Phono Preamp Reviews

So do I have this right?

file 1  ranked #5   P.S.  Audio Nuwave

file 2  ranked #2   Lehmann Black Cube SE II

file 3  ranked #3   Rega Aria

file 4  ranked #1   Ypsilon

file 5  ranked #4   M1 VinNL

It was nice for me in that I did like #4 the best and knowing that even with my hearing pretty much shot past 6K I can still pick out the best sounding preamp. I guess even old farts like me with diminished hearing still know great sound when we hear it.

Thanks to Michael for all the hard work he put into this test.  Looking forward to the next one. Maybe you can do another one when the next 5 phono preamps come your way?

I would also have to say that even though there were distinct differences between the preamps I could live with any of those that came in at 3,4 and 5. They  are still pretty good at what they do. I thought they were all musical and would most likey easily top the phono stage in my old Yamaha CX-2 preamp that is my headphone station. 

apparently I can't spell my own name today.  The frequency analysis charts are available on Twitter @jameswneal

File #4 sounded much different than the others, which is why I concluded (correctly) that it was the only one that didn't use the Transfiguration Phoenix cartridge.

Toneality has less to do with tables, cables and preamps than it does with cartridges. Transducers have more impact on the tone than anything else in your system. There were slight differences with the other four files, but not nearly as much after chaging to the Lyra cart.

It was an interesting experiement. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for doing this Michael.

Just a suggestion for next time, if possible could you volume match all the files?

I would love to see a turntable comparison. That would truly be an amazing test. Say a few cheapish turntables (VPI Traveler, Kuzma Stabi S, Well Tempered Simplex, Rega RP6 etc) vs your Continuum all running the same cart and phono stage. Obviously this would be a lot more difficult to set up as there are a lot of variables but it's something I would love to hear as it's almost impossible to A/B turntables most of the time.

I normalized all the files in my Sony Sound Forge recording software so the level diff issues were gone for me.   

One thing for me that my FFT program showed for Freq Response for all the carts was a gradual level decrease from low to high that was often down by 40 db as you approached 20K.  This was true for all the preamps and showed a consistency to the level playback of the same track.

Not a true comparison, but in taking a number of digital tracks I had I noticed that for most of them the acoustic energy from 5K and up stayed much higher in level, more than 20 db higher and extended out to 20K flatter. My guess is that in the lp mastering a decision was made about HF content levels which may or may not have something to do with lp limitations, but I doubt that. To me the only limitations to HF lp playback is cartridge trackability.  But, all the CDs I played back had more HF content, especially the HD track I own at 2496. 

Well I had to stop lurking, and join up to leave a comment on this great idea of uploading recorded portions of music so we can blindly listen to the differences you so eloquently write about.

I downloaded all the files and was a little surprised to see they had not been normalised to the same peak volume level - IMPORTANT to have the same standardised peak level for any fair comparison...which I then proceeded to do in Sound Forge.

After doing so, it did change how I perceived the rankings slightly.... so here goes!  (or should that be Hear goes!)

Quite clearly (to my ear on my equipment) File#4 and file#2 were the best/most natural sounding/most dynamic etc. File#4 was big, warm, detailed and all frequencies had body, colour and texture...clearly a step up from the rest.   File#2 had a more natural upper mid/treble than the others ranked below here, it also made the strings have warmth, body and air...none of the others (other than file#4) achieved this to me.

File#5 was my least favourite, it just sounded so soft (dynamically/leading transient) that the strings that come in around 16 secs sounded dead on the leading edge, akin to a synth not real instruments, to my ear it was polite, but also boring and slightly empty and the least dynamic sounding.

File#1 and #3 were very close, in many ways....File#3 had a more natural (but still tizzy) treble and upper mid.    #1 sounded splashy/tinny and had no colour or vibrancy in these frequencies  (I am lucky enough to still hear up to 16khz)... the cymbals basically sounded like glass not metal. Detail retrieval was quite good however across the rest of the spectrum and the big drum thwack sounded more dynamic...but erggh...that treble.

Thanks again Mikey, but if I could suggest just one little thing, please Normalise all files to the same peak setting (I use -0.5db) so the peaks are the same in the digital domain....

Interestingly enough, I also looked at the rms levels after normalising   (ie- a rough idea of dynamic range) -  and the files came in this order (most dynamic ---> least) :

File#4 , #5 , #3 , #2 , #1  - the difference was less than 1db between top and bottom contenders, so all preamps did a great job there.

Looking forward to some more blind tests in 2014!

:) bfwiat (:

Any chance of the Kondo KSL-SFz being one of them?

Michael, I buried this in a comment, but really would like to know if you remember which one of the various LF rolloff curves that the Black Cube se II offers was applied to the test file. Sure would help me to know.  thanks!

It heartens me that my system has the resolution to detect the differences, even through the "low priced" OPPO 105 DAC, (my budget is severely skewed towards vinyl reproduction). Lyra just seem to do something magical. Perhaps in these days where Audio dealers are few and far between and the opportunity to audition different products at home is severely limited, this is a great way to audition the front end in the context of our own systems. I would love to see a similar comparison between the high end cartridges Olympos, Atlas, PC1, Coralstone, Ultra eminent EX, and the like that few will get to hear. 

Ypsilon looks real pricey, too! That's cool to see Lehmann go toe to toe with the "CEOs cartridge". Just proves there is a glass ceiling in electronics, pertaining to sound. Finer materials, better craftsmen from more costly manufacturing countries is all added bonuses. More money don't always get you more in electronics.

Though my cart was in your last cartridge test, I still hoped for a hat trick and my Clearaudio Nano would appear in this one or any other Clearaudio.

I picked #2 for it's detail retrieval - particularily in the trumpet echo slap in the first few bars.  But now that I know about #4, well I have to admit there's greater differentiation within, more natural decay and creamyness about its sound; IOW, more like a live performance.  (I should have known better.)  So, I confused detail with goodness and thus fell into the old "hi-fi sound" trap.  

Future listening tests, of which I hope you provide many, will be executed with more patience and objectivity on my part.  Rather than listening to technical differences between clips, I'll try to listen to the performance itself and thus select gear that gets in the way the least.  (This kind of begs a question:  if the sound of live performance is so hard and expensive to replicate with gear, why not just attend more live performances? At the very least we'd be exposed to a wider range of music than we default to when buying recordings.  And that would be a good thing for our minds and for working artists.)

Thanks again for the education.  I don't always agree with you, but I do value reviews based on experience and expertise seldom found elsewhere. 

When I first listend to the 5 different downloads I listened to them on my Grado SR60 headphones plugged into my MacBook Pro. I couldn't tell much of a difference at all between the files.

I later realized maybe I should stream the files to my audio system: Macbook Pro streaming through the ---> latest Airport Express ---> to my Rega Brio-R ---> to my Pioneer SP-FS51-LR Speakers (Andrew Jones designed). Personally I find these speakers to be the best bargain in hifi. You can judge me but these speakers sound incredible and for only $200. With a baby on the way these speakers will not be replaced for at least 5-10 years because of the metal grills that protect the speakers from little fingers (priceless). Through this simple setup I could very easily tell the difference from the best sounding to the less desirable sounding files.

So thank you again for uploading the files it was a lot of fun testing my audio gear with them. I learned that my Grado SR60's aren't nearly as revealing as listening through my system speakers.

Keeping it simple with no upgrade-itis.

Shure M97XE w/ Jico needle upgrade
Rega p3-24 - Groovetracer sub-platter upgrade
Rega Brio-R
Pioneer SP-FS51-LR Speakers (Andrew Jones)

There was a difference of almost 1.5dB between the loudest and softest sample. That's audible.

The voting almost perfectly reflected this with the loudest sample (by 0.5dB) winning.

The only outlier in this interpretation was #5 which is in the middle for loudness but bottom in the poll. One explanation for this may be that because it comes immiediately after the loudest the contrast is greater.

So the inference is clear. Turn your system up a bit and save yourself a great deal of money.

Great test btw. Thanks for going to the trouble.

Compare the Lehmann to some other highly regarded phono stages in this price range.

My picks would be:

1. Musical surroundings Nova 2 ($1200).

2. Pro-Ject Phono box RS ($1000).

3. Sutherland PH3D battery powered unit ($1000).

Since my reference DAC does not accept high sample rates, I used a low cost USB interface that I use for acoustic measurements: a MOTU Microbook II. Although I did not expect to hear any differences with this interface suffering from digitalitis - reduced transparency, limited stage depth, no fluency - I decided to give it a try out of personal interest, since part of my job is organizing perception tests.

When playing the files in the original sequence (1 to 5) without a reference, one initially performs paired comparison. This means that one primarily compares the sound of the file with the sound of the previous file. After a second listen in the same sequence I noticed that files 3 and 4 had a different sound perspective from the rest and that file 2 sounded better than 1 and 5.

I switched the order of playback to 2, 4, 1, 5, 3 to confirm this and then listened to the files in sequence of preference - ranked order comparison. I ended up with following final ranking: 4, 3, 2, 5, 1.

To my surprise I was able to make a clear ranking although I used a suboptimal DAC. The ranking even correlates largely with the voting results of other listeners.

I converted the files to 44.1 kHz / 24 bit with Audacity and used my reference DAC. The ranking stayed the same except for second and third: these traded places.

I am curious which file would be ranked second by the listeners who ranked 4 as their preference.

files to download, This is very exciting! I discover this little late.

I think M1 can be #2, and the Rega, trying to have a low statement and
be acoustic, The Lehmann trying to do things that cannot do.
I don’t know what the Ypsilon doing there, the only think can do
Is to make the number #2 champion, If the -file4- is the #1 and then mast go -file2- #7 and can follow 8 9 10, probably many nice sounding -phono steps- can fit in-between.

I was thinking the low voting can be this; Star Wars opening-kicking one minute program, this can make nerves an experience audiophile, if in this project you are testing -your followers- (like can this guys listen anything at all) audiophiles, not the best tools given.

Michael, if I am not mistaking, years ago somewhere you wrote;
-who will criticize the critic- I never thought that one day I will, I cant remember the article unfortunately I don’t have space anymore to keep the Stereofile like old time, but before recycle them I usually will detach your pages, It will not be easy but I will take a look if I can find what was.

This seems like a revolutionary idea on reviewing.
It is great that you decide to do this, I am sure will be better in time if will continue, I will stay with the site for more.

chris

Yep, its been more than 2 years since the last comment on this topic, but Im very hopefull Mr. Fremer or one of you guys can help me, I just bought the ortofon quintet blacks cartridge and I dont think my Parasound P5 phono stage will be good enough for this cartridge. After reading this phono preamp comparisons, Iam really considering purchasing the lehmann black cube to meet the best out of the quintet. So here is the question, Would it be an improvement in my listening experience to purchase the black cube over the parasound P5, to meet the standards of the quintet cartridge?

By the way, some guy in youtube says that the cube works very well with MM cartridges but doesnt recomend it for MC cartridges, english is not my native lenguage so I dont know if Im missing something here.

Here is the link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqCJq8vXxnU&t=3s

I'm can see that I'll most likely need to get a phono preamp at some point in time to allow for more flexibility in choosing an integrated amplifier. Among the music files, the Lehmann stood out right away to me as having better resolution of detail and complex musical passages and more fullness of tone than all other preamps tested except the Ypsilon MC-16L.