AMR PH-77, ARC Reference 2, Allnic H-3000, Octave


I want to change my Phonostage, i have the Tom Evans Groove+ Srx, i tried the Octave Phono Module and it was better. But i´m also interested in the other 3 above mentioned, specially in the AMR. Has anybody compared the AMR with the ARC or the Allnic or the Octave?

Many thanks.
I've not had extensive experience with the other options you listed, but I did have an Allnic H-3000 here for about 9 months. I really liked it, and hope one day to compare it to the ARC Reference Phono 2SE.
One of my customers who had been considering the Ref Phono 2 purchased the AMR PH-77 and is very happy. It replaced his original ARC Ref Phono.
The octave Phono Module i tried was very good too. The dynamics impressed me but it didn't attacked me. That was very good. It was very transparent and with a lot details. But sometimes it was to transparent for me. I like it more when i can touch it, maybe more hollographic is the right word. But in all reviews i've read they don't give good dynamics to the AMR. That would be very important to know.
I really like my Allnic H3000. I have no experience with the others you listed. I think alot will depend on how it matches up with the rest of your gear and taste. I had the Pass XP-25 in my system for a month before I bought the Allnic. While there was alot I liked about the Pass it was too agressive in my system.

can you ask your customer about dynamics, detail and more how the AMR sounds?
And if he heard the ARC Ref2

Many thanks
Agucela, he has had nothing but praise for the sound and the versatile settings. He was unable to audition the Ref2 despite several requests.

I suggest the only way to really evaluate the performance of a statement product is to audition it in your own system.
The Octave Phono Module is a versatile product, with the added luxury of being able to upgrade later on because of the modular concept. I used the integrated version in the Octave HP500SE, in which the Octave Phono was based on, and was totally satisfied, for years. I put the Einstein and ASR head to head with the Octave and stayed with the Octave. It was not until I heard the Aesthetix IO Signature, that I was finally swayed to make a leap to another phono stage, which cost me more than the Octave Integrated.

I have also heard great things about the Allnic.
I´m also unable to audition the AMR in my system. There is no one available for audition.
On the Stereophile review about the AMR.

Output is either via single-ended RCA or "convenience" XLR (ie, the single-ended output is available on an XLR but there is not an actual balanced output).

Isn´t the XLR output a real XLR?
What does that mean?
The AMR components are single ended designs internally. Although I have not compared the PH-77 using balanced vs. single ended outputs, in some systems the CD-77 can sound slightly better using the balanced outputs.
Single ended is the way RCAs works?
That means not balanced?
Is it worst?

I have no idea about how that work.
02-25-12 Agucela writes:
Output is either via single-ended RCA or "convenience" XLR (ie, the single-ended output is available on an XLR but there is not an actual balanced output).

Lamm provide the same on some of their equipment. On my ML2.1, there is an XLR input - Lamm call it "pseudo-balanced". If you prefer XLR plugs to RCA plugs, then you can use them.

The AMR PH77 is dynamic like crazy. When you have a major reviewer with a broken XLR ground lead (and he has reviewed countless phono stages without knowing his review tonearm (a very expensive tonearm has a disconnected ground) ) and he didn't  hear it... That is very telling. Any phono stage which is single ended would have had a "buzz" hence (perhaps) his love of balanced stages since that would mitigate his faulty tonearm and love of balanced stages. After AMR checked their product and finally found the fault in his wiring it was remedied; by this time a new NON broken in PH77 was sent and not given enough time to run in and yes they can sound tight when new. It was a huge disservice for this individual to not come forward and admit the fault in his very expensive table and that because of his tables faults a new non broken in PH77 was reviewed in order to make a deadline.

I can assure you that the PH77 is magnificently dynamic on a very grand scale and not at all sterile as some of the other phono stages that this person has waxed poetic over.
I have had the Allnic 3000 for almost 2 years and love it.  It is matched up with a Transfiguration Proteus, Basis 2200 and Vector 4 tonearm.  Wish I could comment on the others you mention but I have not heard them.  


You should look at the Modwright PH150.
I have an Allnic H3000 which is now my backup due to the PH150. Everyone that heard them both in my system think the PH150 was much better. So check it out before you pull the trigger on a purchase. 

Agucela, What that means is that the circuit inside is single-ended (often abbreviated "SE"), but the maker has also provided an XLR jack for output to some other device that may have an XLR input jack.  It's well that the manufacturer admits this; many just stick an XLR jack on the back and leave the end user to figure out whether or not the circuit inside is truly balanced. Hooking an SE circuit to an XLR jack is very easy to do; only one pin in the XLR jack is needed to carry the SE output signal.  Balanced operation is a different deal, and there is much controversy among audiophiles around what is best, balanced vs SE.  Operation in true balanced topology requires nearly a doubling of the parts count in the circuit and thus is more expensive to implement.  Theoreticians and engineers will often argue that balanced topology is superfluous unless you are running very very long runs of cable, like hundreds of feet, as in a recording studio.  However, audiophilia is not always a logical disease, and some audiophiles are staunch advocates of balanced topology even when using much shorter runs of cable.  Balanced operation does afford a kind of noise cancellation that is not available in SE operation, called Common Mode Rejection (CMR), which is why it is preferred with very long runs of cable. Whether that is a critical advantage or not in home audio is the subject of debate, but in true balanced mode one seldom runs into problems of hum due to ground loops or differences in voltage between one ground and another in a connected system. On the other hand, those who prefer SE devices say that the complexity of balanced circuits leads to colorations of the sound. (I've never heard such a phenomenon.)  I own two systems; one is basically balanced from input to output, including the cartridge hook-up to the balanced phono stage.  The other is SE all the way. Both are very quiet. I love them both.  Bottom line: I would not let the topology (balanced vs SE) determine what phono stage you choose, unless the rest of your system is also truly balanced, in which case I would tend to favor a true balanced phono stage.