RECENT AUDIO NOTES

This section contains ALL the newest material before it is posted to the dedicated files. It will remain here for around six months. In this way, readers can find the latest observations, news, opinions and thoughts in the fastest time.

Caveat 1- Readers should always keep in mind that the material which is most recently posted is also, generally speaking, the least reliable. It is usually, though not always, my (or our) "first impressions". Sometimes it will be an "update", which of course is usually more reliable. In any event, I may further edit, quite liberally and without any notice or warning, anything you may read here.

Caveat 2- A good number of the posts below are by Anonymous Readers of this website. They are separated from my own posts (*******), and should never be considered my own personal evaluation, belief or recommendation. In many cases, I will add a "Personal Reply" to the reader's letter. If so, my contribution will be the only editorial part of that post that I take personal responsibility for.

I have made these letters public because I feel they may be interesting and informative to some readers. I also like an exchange of observations, evaluations and ideas, even when I disagree with some of them. However, readers must always consider the extent of the previous experiences of the anonymous writer. Serious thought should also be focused on the writer's actual objectivity and their sonic priorities. All of this background and perspective is obviously relevant and critical, and can be extremely difficult to evaluate within a short anecdotal observation. A continual scepticism in our audio world is a perspective that is difficult to argue with.

"I wish you had the personal time, money and resources to give as thorough review of your 'Recommended Class B and C components' as you have done w/ your Class A component changes. Having you do the comparisons of Class B and C components would definitely be fun to read."

When it comes to personally comparing and discussing audio components, I can only focus on what I’ve already had in my own system(s), or in my former store, or in systems I am/was very familiar with, or those I hear, in depth, sometime in the future. So readers will have to be content with what I’ve already posted about "Class B and C" components, and what others, particularly readers and associates, will relay to me about them in the future. Fortunately, both of these groups are coming to the rescue, but I can’t join them. I can only respond to their posted observations, if I can.

To be frank, I no longer have the time or interest for serious audio evaluations, other than those I make for my own system, and I only have one system. My one criteria for evaluating a component is whether it has a reasonable chance of replacing a current component in my system. I’ve reached an age (and point in my life) where I want to enjoy what I have, and even my current schedule is too busy. I can’t do more than I’m doing now, especially for nothing. I also have records to evaluate, plus some accessories, and I do have other serious interests in my life, besides music and audio.

I've now lived with the Pure Reference for more than a year and, with the exception of a few minor edits, I have not made any changes or additions to my lengthy review of this speaker. I've decided it's time to do so because there have been both a technical change in the way the speakers are used in my system and I also believe I have some important and edifying personal observations to share.

On the technical side, in the last year I have changed my speaker cables, 300B output tubes and the Jadis JP-80's volume controls. In each instance there was a noticeable improvement in the system's performance. However, the most important sonic improvement came when I began playing the Pure Reference full-range with the Coincident Frankenstein 300B amplifiers. In short, I removed both the Behringer Digital Crossover and the Coincident Dragon 211PP amplifiers from my system (along with all their associated cables).

I made this change with a considerable amount of trepidation, because not only would I lose 90% of the available power for the subwoofers, I would also now have to rely completely on my preamplifier's bass level and extension, which hadn't proved sufficient since it was gutted from six tubes to two tubes back in 1993 (consistent with my "minimalist audio philosophy"). Fortunately, my fears proved, so far, to be groundless...

As I wrote in August 2008, to my surprise, I've received outstanding results with the Frankenstein playing the Pure Reference full-range. Not only is the sound more cohesive, there is also more bass detail, a larger image, better focus and a lower sound-floor (with all the associated benefits). The overall improvement is such that I can't go back to biamping (using an electronic crossover). I'm even going to experiment with different turntable settings and cables because of the more revealing nature of the system.

Now I did help matters somewhat by increasing the input impedance of the amplifiers as well as the preamplifier's volume pots (from 250K to 500K). Any sonic problems? So far I have detected none with certainty*, but I believe there will be some ultra-demanding records (or CDs) that, at certain times, can challenge the Frankenstein beyond its capabilities (especially in my large room). This belief has been confirmed by Israel Blume, who designed both the amplifier and the speaker. However, 1% or so of my records don't trump the other 99%, and even those 1% will still sound better, most of the time, with the Frankenstein playing solo.

*I do have some "suspicions", which I want verified (or not) by some associates, who will be visiting me in February, before I discuss them. There will be a later update at that time.

Next, I would like to focus on my personal experiences. This is critical, because I believe the changes in both my perspective and actual behavior will prove more important to many readers than even a novel length description of the Pure Reference's performance. Here are the three major personal changes that have occurred within the last year, all of them caused by the addition of the Pure Reference to my system (though all the other components were obviously necessary as a foundation):

1. Playing Entire LP Sides- More than at any time in the past, I am listening to the entire record, including all of the cuts that I used to avoid. This change is particularly true with non-Classical records, where there are almost always some cuts that are just not that appealing. Now I feel an irresistible urge to hear everything, just like the first time I heard the LP, because everything I hear sounds more interesting than before.

2. "Goose bumps"- I've never experienced as many (literal) goose bumps in my audio life. It happens nearly every time I listen to my system, and, even better, it usually occurs multiple times. Goose bumps are a completely involuntary emotional reaction, which means this experience may be the most honest and sincere compliment an audiophile can ever give a component or a system.

3. A Decreased Interest in "Audio"- Frankly, I've definitely lost some interest in "audio", particularly audio components. While I'll always be an audiophile, I've finally found what I have been looking (listening) for during the last 40+ years. I do expect further refinements, since audio will never be static, but I have now reached a unique level of overall performance that I could only dream about in the past.

Future Plans- I still plan to bi-amp the Pure References with the Dragons, but this time going direct, and without the Behringer Digital Crossover. Based on prior listening sessions, I believe almost all of the sonic problems I (indirectly) heard, and described above, came from the Behringer (between its two digital/analog conversions and its solid-state analog stage). It may be possible to get "the best of all worlds", or at least the minimum possible amount of compromises, with the combination of the Frankenstein and Dragon (on the subwoofers), though it will obviously come with a monetary price.

I also want to make clear that while the Behringer, or any other electronic crossover, will no longer be used in my current system, they can still be useful, and even necessary, in other systems. It all depends on what is required: slopes, levels, equalization etc. In general, the more complex the requirements, the more likely an electronic crossover will be necessary. The Pure Reference's utter simplicity makes such a component not only unnecessary, but also the cause of a serious deterioration in its performance.

CAVEAT-Please be advised that the readers’ letters posted on this site are solely the opinion of that reader and may not necessarily represent or reflect the opinions of Arthur Salvatore or High-End Audio. These letters furthermore, are not to be taken as being endorsed by Arthur Salvatore or High-End Audio. They are posted because they may be edifying, thought provoking or entertaining.

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the January 2008 Readers Letters), are subsequently posted in their respective Reference Component Files: Amplifiers, Cartridges, Speakers etc. They can be found under "Readers Letters". If the reader's letter discussed more than one type of audio component, I will place that letter in the file of the component that was the most discussed.

Here's another reader's testimonial for the independent sources of Linn LP-12 upgrades. My bold:

"I'm an LP12 owner (a pair of them, in fact), and concur with readers who have written to you noting the improvement that the Cetech subchassis has wrought in this turntable's performance. I recently had this subchassis installed on my LP12, and also had a carbon fiber armboard from Cetech installed at the same time (Steve Millward is now producing "matching" armboards for a relatively modest price, though the benefit of the armboard modification is more cosmetic than sonic).

In conjunction with replacing the Valhalla power supply with the Hercules II power supply (sourced from Stamford Audio in the UK), the sound of my LP12 is meaningfully improved, with a decreased noise floor and a greater retrieval of detail, using the same arm (Ittok LVIII) and cartridge (Grado Reference Sonata). I have also ditched the stock felt mat in favor of a "Herbies" turntable mat, which has modestly improved the sound.

Compared to the very substantial prices charged by Linn for similar upgrades (particularly the Keel subchassis), I can recommend the Cetech subplatter and Hercules II as well-priced alternative upgrades."

This reader used a very different technique than I did when I optimized my Behringer crossover two years ago (which is no longer in my system). Here it is, with some minor editing and my bold:

"...I use the BEHRINGER DCX2496 ULTRADRIVE PRO DIGITAL CROSSOVER as an equalizer and crossover for my Dipole Woofers. My system is bi-amped with 12" and 10" cone woofers on narrow dipoles, and a dipole ribbon for the mids and highs. Prior to using the Behringer, I used a 1/3 octave analog electronic equalizer combined with a 18 db, discrete transistor electronic crossover on the woofers.

The signal to my mid/high ribbons does not pass through any of these devices. It goes directly to power amps, with the low end roll-off handled by a conventional passive crossover.

To set up the Behringer, I purchased sound measurement software called Fuzzmeasure. There are a number of other sound measurement programs available in different price brackets that can serve the same purpose. I chose the Fuzzmeasure because I found the graphic interface to be well designed. It is very easy to learn and the price seemed reasonable: Less than a good pair of interconnects.

To use the Fuzzmeasure, I placed a measurement microphone (flat from 80hz-8000hz minimum) on a tripod at ear level at my listening chair. The microphone plugs into a mike preamp, which is plugged into the line-in on my Powerbook G4. The Powerbook audio out is connected to my passive preamp and my stereo. At my direction, the software sends an audio sweep through my system and the microphone picks it up. The software processes the information from the microphone, and within a second or two I have a response curve on my screen.

For my initial measurement, I set everything on the Behringer to flat. As I expected, the resulting curve looked horrible (no bass and big hump from 150hz to 1000hz). The software stores each response curve and you can overlay the curves on top of each other. This makes it easy to see the changes as I made measurements of each parameter adjustment.

For my next measurement, I followed the general approach outlined on your website. I adjusted one parameter to a number that I thought might give me good results based on my prior experience. I have been experimenting with speaker design and crossovers since the early seventies and I had thought I knew what slopes and types of curves would give me the best result. I adjusted and measured, adjusted and measured. The resulting curves kept getting flatter and more even, but I had some peaks and dips that were not going away. I ended up trying at least 45-50 different combinations of settings. In my search for perfection, I even tried combinations that I was sure weren't going to work.

When I was finished the response curve was about as flat throughout the low midrange and upper bass as most people ever achieve in a typical listening room (my room is 20'x30'x10' high, with no special acoustic treatment)

Flat response don't automatically mean a speaker system will sound right, so I disconnected the computer and played some vinyl. Wow! It sounded great. My system has never sounded better. The lower bass is reproduced with ease, the soundstage is huge and the mid bass is the best I have ever heard in this room. The transition from the cone woofers to the ribbons isn't perfect, but on most material it's inaudible.

To add to my amazement, the final settings that I use are crossover and equalization slopes that I thought were invalid based on my past reading of crossover design texts and papers. Without the Fuzzmeasure, I would never have had the patience to evaluate all the different possible curves and phase adjustments that the Behringer can provide.

Without the Fuzzmeasure, or its equivalent, I would have missed the full potential of the Behringer."

Personal Notes- I used multiple listeners and recordings to optimize my Behringer. I was very happy with the results, but I am confident that I would have received even better performance if I had used this reader's technique. Even the most experienced listeners can miss something that the microphones will pick up. This reader has a huge and enviable listening room, despite his description of it as "typical".

"Fuzzmeasure is $150.00. It works with Mac computers. I use a Powerbook G4 (laptop) which is 3.5 years old now. It works flawlessly and fast. You can download a free trial version of the Fuzzmeasure from their website. I tried the free download before I purchased it because I thought it might be complicated to learn, and I wanted to have fun, not get a headache learning software.

At the bare minimum, you also need a microphone that is close to flat through out the range that interests you. Because measurements are made in the listening room, there are many peaks and dips caused by room acoustics. For that reason, I believe it is not necessary to have a extremely accurate calibrated mic. Although if you already have one, use it.

I am using a Panasonic mic capsule, mounted on a brass tube, in a design similar to what Linkwitz describes on his website. I believe the man who designed the Fuzzmeasure has some recommendations for inexpensive measurement microphones that are adequate for the Behringer set up technique that I use. Finally a microphone preamp is necessary. I use a DIY preamp using one IC. It has flat frequency response.

So, for the rank beginner, the cost would be maybe $100 for a manufactured measurement mike, $100 for a manufactured preamp and $150 for the software. Make your own preamp and mic with the Panasonic capsule and it is even cheaper. As we both know, it is very easy to spend this amount on a pair of interconnects."

This is the finest contact enhancer I've yet experienced, and one of my associates even purchased the "premium" version (I've only used the "ordinary" version). However, SST has one serious problem*; it hardens quickly (like cement), making it literally impossible to use after a few weeks. For some reason, I haven't seen this relevant issue discussed (let alone solved), but my associate has informed me of a working (and inexpensive) solution:

You only need a toothpick or equivalent to do the job in a minute or so. Put in one drop at a time until it's all loosened up. If it rehardens, then simply repeat the process.

*I've also been told that SST "deteriorates" over time (oxidation I assume), which means it must be eventually removed and then a fresh amount must be reapplied to the contact. At this time, I can't confirm or deny that this is a real problem.

This is the latest CD/SACD player evaluated by (3 of) my associates. They have a considerable amount of experience with digital sources, and have access to two highly revealing systems as "tools". There's some very minor editing on my part, plus my bold:

"This unit has the traditional Mac appearance (for better or worse), is nicely constructed and is reasonably priced at $3,300. A very nice feature is an analog volume control, both on the unit and on the remote, which means a direct connection to an amplifier works very well, as the player can output up to 6 volts. This particular unit was 2 years old, in excellent condition, and had hundreds of hours of play.

The 201 was only auditioned in the direct mode, without the use of a line stage. I had high hopes for this player, but within minutes of spinning the first SACD, they were all but dashed. The sound was dull, lack luster and grainy. Impact and dynamics were compressed and the bass was soft and lacking impact. The Mac also exhibited an upper midrange glare that become obtrusive on female vocals and brass instruments. The CD performance sounded virtually identical to SACD.

In short, the MCD 201 is a very mediocre player, that is bettered by many at its price point. Its SACD sound is so unexceptional, that it does not offer any substantive improvement over Redbook. This player is to be avoided, even at used prices of around $1,600."

CAVEAT-Please be advised that the readers' letters posted on this site are solely the opinion of that reader and may not necessarily represent or reflect the opinions of Arthur Salvatore or High-End Audio. These letters furthermore, are not to be taken as being endorsed by Arthur Salvatore or High-End Audio. They are posted because they may be edifying, thought provoking or entertaining.

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the August 2008 Readers Letters), are subsequently posted in their respective Reference Component Files: Amplifiers, Cartridges, Speakers etc. They can be found under "Readers Letters". If the reader's letter discussed more than one type of audio component, I will place that letter in the file of the component that was the most discussed.

A reader has sent me the original "data sheet" of the Shure M-65 (a PDF file). It has a description and the specifications of the (tube) phono stage, and it even includes a schematic (it reminds me of the simple Dynaco PAS circuit). If anyone is interested, I can forward it to them upon request.

I received a couple of interesting letters from Kavi Alexander, the producer of Water Lily Records (and CDs), a number of which can be found in The Supreme Recordings. Amongst other topics we discussed, he related some fascinating observations about components that are either legendary or virtually unknown (my bold):

"I was reading your comments on the Dynaco PAS 3 preamp used as a phono only device. In fact, I use this very set up, going out of the Tape Out into a Quad 44 pre amp!!! Yes, the Quad 44! As you well know, this preamp has some of the best filters and that great "tilt" feature. The combo works like a charm! Perhaps you can mention it on your site and this might help those on a budget get even better sound.

Should any of your readers be interested in getting a EQ into their systems for very little money, I strongly recommend the Technics SH 9010, which can be had on Ebay for $200 to $300, and is very transparent. It will do far, far more correction than the tilt and filter controls on the Quad 44. In fact, this unit, being a combination of parametric and graphic EQ, can be used to 'fix' the speaker/room interface beautifully. I have a unit plugged into the tape loop of my Quad 44, which in turn is fed by the phono section of a PAS II.

In the past, I have used two Dynaco PAS 3s, in dual mono configuration - one unit per channel and the results were fantastic! Great stereo separation! Well worth a try, as it is so cheap to get two PAS units."

Personal Notes- The Quad 44 does have excellent (and highly flexible) filters and "tilts", better than any preamplifier of my experience, and I've also had great success with the Dynaco PAS-3X phono stage, but the biggest news here is the dual Dynaco preamps...

I wish I had thought of this concept! Two totally separate phono stages and power supplies! Only one channel in each phono stage should be modified (better coupling and power supply caps and modern RCA females), and it's economical as well. Since there must be 100,000 of these PAS models still existing, this will be an easy project to execute, and just may be the finest phono "stage", for the money, in the history of audio. Just remember that both of the Dynaco models should be from the identical vintage!

Finally, this "dual phono stage" concept has me thinking... What other phono stages of the past, now "selling for peanuts", can also be used "dual mono", and with potentially great results? If anyone is experimenting along these lines, please let me/us know the results, for better or worse.

Further- I received another letter from Kavi which directly addressed the "other" preamp question. Some editing and my bold:

"As for the dual mono idea, in fact the first time I tried this approach, it was with two (Harmon Kardon) Citation 1 pre amps. Truly state-of-the-art!!! ...You could also play around with the various record playback EQ curves with the Citation 1 pre amp that currently seems to be the vogue, now that the "Wizards" (who should have known better!), have finally woken up to this much ignored fact!!!"

A helpful reader, after seeing my above post this month, sent me further information about the Walker Audio SST. Here it is with only minor editing:

"I saw your recent posting about Walker Audio SST and thought I could share some additional perspective. I've used SST and E-SST (the 'premum version') for over five years and have carefully listened carefully for the impact it has in my system. I fully agree with your comment that SST 'is the finest contact enhancer I've yet experienced'. I also switched to using the Extreme-SST, when it was introduced, after making several listening comparisons to both the original SST and to non-treated contacts. FWIW, I posted my comments on the Extreme-SST on Audiogon at the time: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ymisc&1101694286

Drying- Lloyd Walker designed SST to dry after it is applied to a connection in order to 1) prevent any migration to places you might not want it to go and 2) seal the contact area to limit oxidation of the contact surfaces. I have pulled apart tube pin connection that have been in place with SST for over three years and found absolutely no apparent oxidation.

Drying Out in the Container- Walker Audio addresses this on their web site under the heading 'IF PASTE GETS TOO THICK' stating: 'Over time, E-SST and SST will dry to a thick paste. This is by design so that it does not migrate. Use two or three drops of the supplied fluid. Add one drop at a time and stir with a wooden toothpick to achieve a consistency that is easy to work with. You can also use Canola oil available at most grocery stores.'

Current retail packages of SST now include a small vial of the liquid mentioned in the advice above. As an alternative, Lloyd recommend Canola oil over virgin olive oil, but I don't know why.

A further recommendation: KEEP THE CONTAINER WELL SEALED. I use black plastic electricians tape wrapped around the seam of the lid and jar to further minimize any air penetration into the storage jar; I've also put the container in the freezer during long periods of non-use (which I validated with Lloyd Walker as an acceptable approach that would have no downside risk to the efficacy of the SST).

Re-Treatment- The comment about degradation does not match my experience. Over all the time I've used SST, I've never been able to observe this. Because I don't routinely switch out gear, I frequently have connections that have not changed for months and, on a couple occasions, a year or more. When I've had the need to break these connections and then re-do them, I have never been able to tell that there has been an improvement in the sound. If there was deterioration over time, one would expect to hear an improvement upon re-treatment. I've never observed such an improvement -- the great sound is consistent and unchanged. Hope this is helpful."

Personal Notes- I am now somewhat behind the curve when it comes to SST, so I would carefully consider this reader's comments. Also, a couple of my associates have also informed me that the "Extreme" version of SST is superior to the original version which I am using.

Finally, I have now successfully used Canola Oil, just a few drops, on my dryed out SST.

This is the most recent CD Transport and DAC combination evaluated by (3 of) my associates. They have a considerable amount of experience with digital sources, and have access to two highly revealing systems as "tools". There's some very minor editing on my part, plus my bold:

"This is the latest incarnation of the top of the line MSB gear with superb build quality and the finest DACS, chips etc. The units are priced at $8,500 for the DAC (with volume controls) and $5,000 for the transport. The volume pots permit direct connection to an amplifier thereby obviating the requirement of a preamp.

I will not delve into all the algorithms and sampling rates available with the DAC (and there are many), as interested parties can explore this on their own. Suffice it to state, that the MSB combination is at the top of the heap in CD playback. Its flaws are minor, and of a subtractive nature, while its virtues are abundant. The MSB always sounds composed, refined and transparent without being veiled or dull. Its smoothness is a result of the player's lack of resonances and absence of any upper frequency aberrations. The combo will reveal pretty much all the musical information residing in those silver discs (sometimes gold) with very little editorializing.

The MSB's greatest sonic strength lies in its overall balance. The sound is very organized with great frequency uniformity. There is nothing about the sonics that is distracting or off putting. So, where does the pair not measure up to what the best digital has to offer? There are other players that are more explosive dynamically or have "ballsier" bass. That is not to suggest that the MSB is deficient in these areas. Rather, it suggests that other players are a little better in these performance parameters.

The main caution with the MSB duo revolves around the price and lack of SACD playback. $13,500 is a lot of cash for a CD player that, while it is in the upper echelon of performance, does not rise above it. Furthermore, once great SACD sound has been experienced, it leaves no doubt that it offers far greater resolution than Redbook."

Personal Note- The MSB's (relative) problem with its "price" is offset by its built-in preamplifier (with volume pots) plus its capability of future performance upgrades (which are inevitable with digital sources). However, its lack of SACD capability can not be finessed, and will be viewed by many as its fatal disadvantage.

A few of my most experienced associates have recently auditioned this model, and in-depth. Their standards, and the revealing system they used to evaluate this preamplifier, are at the highest level. Direct comparisons were even made with a modified original, and the most recent, ("Class A") Audion Quattro. I have not heard this unit myself. There is some minor editing and my bold:

"The Doge is built in China, but the quality of construction and parts used would put many North American components to shame. This preamp uses very high quality transformers, circuit boards, and resistors. The caps could be improved, as they are low end metallized polypropylenes, but they are pretty much to be expected in a unit at this price point ($ 1,199 US). The preamp weighs in excess of 30 lbs, and the cosmetics are very pleasing.

What features can you get in a well made $ 1,200 tube preamp? For starters: 4 -12AT7s in the line stage and 4- 12AX7s in the phono.* The volume is remote controllable. The Phono has MC capability as well as 2 settings for cartridge impedance. Outputs include RCA and XLR. It's hard to ask for much more.

The sound- Let's start with the line stage. Magnificent sums it up. This line stage will compete with any in models costing $ 5,000. It is that good. Not only is it highly transparent and pure, this thing kicks ass. The dynamics, the weight and impact are staggering. If your system is in need of an adrenaline boost, the Doge is the remedy. The Doge line stage makes listening to digital viscerally thrilling in a way a live concert does. Having the remote volume control is a treat, since so many CDs are mastered at varying output levels. It is nice to be able to adjust volume while you sit on your keester. If the Doge was only a line stage preamp, it would be a bargain at its selling price.

Phono- While the phono section of the Doge (both MM/MC) is very good, and certainly an overachiever at its price, it does not measure up to the stellar performance of the line stage. The sound on LPs, still in the league of competing $ 3,000-$ 4,000 units, exhibits audible flaws. The unit in MC (a combination of high gain JFETS, in addition to the 4 - 12AX7s) is a little noisy with low output MCs. It could and should be quieter.

More importantly, while vinyl reproduction is very clean, highly resolved and dynamic, with excellent reproduction of the frequency extremes, there is a slight thinning out of harmonics in the midrange. Voices are rendered a tad leaner than they should. A little more body is required. Additionally, the midbass could be more weighty and impactful.

I attribute the sonic anomalies to the transistors in the high gain MC stage. The Doge MC stage does take on a solid state quality. If preferences lie with good solid state sound, the Doge will definitely be satisfying. If your preferences include Conrad-Johnson or Joule Electra musical presentations (meaning soft, warm and forgiving), the Doge is not the unit to tickle your fancy.

A suggestion for those who are not transistor fans would be to obtain a high quality moving coil transformer and use it with the MM section of the Doge. That combination could be a killer.

Bottom Line- For $1,200, the Doge offers tremendous value. The quality of construction, variety of user features and most importantly, sonic performance is unavailable anywhere near its selling price. A great buy."

*To obtain the sonics described, the stock Chinese tubes must be upgraded to either NOS or reissued Mullards.

Personal Note- I was also informed by my associate that, sadly, the Doge 8 can not be modified (unless it is completely taken apart, which will take many, many hours of tedious, difficult and highly detailed work). A real shame.

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the September 2008 Readers Letters), are subsequently posted in their respective Reference Component Files: Amplifiers, Cartridges, Speakers etc. They can be found under "Readers Letters". If the reader's letter discussed more than one type of audio component, I will place that letter in the file of the component that was the most discussed.

"...This notion that the Dynavector XV-1s requires 2.7g or whatever is total nonsense...

First of all, if you track it that heavily (against the manufacturer's wishes by the way), you are surely pushing the coil out of the magnet system's linear range. So if you prefer nonlinear performance, by all means, knock yourself out, but you are not hearing the designer's intentions, nor are you hearing linear performance from the cartridge. Such advice to readers does them and the manufacturer a disservice.

But beyond that, by grotesquely increasing tracking force by more than a half a gram beyond the recommended maximum VTF, you are changing the SRA by a huge amount....by doing so and not changing the VTA to compensate for the SRA change to restore the VTA/SRA to what it was before you increased the VTF so that you could make some kind of informed comparison, is making a fool's comparison.

By claiming that the XV-1s sound better with the coil out of the gap's linear region (this according to the cartridge designer) and by not explaining that in order to know whether you're hearing the effect of increased VTF or the change in SRA made when you increase tracking force by that much, you indicate a lack of understanding of the entire process.

If you're going to suggest increasing tracking force well above the manufacturer's recommendation you need to explain that doing so will have a profound effect on SRA that should be compensated for in order that the listener compares one parameter change, and not two.

Finally, I will never recommend operating a piece of gear outside of the manufacturer's recommendations. It's very bad policy and exhibits a level of arrogance I find repulsive."

First, this reader ignores several (critical and posted) facts:

1. The higher tracking force is recommended only with VPI JMW tonearms (the longer 12.6 model in particular).
2. The improved sonic performance has now been consistently heard, and verified, over a 4 year period.
3. The improvement was independently observed by Harry Pearson (TAS), Harry Weisfeld (VPI) and my "Associate"*, each of whom has almost 40 years of experience (comparable, if not greater, than the reader).
4. In each instance, these highly experienced audiophiles routinely readjusted the other cartridge parameters, like the VTA, after changing the VTF. This mandatory procedure is so obvious, like rebiasing an amp with new output tubes, that it goes without saying. (Only audiophiles who are setup experts, or with access to experts, should own an XV-1s in the first place.)
5. During this entire 4 year period, there has been absolutely no deterioration in cartridge performance, in any of these systems, by the unexpected "coil gap", or anything else.

*My "associate" has, very recently, been using the Kuzma Airline Tonearm, and with the exact same XV-1s. Accordingly, he has had to conduct entirely new setup experiments. The results- He now uses 2.2 grams of VTF (instead of 2.7 grams), which is within the manufacturer's recommendation. This further proves that it is only the observed results that actually matter with the audiophiles I trust, and not common prejudice, blind faith, thoughtless assumptions and/or ignorance.

Finally, my perspective on this entire VTF issue, generally and specifically, is fundamentally different than this reader's:

"Disservice"?- I strongly believe it would be a much greater "disservice" if I had censored these important results and observations from my readers, simply, I assume, to satisfy a (overly sensitive?) manufacturer, who can't be expected to test all of their cartridges with every tonearm in existence.

In short- I don't believe that any manufacturer is omniscient, which is why I have performed (and recommended) "modifications" for 30 years. Some "mods" work and some don't work. Why? Because no one knows it all, in audio, or anything else in life. To claim otherwise, as does this reader, is true "arrogance".

"Repulsive"?- That is a powerful word. I'll save it for: Darfur, "honor killings", Taliban, Emmett Till, Kim Jong Il, female circumcision, Robert Mugabe et al. If I was forced, with a gun to my head, to make an audio analogy, then I'd advise reading The Stereophile Report. There you can observe the sad and pathetic results when loyal readers are sold out to "commercial interests".

A reader sent me his observations about a variety of components. The most important to me (because it was the most unexpected) was his direct comparison of the Lector CDP-7 with the Krell Standard. There's some minor editing and my bold:

"I read with interest your December 2008 update adding the Krell Standard to Class A (lower) Digital Sources. In order to put things in perspective, allow me to summarize my digital odyssey throughout the past few years. My vinyl collection consist of approximately 1,500 albums. In the recent years my CD (including some 100 to 150 SACDs) collection has grown to about 800 albums.

When CDs first came out I, like most audiophiles, did not take them seriously. I used a 5-CD unit to play the few CDs I owned. I certainly did not want to invest what I considered mega-bucks for the few "audiophile" units that started to sprout in the early days of digital.

When technology improved, and players started to become available at a more reasonable price, I took the plunge and purchased a Super Njoe Tjoeb. I still use this unit in my secondary system. It was certainly revelatory compared to the 5-CD gizmo I had been using. I felt then that digital was beginning to come of age, but still vinyl reigned supreme. I recall using the Sheffield Track Record, which I owned in both formats, to convince my non-audiophile friends that vinyl was far from dead. They were astonished to discover that the CDs they were buying were not PERFECT MUSIC as they had been led to believe by the music industry publicity machine.

When SACDs started coming out, I was interested in the industry's claims of wider dynamic range, improved bass, etc. However, my Njoe Tjoeb could not reproduce the SACD layer of hybrid SACDs. So I started to look for an SACD player. I found a Marantz SA-11S1 on Audiogon at a price I could afford. I could then play both CDs and SACDs on the one machine and relegated the other Marantz (Njoe Tjoeb) to the secondary system.

I then heard about the Oracle CD 2500 player and the rave reviews it received including your rating on your website. (I do not put too much value on 'rave' reviews in publications other than yours). I thought it better get good reviews for $9,000+. A dealer in a neighboring county advertized an Oracle CD 2500 on Audiogon. I contacted him and he offered to come to my home as he traveled to my town every couple of weeks. He would bring the 2500 for a comparative listening session. He was kind enough to spend some 3 to 4 hours with me as we listened to over 40 cuts from various CDs and SACDs. Depending on the cuts the Oracle was either clearly superior or slightly superior to my Marantz.

At the time, my system output end consisted of Atma-Spheres MA-1 amps driving the Soliloquys 6.5. Even though the Oracle won the contest, I was not prepared to pay the $7,000 for the used CD-only unit in spite of its sexy looks (I do not have to deal with WAF since I live alone). Qualitatively, it was not worth the difference to me. So I kept the Marantz SA-11S1. A little later, I acquired a pair of ASL Hurricanes on Audiogon to replace the A-S. I won't go into details as that is another story. Suffice it to say that I was happy with the change.

A local dealer was selling Lector equipment. Once, while at his home/store, he played some CDs on the CDP-7 and it sounded quite impressive. However, his system was quite different from mine and he agreed to let me try out the unit at my home. I did so for a few days and I was sold. The CDP-7 trounced the Marantz on both CD and SACD sources, even though the Marantz should have had an edge on the SACDs. I ordered a brand-new CDP-7, and it is now my main digital source. I kept the Marantz to play the odd non-hybrid SACD that would not play on the Lector.

Recently, by sheer chance, I had the opportunity to purchase used replacements for my amps and speakers. I am now the happy owner of a pair of Coincident Pure References, driven by a pair of Frankensteins MkII. I thought I had died and gone to heaven after I got the system set up. The Lector sounded even better on digital sources than it did before.

Now we come to the pertinent part. Your and your associates' evaluation of the Krell SACD Standard and its ranking in Class A aroused my attention. Like you, I had never thought much of the Krell line. Nevertheless, since it was ranked just below the Oracle which I had heard and it outclassed (de-listed) the Marantz SA-7S SACD machine (the SA-11s1's big brother), I was intrigued. So intrigued that I recently purchased a used Krell Standard MKIII SACD machine on Audiogon, and I just finished a head-to-head listening session. It clearly outclassed my Marantz SA-11S1. But the kicker is that, after listening to 46 cuts from various CDs on the Lector and on the Krell, the winner is...the Lector! I won't go into the details of my scoring method (subjective as they all are) but the Lector scored 207 and the Krell 170.

The bottom line is that you and your associates should give the Lector a try. Unfortunately, the price went up since I purchased mine due, I think, in great part to a distributorship change. However it is still less expensive (under $6,000 brand new) than the Oracle 2500 and the ARC Ref CD7 ($9,000+ brand new). Some people on some forums have found the Lector "dark-sounding". They are certainly entitled to their opinion, but it is not mine. Maybe they should look at their system's synergy."

This is the first letter from a reader (or anyone else I know of) whom is not impressed with the Cetech upgrade of the Linn Sondek LP-12 turntable. I felt this alternative perspective should be shared with other Linn enthusiasts. There's some minor editing and my bold:

"Thought I'd send in my experience with the Cetech up grade. I have a Linn LP12 with custom maple plinth & arm board, Origin Live motor, Basic plus tonearm, Cardas phono cable, Benz Glider cartridge, Lukaschek phono amp and all tube gear.

Compared to the stock sub chassis, the Cetech made the bass tighter, the music was slightly faster and overall quite a bit brighter. My wife thought it was so bright that she asked me to turn it off after about 30 sec. We tried a variety of music. Neither one of us liked the sound. I removed the Cetech. If you want to punch up the sound, then the Cetech should be considered. But I found it made enough of a change that I don't recommend it to be a general up grade that every Linn owner should make.

I decided to experiment with the stock steel sub chassis before re-installing it. I made a marine ply insert that was pressed into the sub chassis. I also used through bolts when attaching the maple arm board to the sub chassis. What we noticed was the music was slightly muted (for lack of a better word). This could be a result of getting rid of the sub chassis ringing. The sound stage was also bigger. These were slight, but noticeable changes.

While I was waiting for the Cetech to arrive, I installed a maple arm board to the stock steel sub-chassis. I noticed the background instruments were slightly louder and the music was livelier. A modest change.

An economical up grade could be to apply a spray-on undercoating to the stock steel sub-chassis to deaden the ringing. Just my ...02cents"

A veteran reader sent me this overview and detailed instructions on speaker positioning, which I felt should be shared. So, with his permission, here it is. I will make some personal comments on this critically important topic in the near future. There's some very minor editing and my bold:

Master Set is a systematic procedure of setting up speakers that creates a stable music image that is the same from any seat in the listening room and eliminates inter-speaker distortion and the resulting listening fatigue from this distortion. In performing the setup procedure, one also mitigates the bass resonances of the listening room

Master Set is an outgrowth of seminars held by John Hunter, owner of Sumiko Importers, for his dealers in order to better set up the speakers in the Sumiko dealer showrooms. It has remained pretty much an in-house procedure for the Sumiko dealers, with no published information of any kind, other than a few internet forum postings.

After RMAF 2008 I made a longish post in The Lab about Master Set. Since that time I have made some revisions to my initial procedures, and hence am making a new, and shorter, write up. It will be in 2 parts; an overview here, and then the procedural steps on The Lab.

I first heard speakers set up with Master Set at RMAF 2007. I was quite impressed by the sound, which was the same at any seat in the listening room, as well as the clean natural sound of the music, especially vocals. At RMAF 2008 I revisited Master Set and learned enough information about the procedure to be able to do a DIY of Master Set on my own system in my own listening room.

Master Set is based on the idea of the placement relationship of the two speakers with each other in regards to sound pressure level from each speaker into the listening room. The idea is to "anchor" one speaker on one side of the listening room, and then to match the other speaker's sound pressure level with that of the "anchor".

The music will sound the same from any seat in the listening room, to the right of the right speaker, to the left of the left speaker, in the middle, or anywhere else in the room. This is not really subjective as it is very easy to hear. The elimination of "inter-speaker distortion", I'm using this term for lack of a better one, results in music that will sound quite clean and natural, especially vocals. This is always a bit subjective, as everyone tends to think their system sounds this way. But with Master Set, all the veils and distortions just seem to disappear. It's easy to hear. I have heard Master Set in 2 quite different music systems - a very expensive system at RMAF with Rowland Class D amplification and Vienna Acoustics Die Musik speaker, and my own very modest system with a 60 watt Class A/B Aspen Lifeforce amplifier and Osborn Titan Reference speakers - with similar overall results.

Master Set is not based on the usual parameters of speaker placement, distance from speaker to listening position or distance from a room boundary; nor is it based on random placement and room correction. With Master Set, the first parameter above is rendered irrelevant, there is little need for any room treatment at all, though every room and situation is different.

The best part of Master Set is that it is virtually free. It merely requires a setup song and your time. Even if you do not understand anything I have written, or fail to believe any of it, it will cost you virtually nothing in order to try it. It's worth a go! And then you can evaluate the results. Lastly, words simply do not describe the improvement to the sound of a music system from setting up the speakers with Master Set.!!!!!

The only items needed to perform Master Set are your ears, a setup recording, a tape .measure, and a small level. Master Set can be performed by one or two persons.

You can find this song on Jennifer Warnes - Famous Blue Raincoat, 20th Anniversary Edition, or Rob Wasserman - Duets, or Trios This song works because of its simplicity and the steadiness of the voice line and the bass line, especially the bass line. Other recordings could be used provided that they have a simple steady bass line that is easy to hear. I've found the above song to work best.

Remove any bass traps and other room treatments that you may have in the room and turn off the subwoofer, if you have one. Set the speakers against the rear wall, and perpendicular to it. Speakers should be as far apart as reasonable. Important considerations are to keep speakers 2 to 3 feet away from side walls, and for the listener to be at the point of an equilateral triangle with the speakers. You can measure the dimensions with a tape measure or just make them approximate.

NOTE: Master Set works best if done along the long wall of the listening room, as that best mitigates room reflections, however it can be done along the short wall if necessary. For the first DIY attempt, try and use the long wall. Because the speakers will be physically moved, it is best to remove any speaker spikes at this time so as to facilitate moving the speaker or stand. I have found it helpful to use a tape measure laid out perpendicular from the wall when making the speaker movements. The movements need to be kept small and the best way to do this is with the tape measure as a reference otherwise the movements tend to be too large.

Be Patient. Master Set will likely take you from 1 to 3 hours. The movements are small, and at first go it may be a bit hard to hear the differences that I have described. But just keep at it. You can email me if you have questions or difficulty in the procedures.

This step sets one of the speakers as an "anchor" in the room. Either speaker will do. This step also has the goal of finding the smoothest bass response in the room.
First, just listen to the song, and notice the strong steady bass line in the first 2 verses. There are 19 notes in each verse, though the 2nd verse does have some extra 8th notes added. Listen carefully and notice that some of the bass notes have a "plonky" and/or exaggerated sound character. In this step you will be searching for the spot that will smooth out this "plonky" character of the note as it resonates in the room.

With both speakers playing, move the speaker out from wall about 6 inches and toe in the speaker directly to the listening position. Notice as the sound moves from being centered to this side. Continue to move the speaker out in small increments, ½" or so, until the sound is totally from this one speaker. Mark, or make note, of this spot.

Now, continue to move this speaker out from the wall in very small increments, 1/8th" or 2-3mm., and listen to the first 2 verses of the song. You are listening for any difference in the bass response of the 19 notes. Continue these small movements until you find a slight lessening in the bass resonance character. There may be more than one spot where this can occur. However, for keeping this simple, just find the first spot that smoothes out the bass. You may wish to make another very very small movement or two from this spot to find the very best spot.

Note: if you are having trouble discerning any difference in the bass with both speakers playing, you may wish to disconnect the speaker set against the wall temporarily, in order to better hear any bass differences. However it's best to keep both speakers playing. If you move the one speaker out too far into the room the sound will reconnect with the speaker against the wall, and move back to the center. You do not want this to occur. It is important to find the best bass in the zone where all sound comes from just the one speaker. That will keep this setting independent from the other speaker when you move the other speaker out into the matching position!

Once the smoothest bass response has been found you can set this speaker into a "final" position and level it. This speaker is now "anchored", and will not be moved again during the procedure.

This step will move the other speaker into place and be adjusted to match the sound pressure of the "anchor" speaker. Move the speaker out from the wall about 6 inches, toeing the speaker directly in to the listening position. Now begin moving the speaker out at very small increments, no more than 1/8th in. or 2-3 mm. at a time, and only listen to the bass line. Continue to move the speaker out at these small increments until you hear a lessening of the bass resonances. Once you find a lessening in the bass make a small movement or two of 1/16th in, or 1-2 mm. and listen for the best response. You will also tend to notice that all of the music tends to smooth out and become much more clean and clear sounding as the two speakers equalize.
NOTE: You may be able to feel the bass resonance in your feet. This makes finding the best bass spot quite easy as the resonance will disappear in your feet.

You have now found the placement spot where the speakers are equally pressurizing the room. This is what you are looking for, and essentially you are done with Master Set.

Step 3: You can tweak the midrange setting at this point by varying the toe in of the speaker by toeing out in 1/16th increments. My own experience is that I have never found any real difference in midrange sound from this procedure. Also, you can raise the front of the speaker a couple of degrees. This is known as adjusting the rake angle, and I have found this to be a good effect. Set the speaker permanently and level it.

Now, move to several positions in the room and listen. Notice if the sound stays the same in any location. If there is some movement of the sound as you move around the room, you will have to reposition the second speaker slightly. If you've done Master Set correctly, the sound will be the same from any listening position in the room as long as you are out a couple feet from a wall. The music will only change in perspective, such as if you move around in a concert venue. In my current listening room my favored seat is on a perpendicular axis with the right speaker, yet the music is perfectly centered between the two speakers.

The sound you obtain with Master Set should have a perfect left-right stereo image with very clean clear instrumental and vocal sounds. Listen first to your most favorite songs and recordings and notice how they now sound. If you have any room treatments or bass traps, you may return them to the room at this time, and note any if there is any change. Turn the subwoofer back on. You may have to turn it down slightly or reposition it as you will likely hear some bass resonance from the sub. I just turned mine down a bit.

If you are pleased with the sound, then you have found something new.
If not, you can always return to your previous setup, having only spent some time and nothing else.

As I promised, a helpful reader has provided his extensive experiences with modifications of the two best Klipsch speakers. Here it is, with some minor editing and my bold:

"I am a 28 year plus owner of Klipsch LaScala's. (Crossover to be moved into a set of Klipschorns.) I have spent over 6+ months getting the right parts to make the Klipsch sound right again. The original Klipsch used a no plastic foil in oil capacitor.

I started with Sonicap Gen I's, Mundorf Supreme's, Mundorf Silver in Oil caps and Duelund VSF. When first putting in the Sonicaps, it struck me how the speakers changed in sound completely. They did not sound like Klipsch horn loaded speakers. I always thought horn speakers were a either love or hate them, but with the plastic caps they sounded like any other speaker?

Next, I put in the Mundorf Supreme; Much better than the constrained dynamics of the Sonicaps. Of course, they were much larger. All the time, I kept one speaker original. I started to notice an odd thing: You could not listen to both speakers, at the same time, when the plastic caps were installed in one. Almost like they were out of phase?

Next, I installed a Duelund VSF cap, that at the time was rated best in the world by Tony Gee and Tempo Electric. I was still using the vintage foil midrange cap for this test, as I did not have a Duelund midrange cap. One thing that struck me is I could now listen to both speakers. There was not the out of phase problem. Both the vintage and Duelund were foil caps. I was so impressed with the Duelund, I bought a set of CAST (yet untested by Tony or Tempo) caps for the tweeters.

1. Duelund CAST- They make the #2 in the world, Duelund VSF, sound noisy by comparison. The CAST are rated #1 in the world, and in my opinion Tony does not do a good job stating just how much better they are.

2. Duelund VSF- These should be declared 'official replacement' for the vintage foil in oil caps in Klipsch speakers. Klipsch owners you will be blown away! The speakers will sound the same, but wayyyy less noise.

3. Mundorf Supreme- They are rough and crude by comparison to either Duelund's, and made things sound like plastic. This I could never live with, meaning plastic, but their dynamics are much better than Sonicaps.

4. Mundorf Supreme Silver in Oil- They sound similar to the Supreme, but tend to tilt the sound upward and end up not sounding as balanced as the Supreme.

5. Vintage Aerovox foil in oil- These came with the speakers. Wayyyyy too much noise. They have better dynamics than the Sonicaps, but with a trade off of much more noise.

6. Sonicaps- This may be a toss up to some people over the vintage; The trade off of less noise for less dynamics. I suspect many who have replaced the originals to these have like the noise reduction. I consider this a downgrade to the original caps. You get less noise, but lose what made the speakers so good in the first place: Realness.

1. Duelund VSF- An improvement over the vintage foil in oil in the midrange. They resonate less than vintage, but the improvement is not even close to the improvement you get in the tweeter caps. Duelund tweeter caps are slam dunk money in the bank improvements over vintage. The shortfall of these speakers is the CRUDE original foil in oil tweeter caps.

2. Aerovox vintage foil in oil- It's surprising the vintage foil in oil sounds quite good in the midrange, for as lousy as the vintage is in the tweeter section, they are 2nd best to the Duelund in the midrange. They sound like real people and instruments.

3. Mundorf Supreme- The dynamics are around the same as the vintage, or Duelund, but leaves an unmistakable plastic sound.

4. Sonicaps- Dynamics are lacking and they are much smaller. Sound compressed and dead.

Best bang for the buck is, by far, replacing the vintage tweeter cap. To keep the "real sound", you need to go to a foil cap, and I can imagine no better than the #2 rated in the world: Duelund VSF. The Duelund CAST is MUCH quieter then even the VSF, but comes at price some may not be willing to pay. But make no mistake; The CAST are MUCH quieter, and who would have thought this at this level of capacitor.

I am a 28 year owner of these speakers, so I am very familiar as to how they sound. I can say they have NEVER sounded anywhere near as good as they do now. They sound so good, I have sold one of my systems as it was not even worth listening too.

Pre-amps
Linn Kairn (2003 latest version)
Fisher x101d (and various other Fisher tube amps)

Speakers
Klipsch LaScala's (1980), when done, they had 1 CAST tweeter cap and 1 VSF tweeter cap. Midrange cap was Duelund VSF. The crossover will be going into a set of Klipschorns. If money is no object, I would get the CAST tweeter caps (but I already owned the VSF).

Speakers compared to were Linn 5140's. All Linn gear, except sources, now sold. Two systems were used through test time for months.

The Duelund's made the biggest improvement with vintage tube gear and not as much with SS. If you follow Steen's writing's, using no plastic is crucial. Mixing foil and plastic caps is not good, and I would never have plastic caps again!

The best cheap upgrade is to stick with as much parts as Paul Klipsch designed himself. Use the vintage foil in oil caps in the midrange and Duelund VSF for the tweeter caps. HUGE improvement for not much $. As money comes along, upgrade the midrange and to CAST, if one desires, for the tweeters.

I would love to hear your opinion on where the Klipsch will rank after these upgrades, but I can assure it is MASSIVE! I have talked to the owner of Duelund, and he thinks of their caps as improved vintage, which is what they are and the improvement is huge!

I plan to upgrade to a vintage amp with Duelund coupling caps in the future. Should the Klipschorn be ranked back at #1? I do not know, but I can say the Duelund improvement is as big as going from SS to tubes was for me."

This is the very first phono stage to ever receive a Class A Reference designation in the entire history of this website. We first heard this unit many years ago, but not at its best and not with a system with the high resolution available to us today. Once again, a group of my associates have made this particular evaluation. I was not part of this group. Their assessment below was written by the most literate of the group. It has some minor editing and my bold:

"This unit was used straight into a pair of mono amplifiers, which have the finest discrete resistor volume pots. The IO was loaded at 74 ohms and full out 80 db gain. The cartridge used was a Dynavector DV-1s. The loading options are many and varied, and will accommodate virtually any cartridge and system. That is the good news. The not so good is the absolute necessity of obtaining 4 very low noise 12AX7s for the high gain section. The user will also need 8 more 12AX7s of superb sonic quality, but somewhat less critical with regard to noise. Additional tubes such as a pair of good 6SN7s and two 6DJ8s will also be required. Since the IO is a very high gain, all tube phono stage, even with the lowest noise tubes, it will never be as quiet as SS or a low gain tube preamp mated to a step up transformer.

Once the appropriate tubes are installed, the magic starts to happen. Outside of the Audion Quattro*, this is the finest overall phono stage I have had the pleasure of auditioning. It does everything incredibly well. From the macro performance (wide dynamics, deep, articulated bass, impactful midbass with instrumental attack that can startle and excite) to the micro with its magnificent rendering of subtle harmonics and low level detail, the IO is at the top of its game in every area.

Other preamps, such as the highly regarded Manley Steelhead**, sound compressed and not fully fleshed out by comparison. The IO reveals the Manley's transistor contribution to the sound, to wit, dry and grainy versus the liquidity and purity of the IO. The Steelhead, furthermore, sounds wimpy, as if your amplifier has had its power output cut in half. The only areas in which the Manley is superior are its user features, flexibility and lower noise (due to the use of Jfets and a step-up transformer), but the sonic penalty paid is severe. Be forewarned, the superiority of the IO (and the Audion Quattro) to the Steelhead is very evident, even on short audition (all the glowing reviews of the Steelhead in the audio press notwithstanding).

The IO is not quite the equal to the aforementioned Audion with regard to extracting the finest of subtle details from a recording and being tonally as neutral. No other phono stage in my acquaintance combines the overall strengths and relatively few flaws of the Aesthetix. It should be mentioned that it does require volume pots to be used straight into an amplifier, if the amp is not so equipped. Aesthetix does offer the unit with mono volume pots but the cost is steep ($2,500). Additionally, if a digital source is being used, in addition to phono, a line stage or passive preamp will be necessary.

The price of the IO is very reasonable given its superb construction, and a used IO in good condition can be a true bargain. The IO described in this review is the original, non Signature model, with a single power supply. This unit can be substantially upgraded, with the substitution of the stock REL, polypropylene coupling caps, to Teflon film and foil*** (which constitutes part of the Signature**** version). The cost will be high (from $ 1,000 to about $1,800), as there are 20 caps to change. There is no doubt that the sonic upside would be quite noticeable.

To these ears, the Audion Quattro and the Aesthetix IO represent the finest of phono stages currently auditioned. Be prepared for tube rolling and maintenance with both of them, and try not to let the higher noise levels become bothersome, because once the stylus hits the groove, the reward is unmatched sonic glory."

*The Audion Quattro is a full preamplifier, so it is not also included in the dedicated Phono Stage File. However, the Quattro, along with the Jadis JP-80 (highly modified), are still the two reference standards that we use to judge separate phono stages. While no dedicated phono stage has fully matched them yet in overall performance, the Aesthetix IO has come close enough to enter Class A (Lower).

**The Manley Steelhead, despite its noticeable faults described above, is still in Class B (Lower). It was previously in "Upper".

***We may purchase the 20 high quality Teflon caps and install them at a later time (which will mainly mimic the Signature). If so, we'll report back then with the results.

****The "Signature" has two power supplies, plus the better parts. It's obviously going to outperform the model we heard. It's very possible that this unit deserves to be in Class A "Upper", but that's speculation on our part at this time.

Addendum- I've received two highly contrasting responses from readers concerning the above article. One audiophile not only confirmed our report, he also added that the Signature version is indeed a noticeable step up in performance over the standard model. He is very satisfied with his Aesthetix. However, another reader had serious reliability problems with his model, and ended up with a custom-made phono stage, which he is also very satisfied with (based on his description, it should be a "killer").

The Benchmark was recently evaluated by (3 of) my associates. As can be seen above, and in its dedicated file, this particular group has a considerable amount of experience with digital sources. They also have access to two highly revealing systems as "tools". I have no personal experience with this component. This report was, once again, written by the most literate of the group. There's some very minor editing on my part, plus my bold:

"The Benchmark DAC has received ubiquitous coverage in the audio press. The reviews range from calling it a 'breakthrough' product, that competes and exceeds the performance of the most expensive DACs, to it being classified as among the finest, and, at its reasonable selling price, thereby constitutes a huge bargain. The latest from Benchmark, the DAC PRE 1, is the unit being reviewed here. It has all the latest op amp upgrades, has a built-in preamp to control other digital sources and includes a USB input so it can be connected directly to a computer or music server. The unit was reviewed using a 20 year old Phillips CD player, the Electrocompaniet UP 24/192 EMC, Marantz SA 7 S1 and an Audio Request Fusion Music Server, all as transports.

When connected to the old, inexpensive Phillips CD player, the overall sound was surprisingly good. I would rate it the equivalent of a $2,000 single box CD player. It actually outperformed the Electrocompaniet/Benchmark tandem, which sounded very poor. There seemed to be an electrical incompatibility mating these 2 units. The Electro sounded far superior on its own. This was not the case when the Benchmark was hooked up to the SA 7 (latest version), as this combo outperformed the stand alone Marantz. The combination of the SA7/Benchmark had marginally more purity and slightly better dynamic impact than the Phillips used as a transport, but when the price difference is factored into the equation, it simply did not justify the cost.

The best sound was achieved when the Audio Request was connected to the Benchmark. It easily surpassed the performance of all the other combinations. It sounded superb in all the audiophile categories while exhibiting very few obvious shortcomings. The flexibility afforded the Audio Request made it an attractive option. It burns CDs within 3 minutes in FLAC and WAV file formats, which make the burned CD indistinguishable from the original. Playback from the unit's hard drive definitely was more transparent than when the disc itself was used. While I did not have the opportunity to listen to the Audio Request with any other DACs, I had the nagging feeling that its ultimate performance capabilities were being held back by the DAC PRE 1, because with all the combinations tested, a pervasive sonic signature was evident. I had to conclude that this 'signature' was the 'contribution' being made by the Benchmark.

Compared to 'ultimate' units (which will be the subject of upcoming reviews*), the Benchmark DAC PRE 1 is not fully fleshed out in the midrange. While it is pure and transparent, it is not harmonically complete. Its errors are those of omission rather than commission, which makes the Benchmark easy to listen to. The low frequencies are extended, but lack the full measure of weight and impact. Further, during complex, dynamic peaks, the upper midrange gets a tad bright and edgy with the upper range of female voices, for example, tending to thin out. There is also, a slight softening of initial hard transients. Certain percussive instruments, vigorous acoustic guitar strumming for example, have their intensity curtailed, as well as softened, and the transients become somewhat blurred.

While the overall presentation is mostly neutral and uncolored, there is a lack of refinement to the mids and highs that are endemic to the best players. All the flaws mentioned above are relatively subtle and require a high resolution system to discern. In more modest systems, the Benchmark represents excellent value and I can appreciate why it as been so successful.

Where would the DAC PRE 1 really be valuable? For those audiophiles who still have an old, essentially worthless CD player, with a digital-out connection, so that the Benchmark could be used as a DAC. If the preamp function is not necessary, the purchase of the DAC 1 at $500 less (about $1,000 retail), would then cause this combination to be classified as a great bargain, though its performance is still far from competitive to the best available DACs."

*Personal Note- These "ultimate" reviews are a work-in-process. They are currently scheduled to be posted in two parts: May and June 2009.

As an audiophile, I greatly enjoy speculating about how certain components, or even just theoretical designs, will actually perform in real life. In fact, this is how (and why) I've chosen to purchase many specific components during my audio career. Of course, it's only really interesting to speculate if, and when, there's something truly different about the component, and in a manner that is important and/or intriguing.

Then there's the ultimate speculative dream; finding a component that actually satisfies your personal "audio fantasy". This brings us to the Apogee Acoustics Definitive Speaker. The Definitive is the speaker I brought up in the lengthy review of the Coincident Pure Reference. This is what I wrote, more than a year ago, about the Definitive in the Pure Reference review (in the "Sonic Comparisons" section):

Finally, there is the "dream speaker" I've mentioned in the past, but have never seen (even in pictures), let alone actually heard. Maybe it's just a rumor, but I want to be as complete as possible in this essay, so it must be mentioned. I'm referring to the new Apogee, "built" in Australia, and based on the Original Apogee (the 1980's speaker with so much potential, and yet so frustrating, because of its almost impossible load). However, this new company has claimed that they have totally solved the loading problem. In fact, they even claim their new version has 100 dB sensitivity! This is obviously the most extreme change imaginable; going from being almost impossible to drive, to even a SET amplifier being able to drive it! Is it real?

I don't know. Frankly, "it sounds too good to be true", but if it is, and everything else about the new version is the same (or better) than the Original Apogee, than I can't think of another speaker that could equal its performance, including the PR. It would possess, in theory, a combination of speed, purity, cohesiveness, neutrality, impact, immediacy, dynamic range, extension, image size and completeness that would be unprecedented. Unfortunately, this ("Super") Apogee is supposed to cost $ 100,000 a pair, but even then, for the first time in my life, I would finally agree that a component costing that much was actually worth it. For now though, the Pure Reference is the closest equivalent I know to this theoretical "super speaker", including the easy drive capability.

Well, now I know that this "super speaker" actually exists. It is designed and manufactured by an Australian company with no relation to the original U.S. based Apogee. Furthermore, just below is a direct link to a website with some pictures of them, and a short discussion of their performance with low-power tube amplifiers. (Don't be disturbed by the speakers having two colors. This was the choice of the owner: black and white piano keys!).

Further, I still stand by everything I wrote above about this speaker. In fact, I'm prepared to stick my neck out even further. How? If I was forced to wager (serious money) on which speaker was "the greatest of all-time", assuming the "winner" could actually be proven, objectively and subjectively, I would, without hesitation, choose the Definitive. Since this choice could reasonably be considered "questionable", I believe it deserves an explanation (because as I wrote above, I've never even seen, let alone heard, this speaker).

I would choose the Definitive based on all of my (and my associates) numerous experiences with the Original Full-Range Apogee, plus the specifications and anecdotal results with the new model. For example, the new model is 260 KG (or 572 lbs) each! The original Apogee, itself the heaviest speaker in its time, was around 300 lbs. Here is a short description of the Definitive from the designer:

"Definitives are chunks of steel, 3D machined with a high powered laser, to form a field focused and field mapped magnetic system for high powered magnets for the bass, and high intensity magnets and field focused midrange and tweeter pods. The MR/TWs are slightly horn loaded. The speakers are faced in Corian for aesthetics only. Weight is 260 kg per speaker. Estimated at 100db efficiency, 4 ohms, 120+db power. Response 20-40,000 Hz."

When considering the outstanding, unprecedented performance of the Original Apogee, one can only imagine the results when utilizing improved magnets and ribbons, much greater weight and much more precise machining. Add to this the much easier load, and far higher efficiency. This will, in turn, allow far more (and superior) amplifiers to be used with them, even including the finest SET models. Further, their high sensitivity should enable the user to bypass the system's active linestage, which is another serious sonic advantage. In short...

The overall performance of the Definitive should be mind boggling, with noticeable improvements over the original in virtually every area; purity, neutrality, speed, sound-floor, dynamic shifts, (both) frequency extremes etc. Amazingly, these areas were the actual strong points of the original speaker. However, based on what I've read so far, I don't believe that anyone, including the designer, has actually heard these speakers even close to their best (an "all-out" phono front-end, plus (4) Coincident Frankenstein and (2) Dragon amplifiers in a tri-amped configuration).

The bottom line for me- I believe the Definitives should have more sonic potential than any speaker ever made. In other words, I feel it should have fewer sonic problems (or compromises) than any other speaker ever made. However, there are a number of practical hurdles for a prospective purchaser:

1. The direct cost is $ 105,000 (which includes a "DEQX PDC2.6 Preamp/active crossover and room correction unit"). They are made to order, with a wide color choice, and there is a 4 to 5 month lead time. There is no "wholesale" price as far as I know. Also, don't forget the shipping costs from Australia to North America.

2. There is not even one pair of Definitives in North America, so it's either a "vacation" to Australia, or a real "leap of faith".

3. The Definitives must be tri-amped. There is no passive crossover available at this time. (My own unsurprising amplifier choices are listed above.)

4. I have serious reservations about the DEQX's sonic performance, despite its reputation and flexibility. I consider it the "weakest link" of this speaker system. If it was my choice, I would remove the DEQX from the purchase, and, with the designer's recommended specifications, have someone with talent, like Tom Tutay, build me an all-out, customized electronic crossover, using tubes and teflon coupling capacitors (or get a three-way Marchand tube crossover and seriously modify it).

At present, I can only dream and speculate about this speaker, but I'm still incredibly excited that it even exists in real life. I can't say that about any other speaker I've either heard, or know of, at any price. My main hope now is to hear it one day, at its best, and, if something unimaginable happens to my finances, maybe even purchase a pair. For those who are not so financially constrained, and/or are interested in learning more about this speaker (or its smaller brother, the $ 32,000, 2.5 ohm Synergy, the new Scintilla), then below is a link to the manufacturer's website. The designer, Graeme Keet, is both very talented and very modest.

*This company also repairs and upgrades the earlier (U.S.) Apogee models.

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the October 2008 Readers Letters), are subsequently posted in their respective Reference Component Files: Amplifiers, Cartridges, Speakers etc. They can be found under "Readers Letters". If the reader's letter discussed more than one type of audio component, I will place that letter in the file of the component that was the most discussed.

This letter is from another reader who really likes speakers using the PHY drivers. He appears to have extensive experience with other famous horn speakers. Here it is, with some minor editing and my bold:

"For a long time, I could sit contentedly agreeing with the comments about Avantgarde Duos, while enjoying mine. But one thing I found is that I never sat for too long listening to them. Of course, this could have just been my age-related inattention? But I wondered if it was also the subconscious reaction to the phase problems of the 3 units, registering as not QUITE real to my brain? Plus the fact that the speaker does need a bit more space than my 18 x 13 x 7 foot room* to really play.

I've since moved on to Ocellia Calliope .21 Silver Grandis, which uses an 8 inch PHY unit, plus tweeter coming in high. Suddenly, I don't miss the Duos at all. Glorious imaging and detail. The musicality of the PHY unit is wonderfully beguiling, yet not short of all the things I thought I might miss from the Duos (dynamics, impact etc).

The unit is based on old technology, but done with skill. The cabinet is thin walled Baltic birch ply, made like a violin that releases the energy quickly - almost open baffle - and the sound is unhindered by padding as it is undamped. Running from a Leben push/pull valve amp, it would certainly meet your SET requirements AND satisfy emotionally. I can't see I'd ever need another speaker (I owned Klipschorns for 25 years too). The other feature of Ocellia/PHY is the MDI concept of avoiding plastic like the plague. I am about to try their wire; Silver, cotton wrapped (the speaker itself is silver coil, mdi wire). The MDI effect is a discovery in the French Electrical Company that plastic sets off noise in cables....that I can't fully elaborate on here. There's a bit on their website on it of course.

Ocellia also use a 12 inch co-ax unit in their bigger .30 speaker, same principle. A pleasure to sit back and not worry about speakers again!"

*Personal Note- Based on my own experiences, I believe it would be extremely difficult to optimize the Duos in this size room. The 7' ceiling height, in particular, is a real handicap.

I just received a letter from a reader with observations that truly surprised me. Here is the relevant part, with some editing and my bold:

"I thought I would try the (Frankensteins)... (After some disappointing results) I thought I would have a quick listen to them with my Magneplanar 1.6 speakers, out of curiosity.

I could not even imagine how a set of 9 watt amplifiers could sound good with 86db speakers. However, I was shocked* by the outcome. It is hard to describe the improvement. However, my music now sounds so natural and wonderful, that I am buying the amplifiers and will run them with the Maggies for the interim..."

*So am I. I would have never advised using these amplifiers on any Magneplanar until this letter.

Personal Notes- I had no idea that the Frankenstein amplifier could be this versatile. My best guess is that the flat 4 ohm impedance of the Magneplanar is an easy load for the Frankenstein. At that point, it is just a matter of whether the top volume levels are adequate for the listener. For many audiophiles, this should not be a problem.

This happy result is also excellent news for the owners of other speakers with flat impedance loads (4 ohms or higher). How "excellent" can only be appreciated by those audiophiles who have actually heard the Frankenstein amplifiers at their considerable best.

This modification is from a reader I haven't been in contact with until now. I have no idea whether it will work or not, so I am making a formal request for some form of verification. There's above average editing below, since the reader is inexperienced with English, and my bold:

"I want to recommend a tweak...It consists of a little filter choke of 640 henry, also called a grid choke, which substitutes for the input or output resistor to ground (if the existing value is between 50k to 100k ohms) on any equipment (both solid state and tube). Please note that phono pre-amps usually have a 50k ohm* resistor in the first triode grid to ground. However, I also use them on the input of my Tripath Class-T amplifier with great success, along with my Jolida tube buffer output. The previous section of the triode voltage gain is bypassed, as you do in your Jadis preamplifier.

It is sold (in pairs) on Ebay as a Buy-it-now. It comes from Taiwan. (Search "640H".) They cost $ 50 plus $ 20 shipping."

Personal Notes- Maybe this is more common than I thought, but I still would prefer some verification. Placing a choke to ground is similar to placing a capacitor in series, meaning the low bass will be rolled off, while the remainder of the frequencies are (theoretically) not effected. (The size of the choke will effect the frequency where the roll off begins.)

So, for a phono stage, this would reduce the low frequency artifacts (rumble etc), with the decided advantage that no passive part is directly in the signal path (which always produces some noticeable sonic problems). Further, some speaker crossover designers now use a choke to ground, instead of the typical capacitor in series, to roll off the tweeter. There may even be a patent for this.

I rarely receive letters like this, though I am obviously fully aware that many other "Linnies" feel the same way about me as this reader (if not even worse). Still, I'm posting this "criticism" to both expose the "thinking" of this hyper-sensitive "club", and to also allow me to make a direct response.

Please excuse me for mainly repeating what I've already written at length about the Linn Sondek many years ago. There's only so much new you can say about a now washed-up turntable design and its bizarre following. I realize that some people will be offended by what I write below. That is not my intent, but it's my basic nature to be direct and substantive, in spite of the consequences. There's been no editing to this letter, but it's my bold:

"Clearly, you have never heard a fully current LP 12 (2nd generation Lingo power supply; Cirkus bearings; Trampolin suspension; Keel sub-chassis; Ekos tonearm and Akiva cartridge). If you had, you would hardly call this obsolete. I can afford any turntable in the world, and I have heard several that cost double or more than a fully current LP12. And I choose the Linn hands-down for its neutrality, accuracy and musicality.

I have to wonder about the construction of your ego, that you get so much apparent satisfaction from your contrarian, if insufficiently informed, viewpoints. I can see you are a man who never lets the facts get in the way of his beliefs."

First, let's get the Ekos and Akiva out of the way, so we can then focus on what is really important; the Linn Sondek Turntable and some larger related issues.

I don't doubt that the Akiva and Ekos are the best cartridge and tonearm that Linn has ever made, because they have a proven track record of improving their components over time. However, I rarely (if ever) find either component being used on any of the countless other turntables. That is the only critical test of their relative performance, and both components fail this simple test. In short, if either component had truly outstanding performance, audiophiles would be using them on a wide variety of turntables. They don't, period, even though they're very well-known, widely discussed, well-reviewed, easily purchased in many stores and their selling prices, while very expensive, aren't that much more than most of their competitors also claiming to be among "the best available".

Based on the letter above, an objective person would never guess that the Linn Sondek has long been listed as a "Reference Turntable" on this website. In fact, I consider a used Linn one of the best turntable values around. So, where then does all the blatant hostility from this reader come from? Well, the Linn is placed in the "Class C" references, while there are other turntables that are in the higher "Class A" and "Class B". That may appear to be a superficiality, but to a Linnie, anything other than completely agreeing with their Eternal Mantra ("The Linn Sondek is the best turntable in the world, and will be forever"), is considered serious "fightin' words".

I'll freely admit that it's possible that the Linn actually was "the best turntable in the world", though only for a short period in the 1970's. However, even that (now irrelevant) assumption is seriously disputed by all of the growing adherents of the vintage idler-wheel designs (which now even include Art Dudley* of Stereophile, once the "King of the Linnies"), with examples such as the Thorens TD-124, Lenco and Garrard 301. More to the point, even if you totally ignore the idlers, everything changed for the Linn, and all for the worst, between 25 and 30 years ago.

In short order, the introductions of the Goldmund Studio, the Oracle and the Townsend Rock turntables made the Linn design obsolete. I used that exact word back in the early 1980's (along with many other objective audiophiles, who could see and hear the obvious reality), and I still stand by it today. Those three turntables, as a group, had radically different, and noticeably superior, platters, suspension/isolation systems, bearings, clamping systems, bases and far less resonant parts.

History has proved us correct in our assessment. How? Virtually every serious turntable designed since that time, and especially those made today, has been an evolutionary step from those "Big Three" mentioned above (or the even older idler-wheels). Meanwhile, not even one serious turntable model made today is using the basic Linn design as a template, except, of course, Linn themselves. In short, if the Linn design is/was right, everyone else is/has been wrong (for 30 years). (Take a guess what this reader believes?)

On a more subjective note, history also records that, one by one, serious, phono-oriented audiophiles, who actually made real comparisons, and made the effort to understand what a turntable was supposed to do (and not do), realized that the Linn was far too compromised to be competitive with the newest designs. This all happened despite the introduction of the most brilliant marketing campaign in audio history ("follow the tune" etc), which was created by someone who was aware of, and cynically took advantage of, the well-known insecurities, naivete and ignorance of most audiophiles. (If this reader had even a gram of human empathy, he would realize that I'm sickened by the thought of Linn's actions, and I receive absolutely no "satisfaction" from thinking and/or writing about it.)

*Dudley was heavily criticized for this component change. This is how Dudley replied, in a Stereophile column (February 2009): Hey, fellas—it's just record players and speakers and stuff, okay? It's not a love tryst or a suicide pact or a tree house with passwords and secret handshake. Yes, I parted with an audio component that you're besotted with, and I moved on to something else: Get over it. Stop taking your amps and your speakers and your fat selves so damn seriously and lighten up a little...

Yes, it's true, I haven't heard it. Frankly, I have no interest in hearing it at this time, because all the "upgrades", despite their exorbitant costs, don't remove the unsolvable and serious problems with the basic design. (The platter, the mat, the base, the LP interface, the subplatter, the inferior suspension/isolation system, the motor, the basic materials, the construction quality etc.) Every good modern design, which use totally different and now proven approaches, demonstrates the noticeable problems with the Linn. In effect, the current Linn is like a highly updated Honda Accord competing with Formula One racing cars. One example of their half-way measures: Linn makes a big deal, and charges a fortune, for their Lingo (2nd generation!), while any good flywheel will make a more noticeable improvement.

I also don't dispute that this reader sincerely prefers the Linn "hands down to several that cost double or more". I can't account for (or understand) taste, or even someone's listening ability. Some people prefer boom boxes and/or i pods to high quality sound systems. Amazingly, some listeners actually believed that the old hand-cranked phonographs, from the 1920's, were completely indistinguishable from live orchestras! (Some of my Italian cousins, as children, preferred Chef Boyardee ravioli to those that were homemade by my Italian Grandmother.) Ironically, it must be noted that a number of serious Linn Sondek fans still prefer the much earlier models, from the Late 1970's to the middle 1980's, to those made today. In short- without a comprehensive, mutual understanding, someone's preferences mean nothing.

As for his detailed "reasons", I won't discuss "musicality" (which I consider a meaningless, if not a weasel, word), but I completely dispute this reader's claim of the Linn's superior "accuracy and neutrality". The reality is this: The Linn's basic design, and the "quality" of its parts, simply won't allow it to be as neutral or accurate as most of the (numerous) competing turntable models. His claims contradict the laws of physics and acoustics, which always matter, however forcefully (and desperately) you want to believe otherwise, and that's a "fact". In "fact", of all the truly outstanding audio systems I've heard in my life, almost all of them with a turntable as the primary source, not even one of them used a Linn Sondek.

To be specific, and provide context, I'm convinced that a 25 year old Goldmund Studio, in good working condition, using hockey and Sorbothane pucks to replace all three springs, would easily outperform any Linn Sondek made today, no matter what upgrades are installed on it. This is an easy call, because the Goldmund's platter, plinth, suspension, base and clamping system are so far superior to the Linn, that any advantage it has becomes sonically inconsequential by comparison.

It's pretty obvious that this reader, with his various insults, arrogant assumptions and contemptuous tone, really dislikes me. Why? He takes my criticism of the Linn Sondek's performance personally. That's his problem. He apparently now has a "relationship" with the Linn (an inanimate collection of parts), and he's insulted that I'm not as impressed with those same parts as he is. Worse, he's totally convinced himself that it's my "ego construction", and the desire to be a "contrarian", which are the only and true reasons for my criticisms. Accordingly, using basic logic, this means, that from this reader's viewpoint, the Linn is beyond any real criticism. So, in effect, it's "perfect" (until Linn makes an "update"!). It's from such an extreme perspective that cults are born.

The fact that I've personally owned a Linn, twice actually, is ignored by this reader, along with the fact that there are many tens of thousands of other audiophiles who have also happily moved on to superior models, just like me (and now even Art Dudley), for 3 decades now. I must assume that he assumes that we're all egomaniacs, contrarians or just hopelessly ignorant. In fact, of my many audiophile friends who were Linn owners decades ago, every single one of them has moved on, and with no regrets. We recognized the Linn as just another "tool", like all other turntables and components, and all tools are bettered over time. This is in stark contrast with those sad individuals who see the Linn Sondek as an object of worship.

Of course, it's obvious that this reader's personal attacks are indisputable signs of a deep insecurity (about audio matters). He's not alone in this, and not only "Linnies" share this affliction, but their irrational, cult-like devotion to this component makes it much more noticeable. This is why, for many years, they couldn't even recognize an obvious improvement, like the Cetech subchassis, until Linn came out with their own version, the grossly overpriced Keel. Why? As psuedo-fundamentalists, they believe that any confirmed improvement, from someone other than Linn, must mean that the designer made a mistake. This admission would then throw doubt on the entire design (and designer), which they consider uniquely infallible. Like religious fundamentalists, there are no gray areas allowed, only black and white.

Frankly, Linn hasn't been on the cutting-edge of phono reproduction for decades now, and I seriously doubt they ever will be again. This is because they don't have to, based on the lack of critical thinking, and the simple requirements, of their typical customers. My advice is to enjoy the turntable, as I did, for all the reasons that made it popular, like its good performance and reliability, but ignore all the BS.

Finally, I'm really surprised that Linn has overlooked a great opportunity to make some big (and easy) money. I just can't help wondering when will Linn eventually come out with cables that sell for $ 20,000 or more? I believe that more than any other audio company in the world, Linn already has the ideal customer base to market such cables: The "True Believers", just like this reader (who "can afford any turntable").

As I promised in April, this is the first of the two "ultimate" reviews (the second review will be posted in June). Once again, (3 of) my associates were involved in the listening sessions. The two high performance systems were also the same, as was the writer, for the sake of continuity. I was not included in these listening sessions. There's some minor editing and my bold:

"Let's cut right to the chase and proclaim that every other CD or SACD player, that sells for $5,000- $10,000, no longer has any validity to be in existence. For those who are budgeting $5K for a player, it is highly recommended you stretch your budget (or buy one used), and for those willing to spend up to $10,000, save your money and buy a X03 SE. The Esoteric is not only better constructed and designed than any other sub $10,000 digital player, it SOUNDS superior.

Its performance on Redbook is as stellar as it is on SACD. There are no convenience, quality or sonic compromises with this machine relative to the competition. All the players reviewed on this site are now dinosaurs, driven to extinction by this magnificent component. Say goodbye to the MSB, the ARC CD7, and yes, even our beloved Oracle 2500 MK II. All the over $5,000 units, previously evaluated, are seriously outclassed by the X03 SE, both sonically and in terms of build quality. There is no reason to purchase any other SACD player that sells for anything close to the X03 SE's price.

The Esoteric takes all the sonic strengths of the Oracle, CD 7 and Krell SACD and combines them into one superb package. All the positive attributes of the Oracle (superb balance, midrange realism, overall transparency ) and the ARC (huge soundstage, exciting rendering of initial transients) and the Krell (wide dynamics, deep, impactful bass) are amalgamated by the Esoteric to produce the finest digital reproducer selling for under $10,000. The only area where another player, in the aforementioned list, still manages a slight level of superiority over the Esoteric, is the Oracle in the midrange, where its reproduction exhibits a tad more complete rendering of harmonics.

The Esoteric, if it was only a Redbook player, would still be the unit to buy compared to the ones previously reviewed. However, its SACD reproduction seriously elevates the level of performance obtainable in the digital realm. For the first time, analog devotees will be able to listen to full orchestra, massed strings, complex acoustic instruments and, get this, enjoy it.

No, it is not analog, but what the X03 SE does for the first time, is allow analog lovers to gain a measure of musical satisfaction while listening to those little silver (and gold) discs. SACD's inherent superiority, over Redbook, is readily observable with the Esoteric, and this superiority is not simply an "audiophile" improvement. It literally is the difference between certain types of music (i.e orchestral) being essentially unlistenable, to becoming enjoyable. This, my friends, marks a monumental achievement. For vinyl adherents, a new world of musical delight is now unfolding before your ears. Hard to fathom, but it is now a reality - digital reproduction has become rewarding on its own terms.

While the X03 SE is a breakthrough component at its price point, there is room for sonic improvement. There is another player (that will be the subject of a later review in June) that demonstrates that quite noticeably. However, that advance does come at a financial price and it is not unsubstantial. For now, simply think of the X03 SE as an instrument that will alter the common perception of what is possible in digital reproduction. It will provide musical enjoyment, while listening to CD/SCADs, that was previously unobtainable at this price level. The Esoteric renders all previous digital efforts selling for under $10,000 obsolete. They are thusly being removed from the components list. At this time, the X03 SE is the only digital component in Class A."

Personal Note- Due to the game-changing results above, there will now have to be a complete revision of The Digital Source References (the last big revision was in December 2008). The updated Digital References will be posted in June 2009.

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the November 2008 Readers Letters), are subsequently posted in their respective Reference Component Files: Amplifiers, Cartridges, Speakers etc. They can be found under "Readers Letters". If the reader's letter discussed more than one type of audio component, I will place that letter in the file of the component that was the most discussed.

As I promised in April, this is the second of the two "ultimate" reviews. Once again, (3 of) my associates (plus others) were involved in the listening sessions. The writer was also the same, for the sake of continuity. I was not included in these listening sessions. There's an important personal note at the end of this review, summarizing where we are now. I've made some minor editing and my bold:

"Digital audio reproduction has proven to be especially frustrating for me and many others weened on the finest analogue. Inspite of what has been claimed, CD performance has fallen well short of the naturalness afforded by vinyl, and no matter how convenient its many user features, digital has ultimately sounded amusical, especially when it came to reproducing complex groups of acoustic instruments. There simply is not enough bits of information available in the limited accepted standard that has been adopted for Redbook.

Consequently, any demanding music, such as orchestral, small symphony, ancient music using original instruments, etc. was not at all satisfying when played back on those shiny little discs. Simpler music such as small scale jazz, folk or rock (with its electronic instruments) fared somewhat better, but still did not achieve the level of palpability heard on vinyl. Therefore, for many of us, CDs were the medium to use on recordings that were not available on LP or for casual, background enjoyment. Until NOW...

What started with the Krell SACD Standard, and continued with the Esoteric X03SE, has now culminated in the Esoteric P05/D05 DAC/Transport combo. SACD, as experienced with the Krell, provided a glimpse into the capabilities of this medium. Suddenly, the broader standard, with its wider bandwidth, showed promise when playing back symphonic material. For an analogue enthusiast, this music almost entered the realm of enjoyability. The X03SE, took that another step forward. Finally, Heifetz playing the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos (RCA Living Stereo) were not only listenable, but get this, enjoyable. One could actually sit through both works consecutively and not become nauseated. This was a shocking experience. SACD after well recorded SACD (the other RCAs, Mercuries, Water Lillys) provided hours of endless musical satisfaction, without the ubiquitous digital deharmonicization. No, it still did not equal the best analogue, but it was rewarding in and of itself.

Piqued by the excellences of the X03SE, a curiosity to explore just how good SACD could be began to stir. The next logical step was to upgrade to the Esoteric separates- P05/D05 combination. Just how much better could the further expenditure of $6,800 and separated DAC and transport provide? The usual laws of high end diminishing returns would suggest a refinement of sorts over the single box X03SE, but expecting any huge sonic leap would be overly optimistic and essentially unrealistic. What ensued was not only a complete surprise, it was tantamount to a revelation.

After the appropriate burn in period of approximately 500 hours (the combo sounds superb right out of the box- again notwithstanding what the prevailing word is on the street) and set up (meaning top quality dual XLR digital cables to connect the DAC to transport and BNC cable, to activate the word sync between the two units) the P05/D05 was a quantum leap in performance over the already stellar X03SE. The former was superior in every measure, and not by a subtle amount. The differences were instantly observable. It was not necessary to do an A/B comparison. The laundry list of categories included deeper, more explosive bottom end, greater transparency in the midrange, highs were more extended, airier and purer, the soundstage was more expansive, transients were more precise with greater intensity of percussive instruments and the dynamic gradations were much wider.

In short, digital sound took on a purity and naturalness that was previously unheard of. The P05/D05 now reproduced ALL types of music with a verisimilitude that was never experienced previously with any digital reproduction. The finest Redbook also sounded better than ever before, but not up to the standard of the best SACDs. Comparisons between the identical CDs, with their SACD counterparts, clearly demonstrated this phenomenon. Many of the RCA Living Stereo recordings with Reiner conducting, the Mercury Living Presence reissues etc, sounded marvelous. As a matter of fact, some of the RCA SACDs were more harmonically complete than even the Classic vinyl reissues, and at least as satisfying to audition.

The P05/D05, playing the best produced SACDs, has for the first time, caused a committed analogue adherent to thoroughly revel in the enjoyment of all genres of the musical experience. The Esoteric combo has enabled those familiar with the real thing to reach a level of aesthetic satisfaction with music played by it to an unprecedented degree. The inevitable question is: "How does it compare to the finest analogue"?

The answer is, while it still lacks vinyl's unique ability to convey the musical message in its most natural state, it is now good enough to be completely enjoyable on its own terms. Vinyl still sounds more real, but SACDs played by the P05/D05 are immensely satisfying and musically rewarding. It will take a top flight analogue rig to match or exceed the superior reproduction of the Esoteric. That translates to a serious expenditure, at least in the $20K or greater range. A more modest phono set up will prove inferior on many sonic performance parameters. I can actually recommend, for the first time to those who have not yet entered the analogue realm, spend that same money on acquiring the P05/D05 separates instead. A budget vinyl system will not provide the macro performance of the Esoteric separates. Capturing the weight, impact, dynamics, thunderous low end and transient intensity of the P05/D05 on SACD is beyond the purview of a less than state-of-the-art analogue set up.

The Esoteric P05/ D05 represents a breakthrough in digital reproduction. Those who have lived exclusively within this realm of audio reproduction will be introduced into a new level of performance. Others, who have never been enamored by CD playback, will now become converts to the possibilities offered by SACD. The "perfect sound forever" is finally now, almost 3 decades after its inception, capable of offering the joys that wondrous music can provide. If spending $15K on SACD/CD playback is anywhere near one's budget, do it. You definitely do not need a preamp, as the P05/D05 has remote volume capability (and again inspite of any nonsense you might read in audio chat groups and the mainstream audio rags, straight into the amps sounds not only the most transparent, you will not sacrifice ANYTHING in terms of dynamics or bass). There is no digital player we've experienced under $20K that approaches the build quality, and the sonic excellences of the Esoteric P05/D05. Nothing!"

As promised, this short review completes the present cycle of digital source evaluations, which focused on SACD players. As before, the same group of associates made the evaluation and the writer is also the same for continuity. As usual, my bold:

"The laws of diminishing returns has finally decided to kick in. Is the 03 combo superior to the 05? Yes, without a doubt. Is it worth almost twice the price? Yes and no. The answer is affirmative if you are an absolute perfectionist and must have the best, with cost being a relatively insignificant factor. No, if the goal is to achieve performance commensurate with the price jump.

By going to the 03s, what is wrought with a further expenditure of $15,000? Firstly, the build quality of the more expensive units is something to behold. The D03 and P03 weigh in at a hefty 62 lbs each (versus 31 lbs for the 05 separates). The added mass is relevant in not only impressing your friends, but it does create a chassis that is remarkably rigid and inert. Furthermore, the P03 uses the upgraded VRSD transport mechanism which is so stable and silky smooth in operation that here is where the greatest impact on the improved sonics takes place.

Sonically, the P03/D03 is decidedly smoother with more body. There is an extra degree of harmonic detail revealed as well as the elimination of any chassis induced resonances. This has the affect of creating a more solid, weighty feel to the sound. Bass is a tad more impactful, and when the music gets very dynamic, the sound does not change at all. It stays as completely unruffled as it did at lower levels.

All the sonic enhancements of the 03 to the 05 are fairly subtle, but definitely audible. In testing the transport and dac individually, it became apparent that the P03 makes more of a difference than the D03. I would attribute a 60/40 split in its favor. If funds are limited, I can heartily recommend the P03 with the D05. If money is no object, the complete P03/D03 is still the route to follow. There is one downside to the D03 that must be mentioned. It has no volume control, which means volume attenuation, whether in the form of a line stage or a passive, becomes necessary.

While prohibitively expensive, the P03/ D03 is the finest sounding digital that we have yet encountered. The combination represents a refinement over the already excellent P05/D05, but the improvement is no where near the jump experienced by going to the P separates from the single box X03 SE."

Personal Notes- We have now completely updated our list of Digital Sources References. This was necessary to avoid any confusion caused by the introduction (to us) of the various Esoteric SACD models. This will also provide the "continuity" I consider critical for credibility.
To be absolutely clear- All the previous "lists" and "references", no matter how recent, are now obsolete, so please ignore them.

Class A (Upper)
Esoteric P03/D03 Transport and DAC
Class A (Lower)
Esoteric P05/D05 Transport and DAC

Class D (Entry-Level)
Benchmark DAC & Pre 1
Doge CD6 (Stock or Modified*)
MHZS CD 66 & CD 88 (Modified*)

Removed:
ARC REF CD 7
ElectroCompaniet UP SE
MSB Platinum DAC III and Reference Transport
Oracle CD 2500 MK II

Explanations:
1. Price is a critical factor in Class B, Class C and Class D (and a main reason for all the removals).
2. The Krell Standard SACD Mk. II/III and the Esoteric X03 SE, when purchased used, are now "the best bang for the buck" CD players.
3. *Coupling capacitors changed to V-Cap or Solen Film and Foil Teflon, plus NOS "tube rolling". (DAC chip can also be improved, but only an expert should attempt this change.)

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the December 2008 Readers Letters), are subsequently posted in their respective Reference Component Files: Amplifiers, Cartridges, Speakers etc. They can be found under "Readers Letters". If the reader's letter discussed more than one type of audio component, I will place that letter in the file of the component that was the most discussed.

Here is an interesting letter from a reader with another perspective on contact enhancers. I don't have any personal experience with the product he mentions, or his general advice about using enhancers, but maybe someone else can add something. There's some editing and my bold:

"Just a quick note... to suggest that Mr. Walker’s 'Contact Enhancer' is also known outside audio-philia as 'conductive grease'. It’s used to secure certain tricky electrical/onic connections (outdoor antennae, for example) & is available with silver content. For example:

https://www.alliedelec.com/Search/ProductDetail.aspx?SKU=9740011&MPN=CW7100+SILVER+GREASE

Of course 'silver grease' is unbranded, untrendy & non-audiophile approved and, thereby, cheaper than Mr. Walker’s equivalent product! I currently use it, and have used Mr. Walker’s in the past. ...To prolong shelf-life... I would have recommended light machine-oil, the kind used in TTs.

CAVEAT: Metal migration! As you doubtless know, precious metals tend to migrate after prolonged contact. IOW, it may be possible that the contact enhancer’s silver particles will end up inside the gold (silver) coating of our contacts, thereby creating noise. I have not been able to confirm or disconfirm this, so I end up cleaning off the stuff every 2-3 months & reapplying."

Until I find a list which is more definitive, and objective, here are some speakers that I, and some Readers, have found to work very well with low-powered Single Ended Triode (SET) amplifiers;

I would appreciate finding out about any other models, that readers have actually heard for themselves, to add to this list. This list is not a temporary project. It will be kept permanently in the Speaker Files. Further, don't expect to see the speaker models posted here a day or so after your e-mail is sent to me. Please remember that I'm usually behind in ALL my correspondence, including even the brief and helpful information letters.

Finally, I will keep my own "SET friendly list" because at least one list should have no commercial foundation, temptations or considerations*.

*For example, another website placed the Merlin speakers on their list, which, despite all their enviable qualities, will still not work well with low-powered SET amplifiers. I know, because I tried them. The sensitivty was just too low. Merlin, themselves, uses the excellent CAT amplifiers, which are pentode based and push-pull, at their audio show demonstrations. I would trust Merlin to know how to optimize their own speaker designs.

I received some interesting modification tips from a reader. I have no experience with them myself, though I owned a number of FM-3s over the years. If anyone else can make a contribution to this subject, I will also post it. Here it is, with some minor editing and my bold:

"...There are a few simple modifications (of the FM-3) that can improve its sound. Specifically, replacing the PECs (packaged electronic circuits), which look like multi-legged ceramic capacitors. The discriminator circuit can be replaced with the same circuit made from good quality discrete resistors and capacitors (schematic in the Dyna manual).

The audio de-emphasis circuits (one for each channel) should also be replaced. Whether due to deterioration with time, or incorrect circuit values, they cause a significant roll-off in the high frequencies. Many years ago the Boston Audio Society had a tuner clinic, and reported that several FM-3s they tested had about a 5 dB rolloff at 10 kHz. David Berning designed a replacement circuit which he detailed in a letter to The Audio Amateur, and the circuit was reprinted in Glass Audio Vol 3, No. 1, p. 22. He claimed, that with these modifications, the FM-3 was close to the Marantz 10B in sound quality!"

Coincident Frankenstein and Dragon Amps driving the Pure Reference Full-Range (A report and comparison)

These are the most recent LPs to join The Supreme Recordings. They are too new to place in an upper category, and there aren't any descriptions ready either. Also, I am now back to systematically playing all my records, starting with where I left off in October 2001 (when I left Toronto to move to Florida).

A MEETING BY THE RIVER-COODER/BHATT-WATER LILY (ANALOGUE PRODUCTIONS) APW 29 (2LPS - 45 RPM)

A MEETING BY THE RIVER-COODER/BHATT-WATER LILY (ANALOGUE PRODUCTIONS) APW 29 (45 RPM)

This recording was made back in 1992, just as Water Lily stopped producing records, in favor of (only) CDs. I was really disappointed at the time, because I was looking forward to hearing not only a novel musical collaboration, but also Ry Cooder, for the first time, with all-out engineering. I was so upset, I didn't even purchase the CD. I assumed that the LP would never be made, and soon forgot about the recording. I was, thankfully, dead wrong!

This is the best sounding guitar record I have ever heard. It has the immediacy and purity of a direct to disc, along with a realistic dynamic intensity and it's completely natural. It's a 45 RPM album, and it shows (with the longest side being only 12 minutes). I can't say enough about the engineering, other than to promise that this (2 LP) album will eventually be included in one of the two highest classes of The Supreme Recordings ("The Divinity" or "The Demi-Gods").

The music is unique, at least for me. It's not just another formal "West meets East" concert (which have rarely, if ever, "met" in my experience), but a true "meeting" of the two musicians (as in the title). Both musicians make the effort to approach the other, but they still retain their individuality (and basic sound and styles). The only other times I've heard an eastern instrument work so well (with western instruments) were with the late Colin Walcott (Oregon), who was a westerner who mastered eastern instruments.

This recording is different (in kind), because it is now an easterner, playing an eastern instrument, who has to make the difficult and brave leap of culture, along with his western counterpart. The achievement, for me, was that after a short sense of incongruity (hearing Cooder after Bhatt the first time), I felt that the music was natural and uncontrived, just like any other musical duo in which both musicians are communicating as an intimate pair. Highly recommended, especially for lovers of guitar and/or sitar (though Bhatt plays a Mohan Vina).

Disclosure- This album was sent to me from Kavi Alexander for evaluation, so I did not pay for it. This is the first time this has ever happened, believe it or not, during the entire history of this website, and I felt my readers should be made aware of it.

PROKOFIEV-ROMEO & JULIET (HIGHLIGHTS)-MAAZEL-KING SUPER ANALOGUE DISC KIJC-9158

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

It's well known that I've long been critical of Stereophile, and I'm not alone. Countless other audiophiles are also sick of "reading between the lines" in a vain attempt to discover the writer's honest observations and opinions. Well, I finally got some of what I wished for, and while I'm certainly not having any second thoughts about this belated change, I must admit that even I'm surprised, if not shocked, by what I actually read.

Accordingly, I believe it is imperative to discuss a number of issues that were brought up in the review and article written by Michael Fremer and Sam Tellig in the June 2009 issue of Stereophile. This is because their opinions and perspectives are not only superficial, ignorant and dead wrong, but are also dangerous to a basic understanding of musical reproduction, not to mention your wallet.

We'll start off with Michael Fremer and his review of the new Musical Fidelity Titan amplifiers (pages 87-95). There are two serious issues to discuss with this review:

Fremer brings up a particular sonic advantage he heard with the Titan, which has a rating of 1,000 watts per channel (WPC). In Fremer's own words (my bold):

"Once you've experienced and lived with a mega-amplifier, whether tubed or solid-state, it's difficult to return to one of moderate power, and by moderate I mean even a few hundred watts per channel."

I first want to make it clear that I do not dispute Fremer's observation of experiencing a "sense of scale" with the Titan. However, Fremer takes this opportunity to gratuitously attack "lovers of SET amps and single-driver speakers" and he also completely ignores the critical context of his Titan audition, which is the power requirements of the speakers they were driving: the Wilson Audio Maxx Series III.

Why did Fremer feel the need to ridicule the owners of SET amps (usually under 10 WPC), a tiny minority, instead of focusing on the owners of the countless amplifiers with 50 to 300 WPC? Aren't the latter also lacking, according to Fremer, that same "sense of scale"?
A Simple Question- Who is most likely to be surprised that they don't have enough power, someone who chose a 3 WPC amp, or someone who chose a 300 WPC amp? The obvious answer to that question should determine your primary focus, but only if you're rational, direct and have an aversion to playing "audio politics".

Then Fremer, with absolutely no connection, brings up "single-driver speakers"...

Even if we assume, like Fremer, that a system requires around 1,000 WPC to achieve a "sense of scale", what does this requirement have to do with the "owners of single-driver speakers" (who are then insulted as being "a lost cause")? It appears that this is Fremer's "method" of stating that only multi-driver speakers can produce a "sense of scale". If so, then why not state that directly, instead of making it some sort of half-ass inference? Still, this brings us to another question; Is Fremer's single-driver inference theory correct?

Well, I can state directly that I agree with Fremer's inference, at least when it comes to a typical (5" to 8") single-driver speaker, but I would like to share a relevant anecdote about one model that is atypical, from my personal experience.

I used to sell as a dealer, and even owned at one time, the Tannoy Westminsters. This was around 20 years ago now (1988/9). Just one look at them will tell you they are, in effect, a single-driver speaker, even though, technically, they are a "dual-concentric". More importantly, they had an amazing "sense of scale", and they didn't need a thousand watts to achieve this. The proof- Tannoy's own (stereo) amplifier, which was "only" around 200 WPC, easily did the trick, and my listening room was larger than Fremer's current room. Furthermore, as I was in the audio business at the time, many other audiophiles also heard this system, even though I only used it for a couple of months, and they all heard that same "sense of scale", because it was so obvious. Further...

I have two more anecdotes concerning this power requirement issue, with completely different components, which are just as relevant and revealing, and with no "technical" excuses...

Around 15 years ago or so, I used to own a pair of the Parasound HCA-2200 transistor amplifiers, which I ran in mono (they were bridgeable). They were 1,000 WPC in 4 ohms and 750 WPC in 8 ohms. I used them almost exclusively as subwoofer amps, but I tried them full-range a few times, as either an "experiment" or when I had no other choice (if my main amps were not usable at the time). My "main amplifier" back then was the Jadis JA-80, first stock and then later heavily modified (Teflon coupling caps and operated in triode etc).

So, what happened when I compared the Parasound to the Jadis? Did I get "a sense of scale" I had never experienced before, like Fremer predicted? NO! In fact, the Jadis actually had a greater "sense of scale" than the Parasound(!), and by then, because it was operating in Triode, it had only something like 30 WPC. That's only 4% of the power of the Parasound! And furthermore, despite Fremer's other vacuous claim above, I couldn't wait "to return" to the low-powered Jadis after listening to the (mega) Parasound.

Meanwhile, at around the same time, someone else's experiments were further repudiating Fremer's theory...

I had a friend who owned a pair of the II version of the same Parasound. This friend also compared his Parasound to his (similarly modified) Jadis JA-200, and he received the same result I had; the JA-200 was noticeably bigger (and better, except for the bass), and he had a truly giant size room. Thus, no excuses. (He also "returned" to the Jadis immediately!)

1. We heard a single-driver (dual-concentric) speaker with a "sense of scale", in my own system.
2. This "sense of scale" was achieved with an amplifier of "only" 200 WPC.
3. I heard, in my own system, a 30 WPC amplifier with more "sense of scale" than a 750 WPC amplifier, on the same speaker.
4. My friend heard a 75 WPC amplifier with more "sense of scale" than the II version of that same 750 WPC amplifier, and in a giant room.

This brings us to "The Big Question"- What do all these anecdotes mean to Fremer's two new pet "theories"?

Fremer's 1,000 WPC "theory" is completely discredited, period. Further, his inference, about the inherent problem with most single-driver speakers, should be made in direct and unambiguous terms, and with details and exceptions, as I did above.

The Bottom Line- There is no one "magic" WPC to optimize all systems. This means you can put Fremer's 1,000 WPC "sense-of-scale theory" into "The Crackpot File", where it belongs. It is the result of someone who, in his arrogance and ignorance, assumed he knew much more about a subject than his obviously limited experience actually provided. Fremer is not alone here, almost every "reviewer" I've read grossly overestimates the breadth of their knowledge and experience. They should stick to what is in front of them, instead of making "great pronouncements" on flimsy and superficial evidence.

Next, we deal with "Context", focusing on the speakers Fremer was using: The Wilson Maxx Series III power requirements...

In the entire Titan review, I found only one audio observation (and opinion) by Michael Fremer that is important and highly relevant to (a very select few of) his readers. In this case, I'm referring to Fremer's courageous (for him) observation that the Maxx speakers actually require 1,000 WPC for optimization, which contradicts Wilson's claim that amplifiers with far less power are totally satisfactory.

Sadly, Fremer couldn't stop while he was ahead. He must have felt that the Titan/Maxx combination was an "Audio Revelation", so he took the next step, turning his experience into a "Fremer Rule": "If the Wilson Maxx requires 1,000 WPC, then ALL speakers also require the same enormous amount of power." Fremer's Rule is DOA, as conclusively demonstrated above.

However, Fremer's experiences with the Wilson Maxx do have some value. Despite his own sanguine conclusions, Fremer's experiences, in actuality, are a warning sign of the unspoken sonic problems with the Maxx Series (which I've heard myself). In fact- Every speaker I've heard that requires "mega-power" to sound their best has had inherent, and noticeable, sonic weaknesses (a relatively "mechanical" and predictable sound, especially at lower volume levels). It's also very important to note that they almost always need to be played at higher than natural volume levels to sound "alive" (which is the critical listening test that anyone can make on their own).

The conclusion I draw is obvious: Power hungry speakers are almost always poorly engineered and impractical, even if they have some desirable sonic strengths. Worse, they require "mega" amplifiers, which have the same sonic weaknesses, compounding the problems. They are a "dead-end" for audiophiles, and should usually be avoided, especially considering all the speakers that don't have these same demanding power requirements.

Michael Fremer concludes his review of the Musical Fidelity Titan amplifier with these sentences, with my bold:

"There need be no tradeoff between delicacy...and power, though some audiophiles insist that that's unavoidable, based mostly on conjecture and/or conventional wisdom."

"For reasons I can't explain, a high-powered amplifier loafing along sounds...more musically involved and involving, than a low-powered one..."

"...the Titan's combination of smooth refinement, aggressive grip, and silky transparency effectively bridges the gap between the sounds of tube and solid state."

Michael Fremer is the latest in a long line of reviewers (including J. Gordon Holt and Harry Pearson) to proclaim that he has heard an amplifier (usually solid-state), or a preamplifier, that finally "bridges the gap" between tubes and transistors. Everyone of them was proven wrong in the past, and so will Fremer.

However, Fremer even goes further, by then claiming that high-power amplifiers have absolutely no sonic disadvantages, at any volume level, compared to low-power amps. Fremer even shamelessly uses the completely meaningless "more musically involving" expression as his "description" of their sonic differences at low volume levels. (This is the audiophile equivalent of Samuel Johnson's famous quote: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.") Once again, Fremer couldn't be more wrong...

I can state this with near certainty, because even though I've never heard the Titan, it is a fact that no transistor amplifier, using current technology, and with that much power (and thus with unavoidable "size" and ultra-complexity), can equal any good tube amplifier in their unique sonic strengths, and especially the finest single-ended-triode (SET) models (with their highly contrasting ultra-short signal paths and their ultra-simple circuitry). There's a scientific reason for this.

The laws of physics, on a micro-level, have always precluded this "bridging the gap" from happening, and ignoring those laws, along with hoping and wishing, and/or spending huge amounts of money, won't change that unfortunate reality. If this weren't so, tube amplifiers for the home would have disappeared 40 years ago. Instead, despite their greater cost and impracticality, tube amps are still popular with the most serious audiophiles and/or music lovers , and this will continue until there is a true technological breakthrough in transistors or humans experience an evolutionary and collective hearing loss (of ultra-soft sounds).

To begin with, Fremer's own words provide indisputable proof of his hypocrisy. How? He dismisses the common audiophile claim, that low-power (simple-circuit) amps have some sonic advantages, because the only inferred evidence are listening results. To Fremer, this is only "conjecture". Yet, Fremer claims that analog has sonic advantages compared to digital, while offering only actual listening results as his evidence. In short, Fremer himself has used, for decades, the same exact listening experiences as his evidence, which he now rejects, as only "conjecture", when others use it.
Now it's time for specifics...

Here is just one practical example of the complete inconsistency of Fremer's claim (and another example of his blatant hypocrisy):

Consider now the length (and the numerous "intersections") of the signal-path inside the Titan, with almost all of it on different circuit boards. Next, compare this long, complex "trip" to what happens in a well-designed SET amplifier: The signal-path in the SET is usually only a few inches long, goes through only high-quality cables, which are then hard-wired, point to point. So, we have a reviewer who publicly claims to hear subtle differences between expensive, high-quality, exterior signal cables, but who now doesn't hear any sonic problems when that exact same signal travels through a long and narrow trace, on multiple circuit boards, that are connected together with a variety of different cables. Does Fremer's conflicting claims make even the slightest sense?

Obviously not, but this is what tends to happen when a reviewer's first priority is to "sell" audio components, no matter how expensive (and complicated) they are. Accordingly, I strongly advise all serious audiophiles and music lovers to completely ignore this latest display of gross hyperbole and audio pornography. If and when a transistor design, and especially one with high-power, actually does equal the unique strengths of tube designs (and particularly the best SET models), you will learn about it from a true "tube lover". This is someone who actually hears and appreciates what only the finest tube electronics can accomplish. Sadly, Michael Fremer has now proven, definitively, that he is not part of this group.

The Musical Fidelity Titan sells for $ 30,000. It is, by far, the most expensive amplifier they have ever made, though other audio manufacturers have amps which are even more expensive. From my personal perspective, I've never heard any amplifier, above $ 12,000, that sounded better, overall, than the best amps that sold for less money. From my "associates" perspective, the price goes up to around $ 20,000. We all agree on this though: Other than the extra power and/or drive capability, there is no sonic advantage spending "crazy money" on ultra-expensive power amplifiers.

Fremer's Titan review can be paraphrased to this simple "commercial message": If you spend $ 30,000 on the Titan, you will receive "mega power", which will provide you with a "sense of scale" you can't experience with any lower-power amplifiers. Further, you will also hear all the benefits, and even more, that tube amplifiers can deliver. Yes readers, the Titan has no noticeable sonic and/or practical weaknesses (at least until the Titan II replaces it).

Unfortunately, Fremer's Titan "message" (and review) is a Fantasy. To Fremer, the Titan appears ("between the lines") to be the first "perfect" entity in the history of the world, let alone audio. Its only downside is the price. How Fremer would even know it is (effectively) perfect, since his speakers, and the rest of the system, would have to be perfect as well, is a mystery.

However, my own "message" is in stark contast to that conveyed by Fremer. Furthermore, it's based on many thousands of auditions and countless discussions with the most serious audiophiles I've ever known.

It's also very simple: There is a "cost" for everything. If you want a lot of "power", there will be an unavoidable cost in "quality". The same is true if you want an amplifier that can drive any speaker. And, if you want the highest possible sound quality, there will always be a cost in both power and drive capability. Finally, while money can buy many nice things in this world, it can't buy an amplifier with no trade-offs. While I realize that some readers will not accept that (somewhat depressing) reality, the "grown-ups" will.

Addendum- For a much greater in-depth discussion of the many different amplifier designs, and their respective strengths and weaknesses, you may want to read my very lengthy essay/review of the Coincident Frankenstein M300B SET Amplifier.

The issues I have with Tellig go far beyond those I have with Fremer. In fact, Tellig's column (actually just one paragraph, and two "throw away" lines) should permanently terminate any relationship this man has in the audiophile community. This judgment will be true no matter what your "audio perspective" is; objective, subjective, neither or something in between.

Just below is, unquestionably, the most important "sentence" Tellig has ever written (Page 27, right column). As I wrote above, it actually shocked me. In Tellig's own words (with my bold and emphasis):

"Hear my hi-fi heresy...I prefer the sound of CDs, overall, to...LPs (78s were a much better format)"

Sam Tellig has now stated, in public, that he believes that 78s are superior ("much better") to LPs. This claim is a complete travesty. It far transcends common ignorance, stupidity, "eccentricity" and matters of "taste". Tellig has now joined the bizarre realm of the believers in a "flat earth", "bleeding" and witchcraft.

LPs are far superior to 78s. This is not an "opinion". It is an indisputable fact. LPs are much cleaner, have far greater bandwidth and dynamic range, a much more accurate and reliable pitch* and their sound-floor is literally magnitudes lower. 78s do not have even one sonic advantage. The differences between these two formats are so enormous, I'm not even able to make a relevant audio comparison. By this I mean that the worst audio component I've ever heard, whatever that was, did relatively better than 78s do compared to LPs. I can't be more clear than that. (*"78s" can be anything between 60 to 100RPM!)

LPs are still being made today (and are even having somewhat of a comeback), while 78s stopped being made around 50 years ago. That history is not an accident. I know numerous people who prefer LPs to CDs, but Tellig was the first person I know of who prefers the sound of 78s to LPs. I've even met a number of 78 enthusiasts when I owned my audio store, but they enjoyed the routine, the hunt, equipment and nostalgia of 78s. None of them ever claimed that 78s had a superiority in fidelity. Further, I want to make it clear that I am, in no manner, being critical of 78 collectors and enthusiasts.

In truth, 78s would have been technically obsolete** even if LPs did not have the added practical advantages of: their extra length, stereo and being unbreakable. LPs were the first popular "high-fidelity" medium. It took LPs, and open-reel tapes, to justify the term "hi-fi" to both audio enthusiasts and everyone else.

This isn't just regurgitated "historical dogma" on my part. I'm old enough to have heard many 78s in my life. First as a young child, when they were common, then on my family's "record player" as a teenager, and finally as a curious audiophile. I was fortunate to own a turntable, the Thorens TD-126, which could play 78s. I also heard them with some vintage tube preamplifiers with the correct 78rpm equalization. At no time did the sound ever begin to approach even the worst LPs that I had heard back then.

Since it is difficult to hear 78s at this time, I would get a CD reissue of some original 78. I would suggest an orchestral work if possible. Then compare this to a LP with the same music, choosing one you're familiar with that has good sound. If you don't have a turntable, then get a CD reissue of that same LP (so both are compromised). Now make your own comparison, while never forgetting, with each switch, that Sam Tellig believes that the 78 CD is "much better" than the LP (CD). The ultimate results of this comparison are inevitable...

The sonic differences, once directly experienced, will be so fundamental that no thinking audiophile will ever again give Sam Tellig even the slightest credibility to anything he thinks about audio. Far worse, I believe everything Sam Tellig has ever written about audio is now suspect and useless, if not actually damaging and counterproductive.

**The Exceptions- Since 78s were, in the main, a direct-to-disc format, it is obvious that no reissue of them can sound as good, assuming the original 78 is in good shape and played on a good system. In this instance, the 78 will be the actual "source", so optimizing this source will always be as good as it gets. Examples- many original jazz (Charlie Parker) and chamber works, but optimizing this potential will be really difficult at this time.

Tellig also made his opinion clear concerning CDs versus SACDs. In Tellig's own words (with my bold):

"I may prefer the sound of "Red Book" CD, properly done, to SACD, which I find a little too smooth to be true."

I have no direct experience comparing CDs with SACDs, but I have enough rudimentary knowledge about digital sources to know that it is impossible, everything being equal, for a SACD to be sonically inferior to a CD. Digital audio comes down to sheer numbers to recreate the original analog (music) signal, which means it's completely illogical to state that more (SACD) "data points" (the numbers) can be less accurate and complete than fewer (CD) "data points". If there is going to be any noticeable sonic difference, it must favor the SACD. If someone "prefers" the CD, then that person simply prefers low-fi, period (which is indicated by Tellig's asinine comment that a component can be "too smooth").

That's just the objective, indisputable and logical facts laid out, but for actual personal experience, I defer to my highly experienced associate, who has this to say about CD versus SACD (with my bold):

"Until I heard a well recorded SACD on a great SACD player, SACD represented an exceedingly small refinement over Redbook. I did not comprehend the excitement surrounding the new medium. I still could not enjoy listening to Orchestral or any complex music played by acoustic instruments. SACD played back on mediocre players (which definitely includes the MacIntosh 201, a dreadful unit that Tellig is enamored with), did not alter this situation.

It was only when I experienced the Krell Standard, and then moved up to the Esoteric P05/D05 separates, did the absolute superiority of SACD become apparent. Enjoyment of every type of music was now the norm. There is no greater compliment that can be paid to an audio component than to have it bring joy wherein it did not previously exist.

In every instance, the SACD version played back on the Esoterics sounded superior on every level. To wit, more extension at both frequency extremes, wider dynamic gradations, more expansive soundstage, enhanced purity and transparency and far greater rendering of harmonics. Transients were more precisely captured with less slurring and greater intensity. Ambient clues were more easily discernible.

The differences ranged from subtle but observable to dramatic. (3 pairs of ears were involved in most listening sessions, with results being unanimous). I have yet to hear a CD sound more natural (or accurate - for those who erroneously believe that accuracy denotes an analytic, sterile sound to be eschewed in favor of that ubiquitous concept of musical, which has become the popular buzz word for pleasant. Accurate is synonymous with musicality, since it represents the faithful reproduction of the information fed to it without alteration).

This happens to represent one of those times in human experience where theory and practice converge. Not only does SACD offer significantly greater technical capability, this time, it sounds better as well."

Addendum- For an illustrative, but hardly exhaustive, list of CD/SACD comparisons, my associate provided the following:

RCA Living Stereo (SACD/CD Hybrids)-

Brahms + Tchaikovsky Violin Concertos
Strauss Symphony Domestica
Beethoven, Mendelssohn Violin Concertos
Saint-Saens Organ Symphony
Rimsky-Korsakov- Scheherazade

It's too bad that Tellig didn't reveal his preference for 78s 20 years ago. The audiophile community would have immediately realized that Tellig was a "quack" and moved on. Well, we know now (with his SACD musings being a "quack confirmation"). I consider Tellig's June 2009 column to be a late (and unintentional) "public warning", in which he effectively begs his readers to "ignore him". Inadvertent or not, I now agree with Tellig, and so should you.

I'm back to using the Polk speaker cables (6 cables in parallel, 3 foot length), though only on the midrange and tweeter of the Coincident Pure References. I don't understand this yet, but 3 other audiophiles also heard the improvement with the change. Since the last comparison (with the Coincident Extreme in early May 2008), the Pure References are now fully broken-in. Further, I'm now using superior 300B output tubes and no longer bi-amping. If confirmed with another direct comparison, this would demonstrate how two outstanding cables can easily alternate in preference with relatively slight system changes.

While I am very satisfied with the performance of the Forsell Turntable and Tonearm, my main focus is now on turntables (and tonearms)...

Even though the (stock) VPI HR-X was a big disappointment for me, it still had some important sonic strengths, so I'm not giving up on modern turntable/tonearm designs. There are other models I'm looking at right now, but I won't/can't discuss them until I know I can get them. I would also like to get a new, state-of-the-art, record cleaning machine. My Nitty Gritty is pretty old now, and there are a good number of highly interesting models available, more than I've even seen before actually.

Steven Leckrone
The Service Department
30 Unquowa Hill St.
Bridgeport CT. 06604
203-331-0671
steven@theservicedepartmentct.com
Warranty service for Chord, Exposure, Parasound and GamuT line of products, plus all vintage Krell products.

Head-Fi.Org (Headphone Coverage and Discussion, along with other components) NEW 6/09

Teresonic (High-Efficiency & Single-Driver Speakers and SET Amplifiers) NEW 7/09

This was my "reference speaker" for more than 10 years. Outside of the Coincident Pure Reference, which replaced it, the Ars is still my favorite speaker, overall, when it comes to reproducing music; completely and accurately. The speakers have been well taken care of and are in excellent (but not "perfect") condition. Included in the package are:

1. The Ars Satellite pair (Best Finish)
2. The Ars Subwoofer pair (Best Finish)
3. Complete set of isolating plates, which are made out of the same polymers as the speakers
4. A pair of the Wilson Audio Gibraltar stands for the satellites, so the subs can be placed independently
5. A pair of "sandboxes", that go underneath the Gibraltar stands (and satellites), which both isolate them and raise their height

Caveat- Because of the lack of adequate shipping cartons, and the total weight involved, around 500 lbs, the speakers, along with their "accessories", can NOT be shipped. They will have to be picked up.