Phono Stage upgrade to complement Dohmann Helix One Mk 2

@drbond , You make a big mistake underestimating John Curl. The JC 1+ uses totally first class components and very slick internal layout. It is less expensive because it is mass manufactured in Taiwan. Robots do a much better job than humans and we all know that surface mount is better than through hole. There are many people who think the JC 1+ is one the best amplifiers made regardless of price. 

@rauliruegas, FM Acoustics has a very colorful web site. The 233 has way more features than I will ever need or use. It looks beautifully made. It's "Hum and Noise" spec is very misleading. "Equivalent input noise below full output 22 Hz - 22kHz: - 137 dBu." I have no idea what that means. I know what "A weighted signal to noise ration" means. It is certain that they are two different ways of characterizing noise and can not be compared. The Seta's signal to noise ration even improves the lower the impedance of the cartridge. 

@lewm , I totally agree that Channel D's web site is fractured and should be re-done. Rob Robinson is a computer geek and they view life differently than normal people. However, your comments on the companies name and product's name are trivial to say the least. By virtue of his feeling that digital RIAA correction is superior to analog filters he has already lost the analog audiophiles. No great loss IMHO. I plan on trying it when I get the unit as I already have the programming. Don't worry. I also ordered the analog circuit. 

@dover , you make the same mistake underestimating John Curl. The Hyperion is significantly softer in the bass than the JC 1+, muddy would be the appropriate term. The JC 1+ is more aggressive sounding but still manages to come of like a tube amplifier. If you demoed the two together you would never be able to justify spending $90,000 of the Hyperion. I said that wrong. You might be able to justify it but I would not.

You have heard the JC1 and the Hyperion driving the same pair of Sound Lab speakers in the same room with the same upstream gear?

Dear @dover : " this was posted by @lohanimal and I said agree with his post:

" Many a reviewer has very specific loves/prejudices - Martin Colloms loves Naim and Linn - Roy Gregory anything stocked by Audiofreaks (he had to answer letters about this in hi fi plus) - Michael Fremer (anything new and stupendously expensive) . "

That gentleman always does that and is in " love " with the " week audio item " till discover the next " marvel ".

Why don’t ask him to make a comparison between the amps he has rigth now against the JC1+ and ask too for absolute honesty about.

Expen$ive is far away to be a synonymous of quality in audio items as the ones we are talking about.

There is a CH P1 issue that @mijostyn mentioned and that I already was thinking before:

" The CH was also on my list but it fell off due to price and the admission that it’s stock power supply is not good enough. They will be happy to sell you a second one so now you have paid for two power supplies instead of the one you should have had ...."

When we are talking of first rate quality design what happened with CH should not be happened through the original design and specially in the power supply that is designed and calculated extremely carefully to cover all " fundamental and not fundamental issues ". Power supply is the most important characteristic in a SS phonolinepreamp specially at that $$$$.

CH ask all the P1 unit owners to spend additional 17K dollars for the power supply that should be came in the original design and when the owner spend those 17K for the new power supply the original power supply that the owners already paid for is totally out of operation. Incredible and more incredible is that owners are so happy only because are gentlemans with a lot of money to spend. Such is life. Of course CH are really happy with.

Btw, there is one critical and way important issue in audio that $$$ can't buy and it's KNOWLEDGE top levels.

R.

Dear @mijostyn : "" has way more features than I will ever need or use. It looks beautifully made. It's "Hum and Noise" spec is very misleading. "Equivalent input noise below full output 22 Hz - 22kHz: - 137 dBu." I have no idea what that means. "

Yes, me neither and about the spec figure I posted because you posted before the same kind of noise figure for the L20 and that's all.

In the other side and talking of the L20:

" By virtue of his feeling that digital RIAA correction is superior to analog filters "

With today digital technology I agree with him. You can outperform easily RIAA deviation accuracy in the digital domain and you can " do " anything you want it with digital that you can't in analogue because you have to pay the " price " doing in analogue.

Problem with inverse RIAA eq is that the anlog lovers just can't digest that the beloved LPs be listened through a DAC in the phono stage. A really complex whole audio industry issue for say the least.

R.