Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

It is nice to see you around, Jim.

A few comments. C1 in my phonostage is .28uF. The higher values were a proposal of Anagnostopoulos. I understand what he is coming form and yes my output stage of power amps will be able to handle the ULF stress. I might try it but I have nothing at this point (sound wise) that would encourage me to do so. The electrolytics in the PS? They are not bypassed, though I have tried. I detected no effect that worth to be bothered, although I religiously do NOT use the Black Gates anywhere.  Removing the C6 defiantly would be nice but I do not know if it might be possible. A grid resistor? I do not feel it is necessary. The 12AX7 is a slow tube and in the current circuit it has no parasitic oscillations. In fact the enter corrector as far from the RF hash as I was able to see.

Not the biggest point: the low voltage operation and particularly operation point of the first stage.  It is very possible that you Jim is correct and the “off the wall operation point” of the first stages is something that makes the corrector to sound so hypnotizing and so musical. I agree that subjectively the 834PT has the largest domination of the second harmonics then any other phonostage I have ever heard.  I had quite a few phonostage and now; parallel to 834PT, I have a very properly operating and very good sounding 2 stages 64dB gained phonocorrector. It is 7788-7721, with 834PT-type of feedback and both cathodes sitting right on ground (as it should be). This feedback 7788-7721 phonocorrector, the 7788-7721 RLC and many others phonocorrectors that I had sounded in a way better then 834PT but here is the irony: I always in the end returned back to 834PT.

I have multiple arms/cartridges combos and as you understand I have a one that I feel does better. Having 3-4 phonocorrector employed at the same time over the course of month and years I slowly moved a better performing corrector to the better performing functional arm (with which I play good stereo records in a good condition). This “moving” is not a fast process as there are always the issues of cartridges loading, real-estate in my rack and so on… Ironically, the 834PT with Expressive Technology ET-2 transformer always, over the time, ended up with my “best arm”. In a way, whatever I do with my analog and whatever phonocorrectors I even had: the connecting to Expressive+834PT always sounded to me like a “return home”.

To my ears the Expressive+834PT has some beautiful softness, grace, sensuality, elegance and charm that I never able to get form other sound sources, (with exception of FM). In addition the Expressive+834PT is the only know to me correctors that do not make analog to sound tacky. I understand the Guy’s comment about the “syrupy euphonic mess”. In a way it is correct. However, mess is not something that comes from a phonocorrector but something that comes from the entire playback. The Expressive+834PT, being soft space-wise, graceful, sensual, elegant and charmfull still, from my point of view possess all necessary elements that would be identifiable with the most “high precision” phonocorrectors-performers. However, the Expressive+834PT does not demonstrate those elements, does not advertise them and use it’s potentials very sparely and only when music calls upon it. Listening the Expressive+834PT is like me playing tennis against a world champion who, if he wishes, might keep me winning but who has under the hood so much “potentials” and so much capacity that it would be not even decent for him to win while he is playing against such a player as myself. In the end, I know what “syrupy euphonic mess” is but for whatever reason my analog playback does not sound like a “syrupy euphonic mess” when it driven by Expressive+834PT. There are some folks among the posters of this site, who were in my rooms and I do not think that anyone even thought that my analog results as “syrupy euphonic mess”, nor do I.

I really do not have any agenda by “loving” the Expressive+834PT. In fact I relay would love that other phonocorrectors (and particularly those that I have built myself) sounded better then Expressive+834PT. Unfortunately it is not a case. Interesting that in past I took my Expressive+834PT to a few other listening rooms and I was not able to see as interesting result compare to other phonocorrectors as I hear in my listening room.

Finally there was in interesting story about the Expressive+834PT sound. Near 70 years ago Sergey Koussevitsky and Stern rehearsed with Boston symphony and Koussevitsky was screaming and cursing in English, Russian, German and French demanding that the a specific phrase of the Stern’s violin should be opening up with “a fantastic sound”. Isaac Stern asked: “ Maestro, what would fantastic mean and how you would like me to play the phrase”. “I do not know but it should be fantastic”, - Koussevitsky replied. The fan part that at the premier that Stern’s phase did sounded “fantastic”, although nether Isaac Stern, nor Koussevitsky, nor the entire Boston Symphony still had no idea how and why it was as it was. To me, the Expressive+834PT has the same “fantastic” sound. It is very possible that it comes form the distortions in the first stage but I would afraid to loose it if I ‘fix” it. There are many good performing phonostages out there. There are not a lot that do the Stern/Koussevitsky's “fantastic sound”….

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site