of the piano and cello are better with the Parasound, I definitely preferred the Aurorasound for its cleanness, agility and balance, as these qualities particularly benefit the difficult task of replay of the piano.

Last is a digitally recorded LP (I also have the CD and together they have long served as my tools for comparing the neutrality of my digital and vinyl rigs), Sigiswald Kuijken/La Petite Bande's cogent performances of Bach's Violin Concerti (ProArte PAD-124; The LP is rarer and ugly, so I show you the classier CD cover). Again, it is a toss-up. I marginally prefer the Aurorasound for the reason stated previously, though the Parasound is more emotive. Now, this recording can easily turn harsh with the wrong equipment, but the sunny Aurorasound never confuses gleam with harshness.

Using Denon DL-A100
As mentioned, even brand new and not as refined as the PC-1, the Denon brought a very different flavor to the table. With all phono amps (not tested with Parasound), in Sabre Dance, there is just as much excitement and bass oomph; more, string bowing is noticeably discernible, and one feels acutely the phrasing and intent of the performer(s). These are a priceless qualities that money often fails to buy! The period instruments of the Bach are a little twangy, as it should be and arguably more accurate than the PC-1. The Brahms reveal in full the youthful ardor of the performers, though the piano is a little less real sounding than the  Performance is best with the Vida and AQVOX. With the Vida, one gets a slightly more upfront and less smooth sound than the PC-1, but perspectives are otherwise rather similar. Surprisingly, the High Impedance setting, which I use, is not that different from the Low Impedance setting. The performance with the AQVOX was shockingly good. Big, bold, full of drama, benefitting in particular the piano playback.  With the 47 Labs 4718, even if the cartridges' impedances are very different, the performance was quite similar to that with the PC-1, which to me means the personality of the phono amp dominates.

Further Sonic Comparisons and Comments (by Brands and Parameters):

• Aurorasound Vida Sound The Vida is an incredibly even performer with all genres of music. Just its admirable performance with my best cartridge, the Air Tight PC-1, alone is enough to win itself pride of place in my reference system, and from this tube phono amp man this is saying a lot. Equally exceptional is the sound it gives to my mono rig (with the Denon DL-102; I may write more about this aspect in another article). The dual connectivity further sweetens the deal. Yes, some of my phono amps sound just a bit more emotive (and that is of paramount importance to me), but the Vida never feels lacking and after full consideration the Aurorasound Vida has become my go-to reference phono amp.  Even the excellent Parasound JC3 has to step aside, and I have re-arrange my setups as a result. Gain the rated MC gain of 64 db sounds like it should (confirmed by measurement in HiFi News) and I have no problem in use. MC Input Impedance as mentioned, the high and low settings did not sound significantly different with the Denon. To me this means the phono amp is not very sensitive to loading, and compatibility with most cartridges seem certain. I doubt one needs the more expensive option of the loading selector. Output Impedance the measurement in HiFi News shows a high figure. This should mean short interconnects are more desirable. In actual use, I have tried several (up to 3m) and could hear no deleterious effects on the pristine treble.

• Parasound JC3 Sound The JC3 has quite a different sound that is no less valid than the Vida. It is a little darker, more bassy and robust than the Vida. I think it also likely resolves a little more venue ambience clues than the Vida. My preference for the Vida is only partly for sonic reasons, partly for ergonomics. In a new setup, where the JC3 now resides (shall write about that later), with an Ortofon Kontrapunkt C, I just played Willy Deville's Miracle (acquired after hearing it played in Audioarts) and it was so riveting I just had to listen to the entire side, a luxury for me these days. I have an inkling that with a rock and pop diet the JC3 may reign supreme. Also, keep in mind the output stage of the JC3 is a true balanced design and I am mostly a single-ended user. Gain the MC gain sounds a lot more than its rated 68 db! This is the phonoamp to have if you have gain issues or ultra-low output cartridges (I should mount my Ortofon MC3000MkII, or buy an MC2000!).

• 47 Labs 4718 Sound For this classical orchestral music fan, the 4718 is out of its depth in this company. As stated before, with large orchestrals like the Sabre Dance, the 4718 tightens up and turns borderline strident. While the tympani are fast and tight, brass are parched. The Bach and Brahms fared better but the lean mid-bass and lack of heft at the foundations are still very much evident. Maybe my unit is still not run-in? Yet, despite these reservations, the 4718 does have its own sound/charm that sheds lights on some recordings. Loading again, since the 4718 worked as well with the Denon as with the PC-1, it seems this is not a big problem. Gain the gain of 75 db seems way "optimistic" to me, even compared to the 64 db Aurorasound, not to mention the 68 db Parasound! So, never take spec's at face value (PS Audio GCPH is another that comes to mind)! Note 9/2016: the 4718 gained much ground after run-in (see Part III).

• AQVOX 2CI MkII Sound In terms of fast transients and attack, the complex AQVOX beats the 47 Labs 4718 at its own game! But unlike the 4718, the AQVOX in addition plays large scaled and complex music with absolute control. Unlike the Vida, which, as the HiFi News commentator says, sounds neither tube nor transistor, the neutral sound of the AQVOX is discernibly solid-state, though with all virtues and few flaws. This may not be the choice for those whose system is already bright, but should be on the short list of all others, including tube lovers. Cap Bypass brings even greater clarity and speed. This should be considered a must for those who are not concerned with DC blocking (like tube preamp and amp users). Loading as designed, this is not an issue when used with the XLR input, taking the guesswork out of those neurotic about it. It has worked well with every cartridge I have tried, including the Denon. Inductance There are those who worry that the current amplification does not suit cartridges with high inductance (difficult to measure and frequently not known). Some have said the Denon DL-103 has high inductance, yet my similar DL-A100 works remarkably well with the AQVOX, so well that I am leaving this combo as it is!! Note that the two European reviewers (see my Part I, link above) both used the Denon DL-103 (popular in Europe) as part of test, so I am not alone. Indeed, arguably the DL-103 is most popular in Germany, where this unit was designed. So, little to worry about. Gain there is plenty, and with the 0.39 V output of my Denon, my gain knobs are at the 1 o'clock position. Lowering it softens the sound a little; position is purely arbitrary and system dependent.

• Fosgate Signature Sound For more details, readers are referred to my previous article. I only briefly auditioned the Fosgate this time around (hence no rigorous comparison), if only to remind myself (and readers) that I am still a tube man at heart. This has been a staple in my reference systems and it has matched well with all cartridges I have tried, including the Denon and PC-1. This phono amp is an incredible achievement. Its low noise belies its full tube nature (most tube phono amps would use a SUT for MC duties)  And it does everything right: neutral, detailed, yet with plenty of bloom, as only the best tube designs offer. Even the Vida, JC3 and AQVOX cannot surpass it in overall performance. There you have it; it is a shame I have never given it a full review. Loading There is a 6-position selector at the back, very convenient. Gain is sufficient for my cartridges, including the DL-103. See link above. I agree with TAS that the gain seems more than the 60 db suggested.

• Denon DL-A100 (DL-103) Sound is very much in the vein of the classic DL-103, i.e., full of drama and presence. As mentioned above, its ability to convey the musical intent is top-notch, likely unsurpassed (except Decca), something money often fails to buy (I include various top-of-the-line Clearaudio and VdH cartridges in this statement, to name just two brands). Low Compliance and Arm Mass The common thinking is the Denon DL-103 only "works" on a heavy arm. Until relatively recently, I actually do not own one. So most of my time with the DL-103 were spent with more ubiquitous lighter medium-mass arms, like the RB250/300, and I still managed to get great sound out of it. In recent experience, the DL-103 worked well on the medium mass Ortofon AS-212S and of course the heavier Thomas Schick (reported here). In a coming article I will chronicle my rehabilitation of a battered SME3012 (I just installed a DL-103 on it to splendid effect). But I have saved the most intriguing for last: I have yet to write about it specifically but I have a Lenco GL-75 with an ultra-light SME 3009S2i and the Denon DL-103R (a somewhat different cartridge from the DL-103) works well on it (tested here). The large number of purists and thoerists out there in vinyl land no doubt would think of that as a joke but proof is in the pudding. Give the low cost of the DL-103, I think everyone owns it to himself to try it out (instead of asking for opinions)! I can think of no other cartridge that would make me say that.

• Thorens TD-309 Sonically the TD-309 is wonderfully confident with every cartridge I have tried. Although it may lack the weight of a heavier TT, the sound is agile, with excellent PRaT and tonal accuracy. A very fine TT.

• A Word on Gain Many people who worry about not enough gain, especially in the MC stage. With some phono stages, the query is justified, yet more often than not, the problem resides elsewhere in the system. In audio, there are many funny people around, usually people who cite theories and doubt their ears. You would be surprised by the number of people who don't like preamps, preferring to use a passive preamp or drive an amp directly from the source. With digital, due to popular demand DAC's now frequently incorporate a preamp stage (of variable implementation quality), but my experience with them (even well-reviewed ones like the Eximus DP-1, reported here) have been uniformly negative - all benefit from addition of a good preamp. With analog, it is even more important to not just have a full-function or line preamplifier, but to have one as high-quality as possible. A phono amp with volume pot will not do. Witness one of the reviewers of the Fosgate, who had gain problems, and he is not the only reviewer like that. Yes, we ask why amplify the signal then attenuate (or the reverse)? I don't have a definitive answer, but I can tell you a good preamp does more than gain (doing things such as buffering, very important) and is the soul of a system. IMHO, it is simply ridiculous to use a passive preamp, and then buy a certain phono amp just because it offers the highest gain (usually in lesser hands not necessarily beneficial to sound) in spec. Beware of spec's, as you can see in this group spec's don't mean much at all (the highest spec'ed one has the least gain). Also, everyone should have a Step-Up Transformer or two, which are preferable to active MC stages in many instances (as with most lesser MC phono amps). Suffice to say I almost never have gain issues.

• A Word on MC Loading Again, here many people use their heads instead of their ears. The various vinyl forums are overflown with opinions on "proper" loading. Many of these writers use mediocre phono amps and then fuss endlessly with MC loading (or MM capacitance). This is sad. My experience is just the opposite. IMHO, Loading may have its value but more important is the quality of the phono amp. With phono amps of the highest quality loading is less important (indeed many famous designers do not believe in it). My Vida and Fosgate have loading selectors, but the difference in sound is not as much as you'd think. The JC3 does not, but sounds great with all my cartridges. On this topic I also had a chat with my vinyl guru, Andy L (who is active in many forums). Like me, he does not think MC loading to be of supreme importance; he says any loading would not sound equally great with every record - food for thought!

Hallelujah! The article is done!

Review: iFi iPhono, Nagra BPS

Review: iFi iPhono, Nagra BPS

Talk Vinyl: iFi iPhono vs Musical Surroundings Phonomena II (also Nagra BPS, Audio Technica AT-PEQ3, AQVOX 2CI and Fosgate Signature)
Talk Vinyl: Naim Nait I vs Jolida JD-9 vs MFA Magus B vs iFi iPhono

Part I: iPhono
Prologue When I first wrote about the iFi iPhono (here) almost a year ago, I could not find any reviews. Subsequently, a few appeared, and here are some links:

Reviews: AnalogPlanet; EnjoytheMusic; MonoandStereo
Interview: Designer Thorsten Loesch Interview in MonoandStereo

First, A Long Digression 好事多折磨
In case you wonder why the real review of the iPhono took so long, it was because it was to be months before I actually heard it in my own system! It went through several guest systems before joining mine. I would like to spend a little time describing the journey as some of the results add to my understanding of this unit, and I'd also detour a little to write up briefly on some other phonoamps I have encountered. In case you cannot wait, you can jump to the real review below. I'll give you the conclusion on iPhono first: the iPhono is a wonderful phonoamp, but it may take time and care to reveal its considerable strengths.

Detour: First Impression of iPhono (by others) My unit finally arrived about one month later. As I usually do not have time to spin vinyl these days, and as my usual abode has no vinyl set-up, I asked friend A (vinyl and tube fanatic who uses Quad ESL-57) to pick it up for me and test it out. After a short try he told me the sound was not bad but a little too thin for his taste and I completely understood because I know he likes vintage equipment and a fatter sound. Then I asked him to pass it to friend B (vinyl and jazz fanatic who uses Mark Levinson to drive big MBL speakers) who likes his music big and upfront.The iPhono did nothing for him in this system either. So far, things did not look too good...

Detour: My Second Impression of iPhono (first was at the dealer) actually took place on foreign turf! Friend B decided to renovate his apartment. He had to move temporarily into a smaller place where he listened to a pair of Quad ESL-57 placed side-by-side with reinforcement by corner placement (see pic). This actually sounds a lot better (fuller bass) than many "normally" placed ones! The little Nait I amplifier did a good job driving them. On the day I went to pick up my iPhono we actually did a small session of phonoamp shootout (MM only). The turntable used was a Linn LP12 (Valhalla) fitted with a Decca arm and Decca Maroon cartridge. Loading was at the standard 47k, so some may argue about that.

The result was not surprising. The iPhono easily bettered the Nait. The ultra high-gain hybrid Jolida JD-9 (a unit bought in Shanghai) was more overtly exciting than the iPhono but less refined. The owner had also borrowed my MFA Magus B, and on this occasion it was used as a phonoamp via its Tape Out. The MFA was decidedly the best, and that did not surprise me as its phono section is amongst the best I have heard, very quiet for a tubed unit as well. 

Review: iFi iPhono

Shortly after I reclaimed my unit I took it to New York (thanks to its universal PS, one reason I bought it) where I finally had the chance to really test it out during the nearly 3-month stay. I knew that it was probably not run-in, so it was one of the first things I plugged in! In NYC I spin vinyl almost exclusively. Equipment used this round:

Analog 1: Linn LP-12 Lingo/Ittok LV-II/Airtight PC-1
Analog 2: Clearaudio Concept/Koetsu Black
Analog 3 (mono): Thorens TD-309/Denon DL-102
Other Phonoamps used: Fosgate Signature (my experience here); AQVOX 2CI MkII used only for MC (here); Musical Surroundings Phonomena II (here); Nagra BPS; Audio Technica AT-PEQ3 (only MM)
Digital: Ensemble
Preamp: Manley Neo-Classic 300B
Loudspeaker/Amp 1: Magnepan MG 1.7 (used with Sunfire 300 amp)
Loudspeaker/Amp 2:-YL Acoustics 4-way Horn Speakers (used with Wavac MD-811 SET amp)

My previous phonoamp group review covers some of the units on hand for comparison, so it is relevant for this article. I dare you to find a more detailed or useful iPhono review! :-) I must have played more than 100 LPs during my stay, but I will single out 2 of them. The Unicorn Horenstein Mahler 3rd (in the US also on noisier Nonesuch) is a magnificent recording of a magnificent performance, with a huge orchestra and more than one chorus! Note that this famous recording is now on HDTT reel-to-reel tape!The Miles Davis Tutu is of course classic and one of my favorites, still Marcus Miller's best effort. There are many passages of complex instrumental interplay that tests the phonoamp's savvy. Another reason I use this LP is because I have the CD and I use them to make sure both the digital and analog rigs are balanced. Vinyl enthusiasts should do this often; too often they tweak so much that the sound is way off.


Observations I am not going to give a blow-by-blow description of how various LPs sound with the iPhono. It is not necessary, because (thankfully for all the right reasons) its sound really does not stand out. But over the few months I made some observations that I think are interesting:

• Note 1: My impressions are almost exclusively based on the MC setting (I do not listen to MM much, though the mono Denon DL-102 uses the MM setting). For MM, usually I'd prefer tubed amplification.

• Note 2: I got so caught up by my listening that I did not spend any time evaluating the equalization curves (though I have many mono LPs). After all I do believe the basic aspects of the phonoamp are much more important.

• Run-in I suspect the unit needs quite a bit of run-in. I am sure it had a lot less than 20-30 hours on it when I got it back. Initially the sound was a little uninspiring, but I just played on. Read on.

• Vibrations I have said before that my racks in NYC leave something to be desired (placed on stone slabs on thick carpeted wood floor). Certainly, it made my preamp prone to microphonics. I found out the light and slim iPhono was quite susceptible to vibrations! I could hear a trace of smearing much like microphonics in nature. Putting two Vibrapods (here) underneath immediately cleaned up the sound and gave the impression of more solidity. I also noted that the susceptibility to vibration decreased with time and run-in; I wonder why? I also tried Tony's trick of putting some books on top but in my setting that did not reap extra benefits, so for the entire duration in NYC only the Vibrapods were used.

• Background Noise (lack of) You should note that among the battery of phonoamps here iFi is one of the few that fearlessly publish various specifications (AQVOX and Nagra do; Fosgate and Phonomena don't). One listen and you know why: one is immediately impressed by the extremely low noise floor (Signal to Noise Ratio 82dB). This is black background unusual for a budget phonoamp, indeed unusual for any phonoamp! In comparison, it is as quiet as (or quieter than) the more expensive AQVOX and battery operated Nagra (no mean feat!) and certainly quieter than the (pretty quiet) Phonomena II and Fosgate Signature (which is excellent for a tubed unit). This low level of noise, especially in MC, is quite an accomplishment. Now, that brings up the next question/observation.

• Dynamics, or Is there Life in Low Noise? This is a little hard to describe. Experienced listeners know that with lowered noise and darkened background often comes a degree of "reticence" in the music making, as if the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. It is often debated whether the "diminished dynamics" is just erroneous human perception. In such cases, often the music only comes to life when you crank up the volume. Now, personally, especially as a tube and vinyl person, the debates aside, I am not obsessed by noise level but I do think any component/system that cannot be enjoyed at a low volume, that does not have good microdynamics, is bad, period. Not so the iPhono - in my reference systems it performs just as well (and sounds just as as well and quiet) at all volume settings, with all kinds of music (unlike the Phonomena II). Its dynamics are properly scaled. In the grand opening of the Mahler, the iPhono puts you in a mid-hall perspective. In contrast, the Phonomena II is upfront. While the latter may have more overtly exciting bass and slam, overall its presentation is falsely highlighted dynamically. As the movement goes on, with the iPhono one is aware of natural progression, of unfolding drama, whereas the Phonomena II increasingly seemed to be a pastiche of highlights. I do think the composure demonstrated by the iPhono means that while it will work best in a balanced system, in less ideal circumstances I rather think it should work better in an over-energized system than one more sedate. The corollary is that the iPhono, unlike much modern hifi, does not set out to "impress" - it rather demands you to listen carefully (and you can do that at low volume!)

• Hall Sound Experienced listeners listen for the hall sound, or that of the recording venue. In digital, a good example of the faithful rendering of hall sound would be the 16-bit TDA1541 chip; nothing else since has really come close (all you have to do is compare a 16-bit Revox B226 with a later delta-sigma Revox C221 and you will know what I mean, though the latter is a very fine machine otherwise). The iPhono is exceptional in this regard. The Mahler just heaved and sighed, bathed in the hall acoustics. I am not surprised, given that designer Thorsten Loesch is a fan of the 16-bit chip! In contrast, the upfront Phonomena II gave no clues to the hall, a serious failing to my ears.

• Rhythm and Pace The iPhono is excellent in this regard. The flow of music is always natural, yet not without a spring in the step. Take Tutu as an example, the various instruments were not unduly highlighted but the delicate interplay came over as part of a whole fabric. The Phonomena II on the other hand seemed to be more visceral initially, but soon I got worn down by a certain uneasiness - the music just did not flow as the phonoamp imposes its own insistent quality.

• Gain The gain of the iPhono is pretty standard. Since my favorites are big orchestral music I use the +6 db setting. At high volume, I do find it a little more dynamic and not much noisier. The gain is sufficient for my Koetsu Black, Air Tight PC-1 and Denon DL-304.

• vs Fosgate Signature In some ways the iPhono breathes in a way not unlike the Fosgate. The tubed unit has more bloom (as it should) and dynamics, though comparison gives credit to the iPhono for running it close in its fine grain, details and smoothness, an achievement for a solid-state unit.

• vs AQVOX 2CI MkII The AQVOX is quite a different beast in its design. Used in balanced mode it has higher gain (though reduced by my use of an adaptor I am sure). The AQVOX is more overtly exciting and dynamic than the iPhono, though the latter runs it close in details and S/N ratio. I love the AQVOX and it shall remain one of my references, but comparison certainly made me respect the iPhono!

• vs Audio Technica AT-PEQ3 (only MM) Michael Fremer (Stereophile, Vol. 32 No.12 December 2009) had this to say abount the AT: "How about a sweet sounding starter phono preamp that lists for $119...? It's the Audio-Technica AT-PEQ3, a little plug'n'play box with a wall-wart power supply that's quiet, sounds clean and surprisingly dynamic, and get's the job done remarkably well.". Using the mono DL-102 I did compare this against the MM section of the iPhono and Phonomena II. The AT-PEQ3 is more like the iPhono in reduction, a unit that lets the music flow naturally, unlike the upfront and unnatural Phonomena II. Of course, it has appreciably less details and dynamics. I also briefly added a step-up transformer for MC use - not bad! A fine unit at the price!

• vs Musical Surrounding Phonomena II If you have read this far you know that I do not much like the Phonomena II. Yes, I much prefer the iPhono! To me, all the praise heaped upon the Phonomena II just shows how wrong hifi has become.

Conclusions

• The iPhono is unusually fine-grained and quiet (not just at its price, but comparable to most products regardless of price). It makes the music flow naturally, and has excellent rendition of hall sound. It doesn't play to the gallery, instead rewards in the long term.

• The iPhono compares well to more expensive phonostages (even to the Nagra BPS reviewed below), and so is surely a BEST BUY. I think mid-priced phonoamps, not to mention budget ones, will have a hard time going up against the iPhono.

• In the company of all the phonoamps I have,  for three months I listened mostly to the iPhono (save for comparison purposes); that should tell you more than this review how satisfying the iPhono is!

• Take time to run-in and check for isolation.

Part II: Nagra BPS
I have always been a fan of Nagra and have owned its tubed full-function preamp, the wonderful Nagra PL-P (my reviews here and here) for a number of years, so I am quite familiar with its phono sound. Recently I acquired a BPS and took it to NYC, where I tested it by the side of the iPhono.

Whereas the phono section of the PL-P preamp and the newer VPS phonoamp are tube-based units, the BPS is a solid-state device. Although tube-based, the VPS uses solid-state devices for its last 16 db of gain (unlike the PL-P, which I think is all-tube). Like its more expensive brothers, the BPS employs transformers (wound in-house) for MC step-up function. Like the PL-P, the BPS is battery-operated, though in a simpler manner by using a simpler 9V cell. Thus, you can infer that the BPS is no cheap compromise, as borne out by its sound.

The BPS (official literature) has been well reviewed (using multiple high-end cartridges) by TAS and Stereophile. 6moons has a review too but it is limited to use of the Denon DL-103.

After spending so much time writing on the iPhono, I am going to be a lot briefer when it comes to the BPS: simplement fantastique!

Observations

• Much of what I wrote about the PL-P (links above) can be applied to the BPS! Indeed, comparing the BPS to the PL-P (from memory, though I did have the PL-P on hand but did not fire it up) is not unlike comparing the iPhono to the Fosgate (see above).

• The battery-operated BPS is very quiet. But the iPhono is subjectively equally (perhaps even more) so. In this regard, the achievement of the iPhono is outstanding. If blind-folded and asked to tell which is battery operated, I just may say iPhono!

• The BPS is fast and  has a leading edge that is just right in speed and sharpness. Its superb microdynamics make music easily come alive. In these respects I do prefer it to the much cheaper iPhono. Here, for the same reasons that I detailed in the section on background noise in the preceding iPhono review, I should say I am not usually a fan of batter-powered equipment, but the BPS does not suffer any of the shortcomings of battery operation. In terms of macrodynamics, it is certainly not wanting. In some regards, sonically it resembles AQVOX the most.

• Like the iPhono, if you don't use care in cabling tonally the BPS may be a wee tad towards the lean side, but still far from lean (think Phonomena II). It has just a tad more bloom than the iPhono. In both my systems, it rendered everything faithfully and, importantly, delightfully. I am not sure what the 6moons reviewer was talking about when he mentions the mid-bass/bass. My opinions are closer to the TAS and Stereophile.

Conclusion

• The BPS, though not cheap, is actually a Best Buy!  It is now one of my references.