Anyone have experience with the PH-1000 and tube stage

Lewm:

Just saw the earlier post.  

Thanks for the thoughts — and yest that was just my own description, not something I quoted. I agree the hybrid autoformer/active setup raises interesting questions, but without a published schematic I’m happy to trust Manley’s design choices for now. Since mine is brand new, I’m planning to live with it stock and get a solid baseline before diving into theory or mods. Appreciate the discussion.

Good idea not to void the warranty by modifying it. I bought mine pre-owned from canada, out of warranty. So I felt free to alter the parts as I did.

ulcerdoc

I own a PH-1000 as well. Whilst I can't answer your question directly, I have had the chance to listen to both the PS-1000 and PS-1250 power supplies at home hooked up to my PH-1000. The context being that I bought the former of a friend who has upgraded to the PS-1250 which he brought round today for a listen!

Each power supply elevates the performance of my system. To my ears, each  improves upon every aspect of the sound and essentially gives you more of the same, ie, more depth, more bass more treble etc. To my ears the PS-1250 is definitely better than the PS-1000 and elavates things a little higher than it...

After several years with a Manley Chinook and now some focused time with my new Manley Steelhead RC, I wanted to share real-world impressions now that my system is fully sorted and quiet.

System context:

VPI Classic 4 with interchangeable wand arms, multiple cartridges (Soundsmith Hyperion MR Mk II, Miyajima Zero mono), Manley Steelhead RC, McIntosh amplification, Revel Salon2 speakers with dual subs, Trinnov Nova, dedicated 20A circuit.

Steelhead vs Chinook

The biggest difference isn’t tonal flavor—it’s composure. The Steelhead sounds calmer and more authoritative as the music gets complex. Backgrounds are darker, which lets low-level detail and spatial cues come through more easily, especially with low-output MCs.

The Chinook is very good and slightly warmer and more forgiving. The Steelhead is clearly more neutral, resolving, and dynamically capable, with tighter bass and more stable imaging at higher levels. In my system, there was a substantial jump in sound quality moving from Chinook to Steelhead, particularly when using moving-coil cartridges.

MC performance and noise floor

The improvement is most obvious using the Steelhead’s MC autoformer inputs. Compared to the Chinook, the Steelhead provides a quieter, more controlled foundation, with better drive, lower perceived noise, and greater clarity during complex passages. Low-output MCs simply sound more at ease and more realistic.

SUT and Miyajima

I also use a Bob’s Devices SKY 20 SUT with a Miyajima Zero mono cartridge. This combination is significantly better on the Steelhead than it ever was on the Chinook. The Steelhead gives the SUT a quieter, more stable platform, resulting in greater density, better bass definition, and a more natural, effortless mono presentation with lower surface noise.

Tube note

Current tubes are Amperex NOS 6922 hospital-grade red dots in VT1/VT2, with stock Electro-Harmonix 5687s in VT3–VT6. Tung-Sol bronze-plate 5687s are on the way to replace the EH tubes. I’ll also be trying Mullard 7053 and Amperex Bugle Boys in the VT1/VT2 gain positions and will report back on how those compare.

Bottom line

The Chinook remains a strong value and an easy recommendation (although I believe it has been replaced by the Oasis.  But in a resolving system—especially with low-output MCs, SUTs, and careful setup—the Steelhead RC is simply in another league. The improvement over the Chinook was not subtle in my system, and the Steelhead has become my reference phono stage.