Fisher X-100 tubed phono stage vs. Rega Brio-R SS phono stage

I recently recorded some comparative hi rez needledrops using the same LP, cartridge, and turntable, using both my '59 Fisher X-100 and a Rega Brio-R.

My observations:

Both are tonally closer than they are different. To my surprise, the Fisher has a bit more top end air, and bass is noticeably plumper. The midrange on both is about the same.

As expected, transients have more snap on the Rega, while the Fisher has a more laid-back presentation. The Fisher lacks some of the Rega’s absolute detail, but has richer bloom and more 3D imaging.

My conclusion:

Both phono stages provide excellent performance, and each has its own relative strengths. It certainly speaks highly of Fisher’s engineers that a nearly 60-year-old design can compete with a modern one! Ultimately, which is the better of the two depends on how much you value detail vs. bloom.

 

When I first got my 500c restored I had a Lehmann Black Cube I had been using with a B&K set up. At first I used the Lehmann through the Aux input because most people were so down on the Fisher's phonostage. I decided to do a comparison and petty much came to a similar conclusion. The Lehmann had more detail and a bit tighter low end but the Fisher really held it's own and in the end I preferred the bigger mid range and the little bit of extra lushness and body that the Fisher gave the sound. Ended up selling the Lehmann after a few months.

 

if u can chance upon a Graham Slee Reflex M, try it out. of the many SS phono preamps that i have used, this one ROCKs...

 

Interesting impressions. A lot of the old tube pres and integrateds and receivers generally and the Fishers in particular don't have great reputations for RIAA accuracy or low noise by contemporary standards, as @russk alludes to. I think of the Stereophile measurments of an 500C from a couple of years ago -- poor low frequency overload margin, poor RIAA accuracy with either a plumy lower midrange and/or a kind up upper midrange suckout, mediocre noise performance (a-weighted SNR of 60 dB at 1kHz, but only 46 dB unweighted across the whole frequency range). But of course with old gear that hasn't been rebuilt, you never really know if it's performing to spec.

 

The Fisher Kings article that compared three different Fisher tube receivers panned the phono stage. But if I recall correctly, the author of that article didn't appear to have recapped any of the three units. Parts values of capacitors or resistors could have drifted. I'd love for someone to bring a Fisher phono stage up to spec and post technical performance data. I have a Fisher 400 and the phono stage sounds a bit veiled with rolled off highs (but it hasn't been fully recapped).

One would think that Fisher would have included a top tier phono preamp given that vinyl was the dominant format of the day and they were targeting an upper tier demographic. In inflation adjusted dollars, the Fisher tube receivers and integrated amps probably cost $1500 - $3500 in today's dollars. Hard to see how Fisher could have gotten away with an underperforming phono stage if folks were paying that kind of money to own the product.

Some have said the phono stage can be improved with Russian K40Y-9 caps.

Another problem can be the 12ax7s in the phono stage. If those tubes aren't up to scratch, they can undercut the phono stage sound quality. Some also claim that tube rolling is essential for getting the most out of a Fisher phono stage.

 

Would using the Lounge Audio phono preamp with a Fisher 500b and 800b be a big upgrade?

 

I've said this before and people get excited but....I love my Fisher 400 but the phono can be easily best by an external. Compared to other internals it's as good or better but I always miss my external when I pull it from the amp. I'm not even talking about a super expensive one, my musical fidelity M1 beats it.

 

Yeah, there are so many factors at play when analyzing a vintage photo preamp... condition of the preamp, age of the components, types of replacement components, condition of the tubes, brand or type of tubes, phono cartridge, listener's preference, etc.

I really like the built-in phono preamps on my two Fishers (X-100 and 400). But then again, if they are out of spec they may have drifted towards a warmer and fatter sound that I tend to like.

 

The (tube era) Fisher phono preamp is a very good performer and its accuracy can be improved.

The Fisher Phono Preamp, and RIAA | Audiokarma Home Audio Stereo Discussion Forums

 

The noise floor through the aux and phono inputs dropped substantially once my unit was restored. I purchased it from a gentleman that was the original owner and he kept it in mint condition but didn't believe in restoring the old tube gear he had. He referred to it as "a museum piece from my own collection" it sounded ok when I first used it but it definitely lacked any definition in the bass and was fairly noisy. I got a great deal on it but he pulled the NOS tubes and kept them and stuffed it full of the repro Tung Sol tubes. I got it restored. It was instantly much quieter and the bass cleaned up substantially. Listened to it for awhile then stuffed it with all NOS tubes. The phono staged was hugely improved by a pair of Mullard Fisher branded tubes. Biggest difference came with dropping a pair of NOS Tung Sol in the phase inverter spots and the Mullards in the phono spots.

 

I didn't think that much of the phono on my 500c but when I recapped it, I put Russian paper in oil caps across the phono stage and then it became quite nice!

 

Well, the truth is, as a general rule, even the best of old tube phono stages won't meet the specs of new solid state phono stages in many areas other than maybe overload margin -- not in terms of noise, not in terms of distortion and often not in terms of RIAA accuracy. And, the RIAA curve may change with different tubes and as the phono stage tube ages. And of course, after 40, 50, 60 years, if the gear hasn't been given a complete overhaul and brought back up to spec, there's no way it's operating at spec. And, speaking of spec, while the old parts tend to be more durable than a lot of the new parts, new parts tend to be closer in tolerance than old parts, so even when those old receivers and stuff were new there might have been more variation from unit to unit off the factory floor than we're used to today. Sounds like, based on that Audiokarma link above, that the Fisher circuit can be brought up to excellent RIAA performance with some circuit tweaks, and it sounds from @action pact and @russk that it's a good sounding unit when operating at spec even without the circuit value tweaks. But it's also still tube phono stage in a receiver (which tends to be an internally noisy environment for a tube phono stage to be operating in), it's never gonna have the lowest possible noise and distortion in phono stages today, though it may have other virtues that people value -- I happen to be a fan of old tube gear so I get preferring it; but it's also true that not everything old is better than everything new. A Fisher 500 or x100 was almost certainly better in it's day maybe than a Sears Silvertone receiver, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's better than a contemporary circuit. I'm not saying it is or isn't. I don't have one of those old Fishers to listen to. It may be. I'm just saying, just because something was an good upmarket product 50 years ago, doesn't me it's going to best even lesser targeted modern stuff. It may. It may not.

 

Hear it for yourself... short 24/96 FLAC clips:

REGA
Dropbox - Rega.flac

FISHER
Dropbox - Fisher.flac

The LP I used is a rare exotica album from 1959; my apologies if this music isn't your cup of tea...

 

I've met Dave Gillespie in person, and he knows what he's talking about!

 

The comparison says as much about the Rega as it does the Fisher. Both good but can be improved on with an external.

 

That's the experience I've had with my 400 as well. Love the tuner and Aux input. But the phono input sounds wooly, slow and low rez. But in fairness, the phono stage hasn't been recapped or checked for part value drift. I've even tried using higher output moving magnet cartridges since the Fisher phono stage is not very sensitive, but it still sounds a bit underwhelming. I'll have to check out Dave's recommendations on how to improve it.

 

Dave Gillespie is the best!

Dave completely overhauled my Fisher KX100 last year. The improved phono section is outstanding... every bit the equal to my DB Systems DB-1a.

 

At what price point?

 

The Russian paper in oil caps is Russian collusion at its finest.

 

That that's no fake news!