Of course, comparing two phono-stages – especially when one of them is as versatile and configurable as the P1 – is anything but a simple ABA process. For starters, the P1 offers a choice of current or voltage sensing inputs, both with adjustable gain while the latter raises the vexed question of loading too. For purposes of comparison I stuck to a single turntable and cartridge combination (ringing the changes later) the Kuzma Stabi M with 11” 4Point tonearm and the Lyra Etna Lambda SL. On The Groove, I settled for a loading value of 126Ω, but the P1, with its 2Ω steps (as opposed to the 14-18dB steps on the Groove) required considerably more tinkering to arrive at a preferred 120Ω setting for its voltage input. Gain was set to 65dB, (with +15dB used later on the current input). Meanwhile – at least for the purposes of this comparison – I’m sticking to straight RIAA EQ. With those details settled. It was time to listen…
Listening to The Groove it’s no surprise that the first thing that strikes you is its astonishing transparency and immediacy. As it ever was: The Tom Evans phono-stages have always given superb access to and placed you closer to the musicians than the competition. But in its latest guise, The Groove Plus SRX Mk. 2.5 – no prizes for elegant nomenclature – extends those qualities significantly. The sense of instrumental separation, substance, bandwidth and sheer transparency has taken a major step forward. More importantly, this is transparency that hasn’t been bought at the expense of instrumental colour, harmonic structure and presence, all of which have been improved too. Play the first movement of the Previn LSC/LSO Shostakovich Symphony No. 13 “Babi Yar” (EMI ASD 3911) and there’s no lack of substance to the orchestra, despite the sparseness of the score. The male voices of the London symphony Chorus are full of body, weight and power, while the solo bass (Dimiter Petkov) is an impressively tuneful, articulate and vibrant presence. But what really impresses beyond the separation and stability of the stage is The Groove’s ability to graduate dynamics and musical intensity, to scale the towering peaks of the final crescendo, with its explosive percussion, intense blasts from the brass and the density of the massed strings. It’s a dynamic tour de force that underpins both the bandwidth and the control of the phono-stage, as well as their contribution to the impact of the sudden dynamic response.
That dynamic control and ability to graduate tiny shifts in level makes for an intimacy and immediacy that few phono-stages can match. In my experience, only the Connoisseur 4.2 PLE can surpass The Groove in this specific regard. If you want to get up close and personal with the musicians, understand and appreciate their technique, then there’s nothing near its price that can challenge the Tom Evans design. The question is, how does this sense of focus and intimacy relate to the performance as a whole? To what extent does this connection on a note-to-note level come at the expense of phrase? Which is where the comparison to the P1 comes in. If the Connoisseur’s super-power is its ability to capture the sense of human agency in a performance, the character of the playing and the instrument being played, then the CH phono-stage excels in the holistic qualities in a performance: the shape of phrases and the way those phrases and separate instrumental contributions combine to (re)create a meaningful whole. And if you want to talk musical pattern and the temporal space within the music and between the notes, there are few better place to start than Bach. Argo ZRG 820 is one of those ‘archaeological’ exercises that so often surface in the Classical world. Collections of lost, completed or extrapolated works abound – with varying degrees of success… However, the premise behind this disc is on somewhat firmer ground. It is well-known (and there are plenty of examples) of pieces – his own or other people’s – that Bach re-worked for harpsichord and small orchestra, with one, two, three or even four keyboards taking the solo parts. But while the keyboard concerti are well documented, in many cases, the original ‘donor’ piece is lost. In this instance, Marriner and the ASMF seek to reverse engineer (or perhaps recompose?) the original source material for three of Bach’s keyboard pieces – the concertos BWV 1056 for solo harpsichord, BWV 1060 for two harpsichords and BWV 1064 for three harpsichords. These are re-made as a flute concerto, a concerto for violin and oboe and the one I’m going to use, a concerto for three violins.
