I'm looking at the EAR 834 clone.
What other phono stages have you compared it to?
Oddly enough, a comparison between the ear and the WP was performed recently. This is a slightly edited copy of the result- posted without permission of the author, - hence the editing.
"I received the EAR834 preamp today and the Acrux yesterday, thanks for sending both (good packaging job BTW).
I opened the covers on the EAR and was surprised how little circuitry there was, very minimalist design. I used the enclosed power cord for all the tests; what is so specific about this cord?
Measurements first:
Fairly good for a tube preamp, I was not able to discern any distortion products a 0dBV output. The RIAA conformance is average (±0.2dB), but not stellar (compare the Acrux at ±0.05dB). Noise floor was also ~10dB worse than the Acrux, but that is to be expected in a tube preamp. Hum and noise was 15dB worse, but that’s not surprising either as the power supply is in the same enclosure, not very well shielded and in close proximity to the amplifier section.
Listening tests:
The elevated noise floor was apparent when I was next to the speakers as there was a low level audible hiss present, but I don’t think I could hear it directly (although it may affect other details, see below) from my listening position. I also heard hum from the woofer at close range, but not at bad as I would’ve expected; also inaudible at my listening position. Overall, it was quieter than my DIY tube preamp, but noticeably worse than the Acrux.
I listened to one album that I’m quite familiar with, Lynn Stanley’s Potions from the 50’s, first track (Lullaby of Birdland). I chose that album/track because it was the first one I use when I auditioned the Acrux and I heard several low level details that I was not aware of previously. There is a cymbal in the back ground that went un-noticed prior to the Acrux, although I can hear it now on my DIY tube amp because I know it is there and what to listen for. I attribute the revelation with the Acrux to its lower noise floor; on both my DIY tube preamp and the EAR834, I hear the cymbal, but there is a “veil” over it, it just isn’t as clear and doesn’t have the same shimmer as with the Acrux. The other detail is a triangle that is being struck throughout the track that was audible previously, but sounded rather “tinny” prior to the Acrux. With the Acrux, it was much fuller and there was a definite ring to it rather than a “plink”. With the EAR834, it still sounded tinny to me. I attribute the perceived increase in detail of the Acrux to the lower noise floor not masking low level details, even though the noise in the EAR834 is not directly audible at the listening position.
Perhaps we appreciate different experiences when listening to music, but to me, I find the Acrux more “involving” because of the additional detail that I hear; it lends more immediacy to the music and Lynn’s voice seems just that much more realistic and slightly forward in the sound stage. I was surprised at this as it is the opposite of what you reported as far as the Acrux being less involving".
As should be obvious, the prior person preferred the EAR, and actually produced Youtube videos to illustrate the point. However, on my system the videos illustrated exactly the opposite, so there it is.
