• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

iFi Zen Phono 3 Preamplifier Review

Rate this phono stage:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 5 4.3%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 30 26.1%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther

    Votes: 76 66.1%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 4 3.5%

  • Total voters
    115
Yep that is also really good. Thx
 
Ouch, this puts me in a bit of a conundrum!
I was already set on getting a Cambridge Alva Duo, but now I'm not so sure anymore, after seeing the extraordinary RIAA equalization of this iFi. I'll describe my system, in case someone can help me decide. Cartridge is a Denon DL-304 (very low output and 40 Ohm) rebuilt with a boron cantilever. It goes to a Denon SUT (AU-320) and then into the MM input of the Phono Preamp.
Until now I'be been using a Pro-Ject Tube Box II. It's the only one I've ever had, and honestly I'm very happy with it; but since my amp is already a tube one (Unison's Simply Italy, Class A), I'd like to experiment changing the phono preamp for a more "accurate" one, hoping to take even more out of the cartridge, which is extraordinary.
Any feedback will be warmly welcome!
 
Last edited:
Ouch, this puts me in a bit of a conundrum!
I was already set on getting a Cambridge Alva Duo, but now I'm not so sure anymore, after seeing the extraordinary RIAA equalization of this iFi. I'll describe my system, in case someone can help me decide. Cartridge is a Denon DL-304 (very low output and 40 Ohm) rebuilt with a boron cantilever. It goes to a Denon SUT (AU-320) and then into the MM input of the Phono Preamp.
Until now I'be been using a Pro-Ject Tube Box II. It's the only one I've ever had, and honestly I'm very happy with it; but since my amp is already a tube one (Unison's Simply Italy, Class A), I'd like to experiment changing the phono preamp for a more "accurate" one, hoping to take even more out of the cartridge, which is extraordinary.
Any feedback will be warmly welcome!
I would (and I did) go with the Schiit Mani 2 instead of this. It's rumble filter is actually useful, the THD+N/SINAD is a bit nicer (way below the limit of the vinyl format and cartridges), it has MC/MM AND the ability to select load capacitance which is a very rare thing inside the price tag. The only tangible advantages the ifi has over it is the balanced output, which won't make a difference in most cases, and availability outside the US.

 
The subsonic rubbish filter is very poor
With most things ifi I find that their strongest point is the quality of the marketing material, this being not an exception:

1729104652343.png



I think it only loses against FiiO's, which often include very elaborate and sometimes animated 3D renders of the most basic and "agricultural" features :p .

 
Ouch, this puts me in a bit of a conundrum!
I was already set on getting a Cambridge Alva Duo, but now I'm not so sure anymore, after seeing the extraordinary RIAA equalization of this iFi. I'll describe my system, in case someone can help me decide. Cartridge is a Denon DL-304 (very low output and 40 Ohm) rebuilt with a boron cantilever. It goes to a Denon SUT (AU-320) and then into the MM input of the Phono Preamp.
Until now I'be been using a Pro-Ject Tube Box II. It's the only one I've ever had, and honestly I'm very happy with it; but since my amp is already a tube one (Unison's Simply Italy, Class A), I'd like to experiment changing the phono preamp for a more "accurate" one, hoping to take even more out of the cartridge, which is extraordinary.
Any feedback will be warmly welcome!
What's wrong with your Pro-Ject preamp?
 
Ouch, this puts me in a bit of a conundrum!
I was already set on getting a Cambridge Alva Duo, but now I'm not so sure anymore, after seeing the extraordinary RIAA equalization of this iFi. I'll describe my system, in case someone can help me decide. Cartridge is a Denon DL-304 (very low output and 40 Ohm) rebuilt with a boron cantilever. It goes to a Denon SUT (AU-320) and then into the MM input of the Phono Preamp.
Until now I'be been using a Pro-Ject Tube Box II. It's the only one I've ever had, and honestly I'm very happy with it; but since my amp is already a tube one (Unison's Simply Italy, Class A), I'd like to experiment changing the phono preamp for a more "accurate" one, hoping to take even more out of the cartridge, which is extraordinary.
Any feedback will be warmly welcome!
I have a Denon DL-304 and I prefer it to the ubiquitous DL-103.

Get the Michael Fidler MC phono stage. Then you will really hear what that cartridge can do. (My other choice would be the Parks Audio Waxwing.)
 
Specs:
  • MM/MC with 36-72dB gain range
  • Independent loading adjustment
  • Super-silent -151dBV noise floor
  • Precise RIAA with balanced output
  • Intelligent subsonic filter
  • High-tech 1.2MHz clean power supply

Vintage comparisons are always fun here. My Technics SU-9070 from 1977 is specified at -157dBV. So there's that. If they're going to use the fairly obscure dBV spec, they should make sure they beat something that is nearly 50 years old (which I just happened to remember was one of the only other components to publish noise in this fashion). On the other hand, it doesn't have variable loading. So there's that, too. Noise is really the only letdown, and it's probably perfectly fine for a vinyl record.

I'd say let's not even talk about the overload margins since that ancient thing murders it there too (at least on MM), but that's not fair since the Technics was unusual even for its day. The overload margin was just bizarre and unnecessary. 380mV. Which comes out to about 38dB ref 5mV. More typical was half that, which is about what you get here, so this is actually very good for a modern standalone. One of the best ones measured to date, and more than sufficient. This is around, what, 27 or 28dB? You're getting high end 1970s performance levels that costs $400 in a preamp then, for around $200 today in a standalone. Pretty fair.

Redoing my vinyl setup, so I've been poking around for something better. Most of it's not. So far I'm just going to slap an old vintage "flat" preamp under the turntable and call it a "turntable platform". Although I'm admittedly probably just going to plug it into the Denon receiver and take a crack it. My guess is they're all the same in every Denon/Marantz AVR-X and up (since they all have the same specs and probably won't redesign an AV component phono stage regardless of price), so its probably whatever is in the Marantz AVP10, which is plenty good at 22 or 23dB, albeit no rumble filter. We'll see.
 
I'm a Brit and I've never heard the phrase agricultural before.and have no idea what it's supposed to mean....
I learned the phrase by watching your Top Gear! :) They use agricultural to mean unrefined/older tech. Here is an example: https://www.topgear.com/videos/top-gear-tv/richard-hammond-drives-chevy-corvette-series-4-episode-10

With this tag line: "The fast, agile but agricultural Corvette is a handful on the track, but Richard has heaps of fun in it anyway. Don’t talk to him about chassis engineering, this is adrenaline."

I recall James May use the term.
 
I'm a Brit and I've never heard the phrase agricultural before.and have no idea what it's supposed to mean....
Interesting you have never heard it used, I thought it was common. Definition would be something like "not fancy, but functional".
 
You mean outperformed by a 7K product instead of a 225.00 product?
Yes, cheap stereo equipment habitually out-performs the most expensive AV equipment.
Exceptions like this are rare.
Yes, I was knocking the IFI Zen - there - I've said it.
 
I don't understand.
My guess it is just a good old differential rumble filter. Opamp based, of course. As rumble is essentially mono and anti-phase in both channels, it is possible to cross-feed bass at certain frequency and anti-phase spurious signals will be eliminated.
 

Attachments

  • macaulay rumble crossfeed.jpg
    macaulay rumble crossfeed.jpg
    250.1 KB · Views: 33
My guess it is just a good old differential rumble filter. Opamp based, of course. As rumble is essentially mono and anti-phase in both channels, it is possible to cross-feed bass at certain frequency and anti-phase spurious signals will be eliminated.
But, but the bass on stereo disks is mono too.

Whatever it is, I think it should be clearly specified.
 
I learned the phrase by watching your Top Gear! :) They use agricultural to mean unrefined/older tech. Here is an example: https://www.topgear.com/videos/top-gear-tv/richard-hammond-drives-chevy-corvette-series-4-episode-10

With this tag line: "The fast, agile but agricultural Corvette is a handful on the track, but Richard has heaps of fun in it anyway. Don’t talk to him about chassis engineering, this is adrenaline."

I recall James May use the term.
Televised older F1 races one of the commentators would say, when the car went off the track into the grass, 'the car just made an agricultural excursion', especially when it regained the track festooned.
 
Back
Top Bottom