|
Recent Additions
Budget Components Audacious Audio J. Gordon Holt
Loudspeakers
Amplification
Digital Sources
Analog Sources
Accessories Listening / Art Dudley The Fifth Element / John Marks Music in the Round / Kal Rubinson Fine Tunes / Jonathan Scull Special Features Reference Interviews Think Pieces Historical Recording of the Month Records 2 Die 4 Music/Recordings Stephen Mejias Robert Baird Fred Kaplan Wes Phillips Audio News Past eNewsletters CES 2010 RMAF 2009 SSI 2009 CES 2009 RMAF 2008 FSI 2008 CES 2008 RMAF 2007 CEDIA 2007 HE 2007 FSI 2007 CES 2007 China 2006 RMAF 2006 HFN 2006 CEDIA 2006 HE 2006 FSI 2006 CES 2006 Forums Galleries Vote Previous Votes AV Links Audiophile Societies Contact Us Customer Service New Subscription Digital Subscription Renew Give a Gift Sub Services Recordings Backissues More . . . Phono Preamp Hi-Fi Phono Cartridge Amplifiers Stereo Speakers |
Linn Linto phono preamplifier:
Was the Linn as good as it gets? Not quite. Audio Research's PH3 (reviewed in Vol.19 No.9) has a greater degree of harmonic richness overall—although I'm not sure it matches the Linn's bass extension or definition. And the Sutherland PH-2000 (reviewed in Vol.20 No.12), despite its higher noise level is wicked-good, permitting me to see so far into the music that, to paraphrase Carlyle, I could see musicality itself. But the Linto belongs in any discussion of superior phono sections, ceding little to any single competitor. Factor in its price and it rockets to the top as a special value. Two lovers The AcousTech was quiet enough to satisfy most analog lovers, but did exhibit more steady-state roar than the Linn. The difference was small, but for those sensitive to such things, perhaps significant. I was not bothered by it. The Linn threw a wider soundstage, which I liked. The AcousTech's soundstage was tighter and more focused. This was very noticeable on "In Your Mind," where the Linn had musicians placed to the outsides of my speakers. On the other hand, the way they were bunched together with the AcousTech gave the performers a palpability that was very convincing. It was really just a matter of degree; different ears will prefer one over the other. The two were tightly matched tonally, but the AcousTech had a slightly richer, warmer lower midrange, especially noticeable on massed male vocals, such as on the Karajan Aïda with the Singverein der Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde (Decca/Speaker's Corner reissue SXL 2167/8/9, 3 LPs). With the PH-1, the moody atmosphere seemed particularly ripe, and the men's voices had a texture and opulence that the Linto just missed creating. There certainly were other differences, but most of them were too close to call. I don't doubt that everyone comparing the two will have a favorite; I just couldn't for the life of me predict which might appeal more to another pair of ears. As for myself? I'm probably going to buy the Linn, but when I listen to that Verdi, I start to waver. I'll probably go back and forth a few more times before I decide for sure. People get ready No one could call them cheap, but you can spend a lot more than either one costs and not achieve better sound quality. Of course, there are more expensive units out there that do offer better sound, but you'd have to spend considerably more to obtain a musically significant improvement. I like 'em both, and recommend both without reservation. Technology serving art is what the High End is all about. If you're looking to improve the sound of your record-playing system, you should listen to these two units first. It could be a while before you'll need to look any further.
Article Continues: Specifications »
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||



