EAR Yoshino 834L Deluxe Preamp Review

[Silver Chips]

It is not what "I" want. So I rated it accordingly. It also has a cheap enclosure especially for its cost.

This review sounds more like something you would typically see in Amazon review section from some uninformed lazy homemaker, and a pretty useless review as well without any substance to it. You could definitely do better, as reviewer.

PS: There's been countless and countless reviews over the years that you can read about this EAR preamp, and it has a very good reason why it has been flattered for so long around the world; with all the pirated china copies of it being sold at cheaper prices.

 

[D!sco]

I am not dismissing you, just giving this review a passing grade and dismissing it from further examination. Is it a great review? No. Is it below average? Sure. Was it so bad that policies should change? I don’t think so. It answers a good amount of info on whether or not this is a product I would consider.

Half of Amir’s reviews will be below his average quality.

I don't get why you don't see that as a problem.

 

[Putter]

Its a preamplifier. What does a preamplifier do? It amplifies a weak electrical signal. This does not do that "quite well". Quite the opposite really, because it introduces a ton of distortion.

If we can't judge a product based on its core functionality, what should we judge it on instead then?

You could argue that its core functionality is to generate distortion. But its not even doing a good job there, because you are stuck with a single distortion pattern. If you like to add distortion a DSP is far superior.

What if it isn't about the distortion alone, but also the experience of having a wellmade artisan piece of electronics? Nope: its a 3000 euro product in a cheaply made box from sheet metal. You can't even see the tubes. That's a crap experience.

So from all angles it fails as a product.

There seem to be a lot of 'straw man' arguments that people don't realize that S/N above a certain point is inaudible. I think most if not all readers of this group know this fact, but consider it a sign of a well designed product that may play part of the buying decision. It also assumes that ALL people buy tubes because they KNOW it's the BEST there is, when they only know what they read on the internet and magazines corrupted by commercial considerations. I think the point that it's a high priced product that is cheaply made and doesn't even show it's raison d'etre of glowing tubes which I suspect would last longer if they weren't encased.(Correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

[computer-audiophile]

PS: There's been countless and countless reviews over the years that you can read about this EAR preamp, and it has a very good reason why it has been flattered for so long around the world; with all the copies of it being sold at cheaper prices.

True!

These are sought-after devices in the analogue audio scene, which cannot be invalidated even with the usual snake oil and cable argument I often see at ASR.

 

[Killingbeans]

and it has a very good reason why it has been flattered for so long around the world

Do tell...

I agree with those in the thread who say it actually does what it's supposed to do. In that sense it's not at fault.

But that price tag though?! It's not even a power amp. Just a simple preamp with a bit of distortion added. $3000+, seriously?

Even if it's meticulously handcrafted in the west, built like a tank and has amazing warranty and service, it can't justify anything close to that cost.

 

[Doodski]

Surprising that at one time tube gear was not really even part of the test effort here at ASR and now the tube aficionados insist on revamping the result of a tube gear review as if the gear is owed something.

 

[Koeitje]

There seem to be a lot of 'straw man' arguments that people don't realize that S/N above a certain point is inaudible. I think most if not all readers of this group know this fact, but consider it a sign of a well designed product that may play part of the buying decision. It also assumes that ALL people buy tubes because they KNOW it's the BEST there is, when they only know what they read on the internet and magazines corrupted by commercial considerations. I think the point that it's a high priced product that is cheaply made and doesn't even show it's raison d'etre of glowing tubes which I suspect would last longer if they weren't encased.(Correct me if I'm wrong.)

I haven't said a single thing about the S/N ratio. The S/N ratio of this product is pretty good and exceeds 16 bits with ease. So why are you responding to me?

 

[fpitas]

You know something about tubes and own tube gear...

You missed, "You know plenty about tubes, but decided to take a pass".

 

[Killingbeans]

True!

These are sought-after devices in the analogue audio scene, which cannot be invalidated even with the usual snake oil and cable argument I often see at ASR.

So... it's jewelry?

 

[AnalogSteph]

My goodness, transistors being more nonlinear than valves!?

Nice to see this sort of thing getting taken apart piece-by-piece in this thread.

I mean, technically it's true... but you can afford to throw a lot more "sand" at the problem in return and more than make up for it. A lot. They even make these handy-dandy ICs. We wouldn't be seeing a lot of these chart-topping DACs without OPA1612s and the like.

If a designer is kind of stuck in esoteric views of the 1970s, nobody should be surprised if the emperor turns out to have no clothes on during rigorous objective scrutiny. A device like this was never designed for the objective crowd anyway... it's a "you have to believe" kind of affair for those with more money than sense. They call it a cult following for a reason.

 

[Mnyb]

This product does not acomplish the goal to be a reasonable preamp at a fair price.

There is no special case for a tube design the goal is the same to amplify as good as possible.

The idea that the distortion is a desired feature is not that good , it’s an after the fact construction when we have better tech today and looks like the old trick of making your disadvantages a feature

 

[lc6]

What is the point of this device? If it is to generate a "pleasant" valve distortion at a level of -59 dB = 0.11%, then it is largely useless. For the most part, we cannot detect less than 1% (maybe 0.3% with higher harmonics but only at certain frequencies). With loudspeaker-based playback, the background noise in the listening room is typically 30 dB or more. So the playback volume would likely have to be 100 dB or more to just begin perceiving this "beneficial" distortion. That is much higher than a typical volume in critical listening in a non-studio setting (somewhere in the 70-85 dB range).

 

[Mnyb]

So, we have a problem. People pay (a lot) extra for this because it sounds "better" even though it's objectively worse, despite not being able to hear a difference?

+1 yes

 

[Sokel]

Like recordings made in the 50-60 ies...
Horrible...

You must be joking...
My people will find it hard to get my classical RCA Victor Living stereo collection out of my cold hands when I'm done with this world

 

[Killingbeans]

The idea that the distortion is a desired feature is not that good , it’s an after the fact construction when we have better tech today and looks like the old trick of making your disadvantages a feature

Reminds my of that Top Gear episode about defunct british sports car brands, where every time something on the cars falls apart, they go "It's a feature!!"

 

[Brab]

Right you are. At that price, and with inputs marked "phone" together with a ground lug, I (incorrectly) assumed otherwise.

At the time, EAR also made a passive pre with a built-in phono stage. I wonder if they used the same case for the active line stage under discussion here.

 

[Toni Mas]

You must be joking...
My people will find it hard to get my classical RCA Victor Living stereo collection out of my cold hands when I'm done with this world

I was... So with my Decca, Emi, DG, etc...
Every week I give a listen to the new recordings launched at Qobuz and made with state of the art digital gear theoretically transparent and most of the time the result is meh...

 

[Deleted member 21219]

These are sought-after devices in the analogue audio scene, which cannot be invalidated even with the usual snake oil and cable argument I often see at ASR.

Uh ..... yes it can be invalidated.

Just because some thing is "sought-after" doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Something being "sought-after" is a bit like Beanie Babies having been sought-after, or Cabbage patch Kids. It's a fad that drives people crazy, but has no practical, real-world value. And just like the fads aforementioned, other people catch the "fever" and follow suit with no reason or insight.

It's sad that such unthinking behavior is defended at ASR. Many members here understand tube gear all too well, but they do not defend it on the basis of being"sought-after".

Jim

 

[fpitas]

bit like Beanie Babies having been sought-after

That's a bit unfair. Beanie Babies don't eat power extravagantly, nor need regular replacement.

 

[Haskil]

You must be joking...
My people will find it hard to get my classical RCA Victor Living stereo collection out of my cold hands when I'm done with this world

I cherish these RCA CD and SACD recordings for the aesthetics of their sound recording produced with two or three microphones, which gives them a very natural and credible character, but the timbres are a little raw and lack the finesse obtained more near us with today's best recordings.

And who says timbres that are a little harsh, a little raw... says background noise and distortions: the tube electronics of the 50s, plus the tape recorders of the time and the magnetic tape could not do better. The Dolby came to help... And it's the same thing with the Mercury of the late 1950s and early 1960s...