EAR Yoshino Phonobox – Tubes that work! – A Review.

Let me just quickly get the correct title of this tube phono pre-amplifier out of the way. The name appears in various forms on the internet so I thought a quick check with HQ would be the answer. Strangely the product under review here does not appear on the EAR Yoshino website. I remembered I had a ‘snap’ of the EAR Phonobox at it’s release at Munich High End 2019. I then also remembered I had the instruction manual sitting on the desk beside me and the actual product in the listening room… Combining all of these data sources I guess we can be sure that indeed it is the ‘EAR Phonobox’, not the Phono Box, PhonoBox or any other variation of the basic concept of a box that amplifies a phono signal.

Of course the lack of updates on the EAR Yoshino website may well be due to being distracted by the sad passing of the creator of the company, Tim de Paravicini. Designer of this very product and possibly, the last product designed by Tim. In some ways the Phonobox is not a bad note to end on. It enjoys simple, straight to the point engineering and industrial design. It employs the minimum necessary components to perform the function required and these are incased in a ‘box’ just big enough for the job. The sound seemingly extracts the best tubes have to offer, whilst minimising the negatives that can come from using devices designed 100 years ago.

Even the normally complex, input-matching arrangements for a Moving Coil cartridge are forsaken. In this case, they are not required to the same degree as traditional active designs. The Phonobox uses matching transformers to obtain the increase in level required when using a very low output MC cartridge. Other aspects of the design, which have Tim’s signature style written all over them include; the choice of valve; the lack of fancy ‘audiophile’ brand components and for a small extra fee, a chrome front panel. In regard to the vacuum tube choice, the 13D16 (three of them) is not a tube ID that Googles successfully. It is, in effect, an ECC83 with a few tweaks and is made specifically for EAR Yoshino. Tim made it clear to myself (and anyone who would listen) that mucking around trying various different versions of a tube in one of his designs was not on. The amplifier has been designed to work with this tube and anything else will throw it out of whack (I’m paraphrasing, he would have said it somewhat more elegantly, and firmly). I guess using your own tube specification stymies the less adventurous ‘tube-rollers’. So all in all a very typical Tim de Paravicini design. Slightly quirky tube choice, coupled with a simple internal design and solid, last-forever construction.

The simplicity continues on the outside with just an output level control, power switch, a pair of inputs and a switch to choose between MM or MC. The apparent quality is high but certainly not some kind of hewn-from-solid swiss watch type of contraption. Just simple good quality construction that should last the better part of a lifetime. The volume control is the familiar and high quality, Alps Blue Velvet. The front panel is a solid hunk of metal, as is the volume knob. The switches and sockets are a notch or two up from basic spec. The substantial rubber feet will never fall off as they are firmly screwed on, and the casework is of decent thickness folded steel. The earth screw is easy to use and again, not the crappiest thing they could find in the parts bin. The more I look at this outwardly simple device the more I realise the amount of thought that has gone into it. I also note that many of these rather good quality parts are not often part of the spec of similarly priced phono stages.

This new phono pre-amp from Mr de Paravicini is of course not his first effort at a turntable signal amplifier. The 834 that went before came in a fancier box (more gold plated parts), and was of slightly more imposing proportions. The 834 sold for approximately $1000 more than the Phonobox. It had been around for 25 years give or take and had been improved along the way. It is a fine sounding pre amp and sold very well over the years. My guess is though, that it would have sold even better at the price point the Phonobox is now offered at. Anyway, at some point the design has been reverse-engineered or has escaped the walls of EAR Yoshino HQ. As a result, Tim felt a complete re think was in order. He did not disguise well his annoyance at the dodgy rip off versions of his early design being sold on eBay cheaply. A clean sheet of paper design was in order and here we are today listening to his completely revised version of his company’s entry level phono stage.

The sound!

I initially tried the VM530 MM cart already screwed to my older LP12 on the MM setting (of course) and sat back, enjoying the pleasantly detailed and snappy performance. Valve stodge or an uneven, coloured response was not apparent at all. In fact the sound was rich and clean without the slowness or lack of excitement that sometimes comes from tube amplifiers. Maybe not so much from low level phono pre-amps but nonetheless, I feel this ‘zip’ was not a feature of the EAR 834P. Memory tells me it was a smidge tailed-off in the top and for me a small notch too ‘warm’. The Phonobox is an altogether more interesting listen, to the degree that those who have doubted the value of tubes in a low level circuit like this should re-visit the possibilities.

I had a new Audio Technica OC9XEN on hand (which will be reviewed shortly) so I set about fitting it to the the Sondek and getting a taste of the Phonobox with the transformers ‘in-circuit’. My memory of the less expensive Audio Technicas with fixed magnets is of them offering a warmer balance than the more expensive versions. If this is the case then maybe the Phonobox in MC mode is the tinniest bit brighter than neutral but it won’t be much. Not that I am implying the frequency response is anything other than more or less dead flat (ignoring RIAA de emphasis). It’s more the nature of the way these tubes and their accompanying circuit ‘sound’. This is one fast and detailed tube circuit, no doubt. Hence it could be described as being a bees antenna brighter than neutral. However it really is just the amount of detail and pace, and I wasn’t expecting it. The 834 was marginally the other way I reckon. The bass is amazing, real snap, weight and poise. The stereo performance was somewhat holographic, and a very stable hologram at that.

Back to back, MM versus MC, I don’t think there is anything in it. The basic character of the amplifier remains the same. I listened to a record that presents a real challenge, Kerrie Biddel, Live at Studios 301, recorded circa the ‘dark ages’. Through the Phonobox, her voice shines and yet ever so sweetly which rarely happens listening to this album. Her voice can have an edge to it but not with this combination. The sax and flute on this album are very well recorded but again can sound a touch grainy. Thanks to the EAR’s ‘just-right’ character, these instruments now sound perfect and Graham Jesse’s skills can be fully enjoyed.

I chose to lift the stylus from the groove at this point as it was time to test the beer for this review. Before I ‘cracked-tubes’ I listened again, this time to silence. For a moving coil pre-amp employing vacuum tubes as active devices this amp is incredibly quiet. With the Linn’s motor still running and both volume controls dialed to max there is only a muddled blend of microscopic hum and noise. At a later time with the VM530 Audio Technica cartridge refitted, I note (in Moving Magnet mode) this pre-amp to be virtually dead quiet. This is quite a win really as one of my key reasons not to get excited about some tube phono stages is noise. Problem solved!

On another note, a fantastic reason to use tubes in a phono stage I think, is to be in an analogue synergy with the source. Actually, it’s nothing to do with analogue as transistors of course still operate as analogue devices in a class A circuit. What it is though, is a nostalgic synergy. It somehow seems right that the old world of black vinyl replay should be coupled with what was used at the time when LPs began. The valve! I highly recommend taking a listen to this pre-amplifier if a superior phono stage is on your shopping list.

• For – Elegant simple industrial design coupled with typical handcrafted UK build quality
• For – Plug and Play MC connection, no messing with loading settings etc.
• For – An almost perfectly neutral balance coupled with a good dose of valve friendliness, balanced by plenty of detail and pace
• For – Fast accurate bass and there is plenty of it.
• For – Very enjoyable and stable stereo imaging
• For – Handy output level control allowing you to perhaps even use it as a single input pre-amplifier (with just a power amp).
• For – Very good component quality throughout. This unit will last a long time.
• Against – Lack of MC adjustments will trouble some.
• Against – Not actually cheap, but when compared with other offerings at the price range it stands out as something quite different to marketing orientated, op amp stocked, mass produced boxes.
• Against – Runs quite warm. For maximum life I suggest switching it off between listening sessions. It only takes 15 minutes warm-up to sound at it’s best.
• Price – $2495
• Dimensions – 180mm Wide x 79mm High x 312mm Deep inc volume knob and earth terminal.
• Imported by – Audiofix
• Tested with Linn LP12 and AT VM530 and OC-9, Naim Star, Falcon LS3/5A

And the beer!

Slipstream IPA is an enjoyable enough beer. It pours with a bit of not particularly dense head that in turn quickly dissipates. There is little nose if any when you crack the can, and not much at all from the glass as you sip it. Colour is lighter than most, malt flavour lighter than most. A somewhat nasty aftertaste follows. As I said, an enjoyable enough beer but this is not in the class of other IPAs I have recently tried. Alcohol is nicely disguised which might be part of why it slips down easily but not with the satisfaction of say Helios Cyclops or Sea Legs Breakaway IPA. Unfortunately it’s just another IPA made locally to an okay standard. Cool name, I wanted to like it, but sorry it’s a solid 6.8 out of 10 for me. Oh and writing “Bright, Fruity, Aromas with Herbal Undertones blah blah blah” or “Hints of Bubblegum, Fruit Blossoms and Apricot” on the can doesn’t make it so. Yeah I bought a four pack but I’m not buying another. Less BS on the outside of the can and more effort with the process of making what’s inside the can would be a good plan. Sorry about the negativity, but I have a couple of crackers coming up in future reviews, I promise!