• 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!

Six Acoustics York Review (phono pre-amp)

Rate this phono stage:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 30 28.0%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 67 62.6%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 7 6.5%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 3 2.8%

  • Total voters
    107

Ingenieur

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
938
Likes
747
Location
PA
MC depends on a few things. One is the type of amplification. If electronic vs a xfmr it may be higher.

Inherent cartridge noise is the big factor
MM 0.6 uV x 78 gain = 47 uV
MC 0.032 uV x 78 x 10 (xfmr) = 25 uV
1/2 the noise feeding the preamp section
We can assume the SS 78 phono gain impacts both the same, and the 10:1 xfmr will add some, but not much.
If the MM is 4 mV and the MC 0.4 mV output, overall gain will be similar.

SS is different for MC, the N it adds is x78 by the MM section. In a good set-up the N delta MM vs MC should not be noticeable, and in some cases the MC may be a bit lower.

Match gains with cartridge output is important.
 

Angsty

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 11, 2020
Messages
1,899
Likes
2,266
Location
North Carolina, U.S.
I was led to believe that MC would provide greater detail than MM.

I'm not sure that's at all true. I've decided not to buy another MC cartridge. An FFYX T224 will be delivered to me next week. I'm thinking of installing an Audio-Technica AT-VM530EN on it.
I was unfamiliar with the FFYX T224 and looked it up. It’s a design that I don’t see often. What was compelling about it to you?

I read the HiFi News measurements of the TechDAS Air Force III which uses both vacuum hold down and air bearings but does not get substantially better measurements than some conventional tables.
 

Angsty

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 11, 2020
Messages
1,899
Likes
2,266
Location
North Carolina, U.S.
And why would it cause ticks/pops to be exaggerated, rather than just distorted? And since I can't imagine that something that would cause the stylus to be disturbed like that to sound good anyways, why does it matter if it is distorted?
I’ll take a crack at this and would welcome greater insight from one of our luminaries.

The distortion from clipping creates additional harmonics which can create a sound that is more noticeable (and irritating) than a simple “pop”. Having sufficient headroom reduces the unwanted harmonics created by amplifier clipping and provides for amplifier recovery (linearity) to better handle subsequent, desired sounds without distorting them, too. That should produce greater clarity and fidelity in the recording replay.

This video from Emotiva shows clipping in power amps, but the same phenomenon holds for phono stages as well.

 

KSTR

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 6, 2018
Messages
2,730
Likes
6,100
Location
Berlin, Germany
Why would you want to model a click or pop as a sweep versus as an impulse?
Uhm, where do you think I said I would model a pop/click as a sweep?
I said I'd like to see the overload margin vs. frequency measured to have some very indicative data.

On direct examination in the time-domain I wrote:
To test for this one must deterministically overdrive the input with proper emulations of clicks/pops and then we must inspect the output waveform and look for "rail-sticking" artifacts, oscillation/ringing in the recovery etc.
 

Angsty

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 11, 2020
Messages
1,899
Likes
2,266
Location
North Carolina, U.S.
Uhm, where do you think I said I would model a pop/click as a sweep?
I said I'd like to see the overload margin vs. frequency measured to have some very indicative data.

On direct examination in the time-domain I wrote:
Perhaps I misinterpreted. I thought you were looking for something different from what @Ingenieur re-posted.
 

don'ttrustauthority

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Messages
679
Likes
377
I'll wait for Amir to do a review of that preamp. And I don't know that I'd be interested anyway. It offers variable loading, not variable gain. The Parasound Zphono XRM offers that feature at $500. The Zphono XRM also offers two levels of gain for both the moving coil and moving magnet inputs.

I'm also not impressed by the appearance of the Soundsmith phono stage. The Zphono XRM is a pretty substantial piece of gear. The Soundsmith device looks almost homemade--and not in a good way.

The Zphono XRM is also a MM preamp--and you can plug in two turntables and switch easily between them. The Cambridge Audio Duo doesn't offer variable loading, but it does allow the user to plug in two turntables and switch between them.

So for $700 less, I can get the Zphono XRM. I ain't switchin' to the Soundsmith preamp, at least not for now . . .

His cartridge surprised me, I was a little cynical. Very nice, an improvement on the lower tier but real b&o that came with the table. I'm at my limit for most gear, those the
It depends on who you ask.
MC's have always been the darlings of the high end review media, a good part of the reason IMO was the high end price tag attached to most of them...
YMMV
MC are supposedly faster, since the coil is lighter than a magnet and the pressure on the diamond is (exponentially?) less than a mm design ... of course the gain is less, so higher noise for same signal is introduced, offsetting most or all of the benefit.

Well designed is well designed. I like moving iron, which has all the benefits of mc and higher output.
 

engie490

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2020
Messages
11
Likes
4
@amirm :

You have an error in this chart:


Cahrt.PNG


The Project Pre DS2 SINAD is listed as 69 db (just to the left of the red bar), but your review showed it as 80 db:

Capture.PNG


This seems like something that would be exceptionally easy to correct.
 

werk

New Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2022
Messages
2
Likes
1
While this is an odd place for my first post on this forum I have actually been passively using it for years. This review was of particular interest to me as I have been this using this exact phono stage for almost 2 years now. The first thing I noticed and basically the main reason for my post is the power supply shown in one of your photos. I'm not 100% certain this is the correct PSU for this phono stage, and while it will certainly work fine with it I can't help but wonder how much of the 'average' results in your testing were due to the low power supply's output. For example my Six Acoustic York came with a Mean Well 18V PSU with current output of 830mA. This is why I was surprised to see that Triad power supply in the photos with only 200mA current output. Again I don't have the sufficient technical knowledge to know how important that will be but I kept seeing the lower power supply voltage being possibly responsible for clipping as well as low headroom mentioned throughout the review so I figured its worth to mention this. For the last 1 year I have upgraded my unit with a 18V 2A linear power supply unit which improved the performance even further for me, more on that below.

All that will follow will be purely subjective but I figured it will be worth to say it, as I can imagine how someone looking for a new phono preamp might stumble on this page and by looking at the test results conclude that this particular unit is not worth their time. I believe that to be very wrong, for several reasons. This unit is flat out the best phono stage I have ever listened to, and granted I have not compared it to so many phono stages but the ones I did compare against it weren't exactly so much out of its price range, well except one of them. Initially I started with the Schiit Mani, was happy with the overall sound for some time but no matter what I did its apparent noise (when nothing is playing) combined with how often it would just pick stray EMI from somewhere annoyed me more and more as time passed. I'm a mostly MM guy so I'm scarred to think how much noisier the Mani is with MC carts. Coming from always using the built in phono preamp of various integrated amps to this external one having so much noise was certainly making me wonder what is the point of investing in an external phono stage when its performance is objectively worse in the noise department. The Mani I had also came with an upgraded linear PSU by Swagman labs, nevertheless I was not convinced of its performance so it wasn't long after that I moved on to the Cambridge Audio Duo, thanks to amir's review on this website. All issues I had with the Mani were instantly resolved, the Duo in comparison is whisper quiet and I have never heard a single stray noise from it, let alone listened to a local radio station through my stereo system. The Mani let me do that more than a few times...

In terms of sound quality the Duo was certainly a bit more mature and balanced, I guess the word will be neutral. What it lacked for me though was the dynamics of the Mani, in that regard the Mani was way more explosive and quick when the recording demanded it. Nevertheless I stayed with the Duo and after some time went through some turntable and cartridge upgrades, with those the Duo's performance was elevated to the point where it sounded much better than the Mani. Eventually I sold the Mani and life was good. Several months later I had come across a fantastic deal for an ex-demo Audio Note tonearm with pure silver cabling attached to the arm with no possibility of using different phono leads. The new tonearm was performing great with my then Nagaoka MP-110 cartridge. The Nagaoka is a moving iron type of design and you probably all know that capacitance does not affect those as much as the typical moving magnet design. Eventually I wanted to upgrade to something that performs better in terms of general tracking, IGD and sibilance, the MP-110 is not the best for that with its elliptical stylus profile. The cartridge I went for in the end is the VM95SH by Audio Technica, fantastic MM for a very competitive price. Miles ahead of the MP-110 in many regards but that's irrelevant right now. What is important is how sensitive MM carts by AT are to the total capacitance load. Very sensitive that is. The max recommend capacitance for the majority of AT's MM carts tends to be 200pF, the same applies for the VM95 series. After some extensive research and speaking directly with a representative of Audio Note UK I was informed that the captive tonearm leads are with total capacitance of 196pF, quite a large figure for a 1m cable but nothing I could do about that. I even purchased a capacitance meter to test that for myself and sure enough the same value appeared on the screen. The Cambridge Audio Duo preamp has a default input capacitance of 100pF and offers no way to adjust that, in fact the majority of cheap and mid-fi phono preamps are exactly the same. I have even seen some phono preamps costing in the thousands that lack this feature, I'll never know although its probably because those are mostly aimed at MC users, there capacitance load is basically irrelevant. While the VM95SH worked fine with Duo phono preamp the sound signature wasn't what I was expecting, I knew it could be better from what all the other users of this particular cart were reporting. That is when I was truly amazed at the lack of phono stages on the market that let you tune the capacitance load all the way down to 0pF, there's a few options by Pro-Ject, Simaudio and Musical Fidelity but overall the majority of models available start from 100pF (or more) as a baseline and there's nothing you can do about it. I kept looking and looking until I eventually saw the news about this Six Acoustic York phono preamp being released in the future, by complete accident also. On paper it had everything I needed, adjustability for all parameters, small form factor and seemingly good measured performance. It took me sometime to decide to order a unit as it was still early days back then and the product had just entered the market. There were no reviews of it whatsoever, unlike now. In the end I decided to go for it as the price was the same as what I had payed for the CA Duo and the seller assured me if things didn't work out I can always return it. They even gave me a discount code for being one of their first customers out of the UK. The unit arrived to me in just a few days and it was a long weekend for me so I immediately set it up on my system Friday evening after work. From the first second of me turning it on and listening to the speakers up close I knew this would be a better phono stage than what I've had before, if only in terms of noise. There was none of it that is. The Mani had a very strong "swoosh" sound in the speakers when nothing was playing and my ears were close up to the tweeter, the Cambridge Duo is much better but with the York there's basically nothing to be heard. I have to turn up the volume way past any safe listening levels to hear noise. From then I started listening and I think that was the first time I truly heard what the VM95SH is capable of. Up until then I always thought it has a slightly dark character, at least it was so with the Duo. But with the York phono preamp it truly came alive. The dynamics were in a completely different league, the whole sound was just tons more cohesive and felt 'real'. Without a hint of it being too analytical, boring or overly enriched. That good type of neutrality in sound so many search for. From then its just history, I use that phono preamp every day and have yet to find a single drawback to what it does. Not a single type of LP, genre or song has ever not sounded perfectly rendered with it. And I do listen to a rather wide array of music. For me it combines all the good things from the Schiit Mani and the Cambridge Audio Duo without any of their shortcomings. It is also the first phono preamp that has let me listen to records in less than perfect condition (groove noise, pops, ticks etc.) without any issues, before that the various bits of surface noise were always too much in my face and I had started to become a bit too OCD about always getting perfect records (something that basically doesn't exist) and have been in numerous arguments with Discogs seller about what VG+ and NM condition truly mean. This was the other thing that surprised me when the review mentioned that ticks and pops will exaggerated due to the measured low headroom of the York phono stage. Quite the opposite in my experience, the situation was far worse with the Mani for eg. About a year ago I went to a local hi-fi dealer to listen to the Rega Aria phono stage, they had a second hand unit in stock for a very attractive price. I also brought in my York so I can compare their sound directly with the dealer's system. Admittedly I expected much more from the Aria, especially considering its price when brand new is several times more than what the York sells for. It certainly was somewhat better with bass and had a bit of warmth to the midrange that many might be attracted to but when it comes to the upper midrange and treble it felt very closed in and and nowhere near as clear or detailed as the York. The decay of cymbal crashes just wasn't up to the same level that I was expecting. It was a rather surprising experience and overall the dealer agreed with my impressions. Since then I haven't really felt the need to look for more phono stages to upgrade. I might try out a Simaudio Moon 110LP

It's strange to look at a chart for SINAD placing my favourite phono stage towards the end when the Schiit Mani gets to be in 5th place, particularly when for my case they weren't even close to each other. I would pick the York 10/10 times over the Mani even in a blind A/B test. I don't know how much, if at all the measured performance of the York phono stage was affected by the low power supply it came with. All I wanted to say to anyone considering trying out the York in their system and stumbling on this review is definitely go for it. Put all the measured performance aside and give it the benefit of the doubt. I sure am glad I gave it a chance. Even if it measured with 40db SINAD I would still use it every day if it continues to sound as glorious as it does.
 

BadAudioAdvice

Active Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2021
Messages
110
Likes
167
Location
CAN / USA
The first thing I noticed and basically the main reason for my post is the power supply shown in one of your photos.

I was the one who sent the unit to Amir for review. I purchased the York direct from SixAcoustics and this was the power supply that came with it.

So in regards to the results, that is the product as sold, providing disappointing measured performance for a relatively expensive phono stage.
 

AudioSceptic

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
2,725
Likes
2,606
Location
Northampton, UK
I was the one who sent the unit to Amir for review. I purchased the York direct from SixAcoustics and this was the power supply that came with it.

So in regards to the results, that is the product as sold, providing disappointing measured performance for a relatively expensive phono stage.
Thanks for doing that. Were you surprised by the results? Another poster rates his very highly compared with, e.g., the CA Duo.
 

werk

New Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2022
Messages
2
Likes
1
Sorry about the extra long paragraphs, seems I can't edit my post anyway otherwise I would have tidied up things a bit.

I was the one who sent the unit to Amir for review. I purchased the York direct from SixAcoustics and this was the power supply that came with it.

So in regards to the results, that is the product as sold, providing disappointing measured performance for a relatively expensive phono stage.
I see, I wonder if at some point they changed what power supply they ship the unit with. I bought my unit in September 2020.

As for the measured performance I agree that it is a bit disappointing but then again IMO measurements only provide a part of the whole picture.
To my ears (and to several others) the real life performance of this unit is fantastic. It's certainly not the best phono stage ever made and I will probably upgrade it one day,
but the fact that I have not thought about doing that for almost 2 years now is indicative of how well it does what it was designed for.
 

cgallery

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Messages
126
Likes
90
There was some concern, after a review was posted somewhere, that the Six York was a knock-off of Jim Hagerman's work.


(Look in the comments.)

It seems that if that is the sound you're after, it would be less expensive to just purchase Mr. Hagerman's product.
 

Jim Hagerman

Member
Audio Company
Joined
Dec 14, 2022
Messages
44
Likes
58
Six York was a knock-off of Jim Hagerman's work

If you look at the York website, the photo of their inverse RIAA filter employs the exact same value components as the product I've been shipping for many years. Since he obviously copied that circuit (which is easy to do since I post schematics), it wasn't too hard to imagine he copied my phono circuitry as well. There appear to be no other products he "designed".

The evidence is clear to me. He (Steve) even applies goop in order to hide the deception! Also, test results showing high frequency peaking is actually intentional, caused by me placing a zero at 50kHz, somewhat compensating for cutting head rolloff (this improves phase response making instruments like a violin sound more natural). I cover this in my paper (1995?).


See for yourself...




comparison.jpg
 

cgallery

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Messages
126
Likes
90
But @Jim Hagerman aren't the components values for RIAA and reverse RIAA somewhat dictated by the standard? If you use different value caps and/or resistors, don't you end up with a different curve?
 
Last edited:

Jim Hagerman

Member
Audio Company
Joined
Dec 14, 2022
Messages
44
Likes
58
aren't the value of the components for RIAA and reverse RIAA somewhat dictated by the standard?

Absolutely NOT!

Only turnover frequencies. You can implement an RIAA curve in many ways using a variety of values and components and topologies. Some use inductors! Often equalization is done in a feedback loop. Mine is totally passive, an improvement to the original circuit (see the PDF I posted). The circuit he copied I had dialed in for a -40dB and -60dB response. Here's another one set to -30dB:

iriaa-30db.png
 
Last edited:

cgallery

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Messages
126
Likes
90
Right but passive RIAA is all the rage and I can count on one hand the number of manufacturers using inductors in place of resistors (cost). And so the turnover frequencies and slopes would be dictated by the RIAA standard, the values of the components by the impedance of the next stage?

Not trying to be argumentative (I actually own a Bugle 2) but it just seems like the standard + the chosen topology sort of dictate the values of the parts.
 

Jim Hagerman

Member
Audio Company
Joined
Dec 14, 2022
Messages
44
Likes
58
the values of the components by the impedance of the next stage?

Not exactly. Nothing is fixed in stone. There are an infinite number of solutions that fit the desired curve.

Personally, I start by selecting one of the capacitor values. It could be random, but I aim for something standard in value. Then I calculate the resistor values around that. You don't have to chose the same capacitor I do! There are hundreds of phonostage designs out there that use different values than I do. I also split the passive EQ into two separate sections. That is not necessary! You can do it in one.

Regarding the inverse RIAA circuit, as I showed above there is more than one solution. Depends on the attenuation you are aiming for. The original circuit from Lipshitz was at -44dB. I shifted it up to -40dB and added the 3.18us zero. A number of companies have copied my exact circuit and sold as their own, including York. Why don't they sell the Lipshitz instead?

FWIW - the best reason for passive EQ is how it handles overloads such as pops and tics. I believe the testing here uses steady-state sinewaves, but you really need to use an impulse instead. It makes a huge difference, especially with tube circuits. A tic through a passive EQ will just clip and then recover without delay. If the EQ is in feedback loop, what happens is that during the transient the circuit goes open loop, which causes a very audible slew distortion, plus a recovery time to get the loop closed again. That results in greatly exaggerating the tic. Better to clip and move on than to go bezerk and recover.
 

Ralf Stocker

Active Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
148
Likes
91
You don't really need to test a phono preamps. The distortion of a cartridge is 3 to 10%. The quality doesn't matter.
 
Top Bottom