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.

This turntable/tonearm combination was evaluated by (3 of) my associates over the last 6 months. At my request, the most literate and experienced of the group has written a succinct "review". I was not part of the listening group. Please keep in mind that this is Kuzma's latest 4 motor unit. Furthermore, I have a somewhat different perspective concerning turntables, so I have posted some "Personal Notes" below the review. There's some very minor editing on my part, plus my bold:

"Spending almost $40,000 on a tonearm/turntable combination, especially in light of the vast advances in fidelity offered by the finest SACD players, may seem wildly irresponsible or decadent (others may classify it insane), but if the goal is to extract the most information from those archaic vinyl discs, and maximize the enjoyment involved in listening to records, it is money well spent. Bear in mind that a further expenditure of at least $5,000 for a cartridge, and at a minimum another similar amount on a phono preamp, and we are now talking $50 big ones to spin vinyl. Obviously, the Kuzma, with 4 motors, is a highly esoteric product that is beyond the reach of the overwhelming majority of even hard core analog addicts, but its significance cannot be dismissed or minimized.

The Kuzma, mated to a top flight cartridge, like a Dynavector XV 1S, and a state of the art phono preamp such as the Aesthetix Lo, will allow the listener to hear detail and musical nuances from records that were heretofore buried in the grooves. The resultant music will be revealed at a level that must be experienced to be believed. As good as other turntable/arms of lesser price can be (i.e Forsell, Acutus, VPI HRX, Clear Audio, Basis, Linn, Verdier, Goldmund, etc), once the Kuzma is auditioned, it becomes evident just how much information has gone missing in action, or has been perverted in transmission.

To simplify, turntables fall into two categories of design and construction. They are generally low mass, spring suspension designs which are typified by Linn, Oracle, Avid, Basis, and then there are those that are high mass, either damped or not, such as VPI HR-X, Forsell, Micro Seiki etc. To generalize, the former group will excel in the micro realm, that is they usually offer a transparent, neutral sound that is not the last word in bass impact and overall weight and impact. Compared to turntables in this category, good SACD players will sound noticeably superior in terms of bass performance, dynamics, impact and punch. The high mass turntables' strengths will be macro oriented, with bass extension, wide dynamics and impact being their forte. These analog units will provide stiff competition and may even surpass the performance of the best SACD players in these sonic parameters.

It takes an ingenious design with meticulous execution to be able to combine the best attributes of both turntable design camps. Very few manage this feat, and unfortunately it cannot be accomplished on the cheap. The Kuzma is the least expensive (I know difficult to believe at its steep price) design that has achieved success in combining the micro and macro performance in one package. The Kuzma's overall sound is so neutral, that after months of evaluation it is difficult to criticize. It is so superior to any competitor that sells for $20K or less, that delineating its flaws are almost impossible. Its all there- transparency, immediacy, full extension at both frequency extremes, huge image with pin point precision and localization of instruments within the soundstage, complete rendering of harmonics and low level detail AND explosive dynamics with weight and impact that will make you think your amplifier is on steroids.

From a design perspective and build quality, the Kuzma is state of the art. Nothing about the arm and the table are less than the finest. It is designed to be simple to set up and maintain and it has proven highly reliable that should provide decades of enjoyment filled use. Once it is set up, there is very little to adjust, except of course, cartridge adjustments such as VTA, VTF, SRA etc. These are made exceptionally easy due to the Kuzma tonearm design which permits VTA adjustment on the fly and exact settings with the use of a digital readout. Using an air compressor for the air bearing tonearm is a minor annoyance, but it is exceptionally quiet and virtually maintenance free.

There may be other turntable/tonearms that offer superior performance in specific areas, or perhaps even overall. Rest assured that they will NOT be less expensive, and most likely will be substantially more costly. At its price (that of a very nice automobile), the Kuzma will not be bettered nor will it be easier to use or maintain. To hear the seemingly unlimited potential of analog reproduction, the Kuzma must be experienced in a state of the art audio system. It will represent musical reproduction at its highest level."

Personal Notes- I am very confident of my associates' evaluation of the sonic performance of the Kuzma. That is why I placed the Kuzma in Class A, despite the fact that I have not heard it myself. However, I have a somewhat different perspective on turntables. I believe there are two inherent and fundamental problems that all turntables must overcome: incorrect speed and audible vibrations.

Accurate speed requires enough torque and inertia to overcome any drag caused by the inevitable friction from the continual and changing stylus/record groove interface. That sounds easy to accomplish, but it isn't, as audiophiles who have (joyfully) experienced (and appreciated) idler-drives (for proper torque) and/or very heavy platters (for inertia) will testify. If successful, this is where the "macro" information will be heard (and felt) and then jealously valued. Thorens and Garrard provided torque with their (now vintage) idler-drives, while Micro Seiki and Melco were the first turntable manufacturers that used extremely heavy platters for added inertia.

The turntable must also be vibration free, especially the platter, from both internal and external sources. Goldmund, using metapolymers, was the first manufacturer I know of to address this issue in a serious manner. Townshend Audio (with the Rock) made their contribution with a hydraulic suspension. Now almost every modern turntable design attempts to reduce unwanted vibrations. If successful, this enables the turntable to sound neutral (without a character) and pure at all volume levels, along with allowing ultra low-level ("micro") sounds to be heard, and not obscured.

My historical take is also somewhat different. While it is true that the Linn LP-12 was once relatively superb at capturing low-level sounds (in the 1970's, compared to most mediocre direct-drives), which is why it became popular in the first place, it can no longer compete in micro capabilities compared to the many superior modern turntables, such as the Forsell or Kuzma, which have much fewer internal vibrations (resonances).

Finally, as I promised a few years ago, I have recently initiated a project of building a DIY Idler-drive turntable, using a vintage turntable as the foundation. It will be "all-out" (meaning "no excuses"), and will have a tonearm similar to the (linear) Forsell. Thus any comparisons will be fair and relevant. I'm hoping the turntable will be completed sometime this Fall, or early Winter. I should receive it in February 2010. I will report back at that time, or earlier if helpful. My goal is for it to honestly compete with the Kuzma, but at a much lower cost. I'm optimistic. If the project is deemed successful, I will do my best to help interested readers duplicate the results.

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 February 2009 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.

I don't have any experience with this cartridge, and neither do any of my associates, although the II version is a "Reference" (Class B-Lower). One veteran reader is impressed with with the III, and I felt his observations should be shared. There's some minor editing and my bold:

"I just wanted to share an experience somewhat different than what is posted in your site: re the 17DII (I assume a close relative of the 17D3 I have). We compared this cartridge to 23R (Ruby).

My deck is an Oracle Delphi Mk II (well set-up after 30 hours of trials and errors with the suspension towers…), Alphason Xenon MCS (13gr arm) and Dynavector Karat 17D3. The mat is hard carbon (and not the original Oracle mat), and there is one tweak – TTweights (http://www.ttweights.com/page/page/6597621.htm) 290gr copper outer ring (great tweak by the way).

On my deck, my impression was of a very neutral sounding cartridge, very low surface noise (compare to Shibata based Audio Technica cartridges, which are detailed but noisy and a little edgy to my ears), tonally balanced top to bottom, dynamic in both macro and micro, extended top to bottom (what lack of bass?!? Bass is extended and very clean with super fast attacks, bass is not boomy – no mid bass hump, sorry British sound loversJ), extremely nimble, airy and detailed at a price of loss of an overall body and fullness (density).

Best short description I have: In my deck, it sounds like a CD with soul. People who are used to the fuller (but slower/laidback) sound of most basic turntables, might not like this cartridge. A matter of preference."

I really enjoy hearing from audiophiles who have successfully optimized their systems with only their brains and economical means. Here's an excellent example from a reader residing in Australia. There's some minor editing and my bold:

"I've always enjoyed my LP12 and regarded it as a very good, if not entirely satisfying front end to my sound system. I should preface this by saying that my sound system is very far from state of the art, which must severely muddy any opinion I can offer about how good my turntable really is. But it has always been subjectively much more satisfying to me overall than others I have owned. Recently though, I had it modified in several different ways, for a modest fee, with the result that it is now staggeringly better than it was before. This might be a good model for others to follow.

My amplification system is an Arcam Alpha 10 integrated amp and Alpha 9P power amp. My speakers are Totem Arros and a single REL T3 sub. My interconnects are a variant on TNT shoelace DIY interconnects. Overall, I would rank my system as sounding significantly better than many far more expensive systems I have heard, but seriously wanting, when compared to the very best systems I have had the pleasure of experiencing. To get a bit of financial perspective, my entire record playing system (i.e. turntable, arm, cartridge, phono preamp) has cost me well under US$4,000. Many readers will have paid more for their cartridge alone.

I started by buying an old 2nd hand Linn LP12 with Valhalla power supply and Nirvana suspension, in Sydney, for about $500 (I'm using US $ equivalents throughout), many years ago. My arm and cartridge from then have long since gone. Much later I purchased a Linn Akito 2 on US eBay for about $400 and got it installed by a Linn dealer at the same time as a general service - surprisingly good tonearm actually.

Soon after, my Benz Micro MC1 mysteriously lost its cantilever! I suspect our then house-cleaner who "never touched" the turntable. I bought a practically new Shelter 501 Mk2 cartridge for about $500 on Australian eBay - better than the Benz MC-1 in almost all respects. And a little later, I bought a Jasmine Audio LP2.0SE phono stage, direct from the Chinese manufacturer for under $500 delivered, an incredible bargain for this amazingly competent phono stage.

So, at the beginning of this year I had a turntable which should have been giving me great pleasure, but wasn't.

Vince Hamilton of Once Analog (http://www.onceanalog.com.au), had almost convinced me a year before, to install his DC motor and power supply into my LP12. I bit the bullet and had him do the replacement. The result of replacing the AC Motor and Valhalla power supply, by this high quality high torque DC motor and speed regulator, was dramatic. Much more detail. Tighter bass. Cleaner highs. Darker background. More musical tension. Better rhythm. 45 RPM capability. Bass weight fell off slightly though.

After barely getting used to this revelation, I purchased a Cetech subchassis from the manufacturer in NZ (http://www.derwent.co.nz) for Vince to install. The Cetech subchassis is made of a sandwich of honeycombed aluminium between carbon fibre skins, making for a very rigid non-resonant unit in place of the highly resonant steel subchassis which comes standard in the LP12. I also discovered that a few intrepid users of DC motors on LP12s had flipped the top plate of the LP12, to position the motor diametrically opposite the pivot of the tonearm. Sounded like a good idea.

I also read that others had replaced the lossy Masonite base board with a fairly inert acrylic one (against Linn's recommendations). Also sounded like a good idea. I asked Vince to do all these things. He offered to do so, but also to turn my LP12 into a fashion statement at the same time. He proceeded to have what was the underside (now the top) of the top plate professionally polished, and set about giving a true piano black finish to the plinth (a la Bosendorfer or Steinway). The LP12 now looks brand new and unique (which is rather nice).

I also use a Herbie's Way Excellent II turntable mat, which costs about $60. The Herbie's mat allows, I think, more detail to come through, a slightly deeper soundstage, and the top end sounds a little sweeter, but I also think it may be sanitising some of the impact of the music a little, compared to the Linn felt mat. Switching back and forward between mats, I definitely prefer the Herbie's, but I suspect that there could be a better alternative out there than either, probably at a fairly high price though. The one thing that the Herbie's mat does not do is change the overall balance, which I have heard can be a problem with many mats.

For all that, how does it sound? Pretty good. Well great really. The music is just...there.

My room is not conducive to huge deep sound stages. My amplifier isn't either. Even so, the turntable now gives me a sense of the hall where the performance took place. There used to be a sameness about different records, which has disappeared. The degree to which George Szell got a completely different tone out of the Chicago Symphony strings, than either Fritz Reiner or Daniel Barenboim, was only barely discernible before - now it is plain as day. Even more significantly, I put on a record to listen to a small section, and find myself compelled to listen to the whole work.

Is it like being at the concert (I attend orchestral concerts several times a year)? No, but it is just as involving. If someone had told me they had spent US$30,000 to get this sound, I might have questioned their judgement. But this turntable has cost me well under $4,000 including almost $3,000 worth of cartridge, arm and phono preamp, and sounds far better than almost any turntable I have heard."

The same reader who sent me his grid choke modification in April, which I posted above, has sent me his latest findings on this subject. Once again, I would like some confirmation, if possible, of his results from a different reader. Also, I only recommend that real experts try out this modification, since it's new and the instructions are from a non-English writer. Here they are, with some minor editing and my bold.

"Concerning my suggestion to use grid chokes as an easy replacement and cheap upgrade for tubed circuitry. Well, I found another supplier who provides a real 47k ohm grid choke at 2000Henry. The one I recommend previously, although intended for same use, is only rated at 670Henry (and checked 17.5k ohm). This betters the resistor, no matter how audiophile it is, but this newer one is dynamite! A strong bass and musicality is added to the sound. Not only that, but this 2000Henry/47k ohm is actually cheaper at $16.00 each!!!!!!!!

There is only one downside. The store is located in Taiwan, and the salesmen have poor and limited English. But believe me, follow their instructions through their Ebay store and you will receive iron gifts as some plate chokes, and cheap delivery costs too. I had one of his anode chokes (130Henry/8K2) replace a 10k ohm resistor on top of the first ECC83 tube on my phono preamp... wow! (Do a search on Ebay for "grid chokes" to find the supplier.) But you must arrange the purchase there first with an EMAIL (sigmadelta2001@yahoo.com). This way they put the price increase difference on the invoice field "mailing costs". Have some patience and you will be rewarded. They are in the process of expanding their product range and the long awaited catalog will soon be available."

Even though they are located in Ontario, Canada, I've never heard of this company, and they make a good variety of interesting tube amplifiers. One reader is very impressed with them. His letter below has some editing and both his and my bold. A link to McAlister Audio is below and in the Links File.

"Just came from my friend’s house with the McAlister OTL 195 hooked to his Acoustat 3. This is the best reproduced sound I have ever heard from any system at any price, bar none. So what is so good about it?

Let’s start with the obvious – the Acoustat 3 is a damn hard speaker to drive. I cannot emphasize it more and you probably are well aware of this fact so I will not dwell on that too much. Suffice to say it is extremely difficult to assume this speaker’s potential and most owners drive them with a dry-as-a-toast and hard-as-a-rock high power solid state amp. This is the best way to give up on these speakers as this way they lack everything that is important (to me) in music – the emotion, the spatial information, the micro-dynamics, etc, etc. One ex owner even told me: they create a sound stage that crushes to the floor two meters from the speakers…oh well.

My friend used to drive them with McAlister MB-130, 130 w/channel push-pull, TV sweep (27GB5) tube design. They worked well, but the amp was straining, mid range was a bit too forward and aggressive, compression would set-in at times and harshness and aggressiveness would kick-in. It felt like the amp is trying too hard. Not with the OTL’s.

The word 'Purity' comes to mind. What does sound 'purity' means? Effortless, cleanliness, very detailed presentation with texture and micro-dynamics but most of all, an uncanny presentation of contrasts between music and silence. To use your terms, I would have to say: an ultra low sound floor. It almost feels like the sound comes from outer space and it is immediate and intimate as they get (given the recording calls for it).

My 300B/805 A2 SET driving my Sonus Faber Grand Piano sounds smeared in comparison (and it is not smeared until you compare to these OTL’s). Just to show there is always higher mountain in this hobby. Then there is better bass control and bass cleanliness than with the MB-130 and unbelievable smoothness (it is more unbelievable given the very detailed presentation – very unusual as ultra detailed sound usually comes with a price like brightness, sibilance, harshness or raspiness. Not here. Eva Cassidy, that tends to 'shout at you' at times, sounds detailed, extended top to bottom and smooth all at the same time).

I am speechless, really. Sometimes descriptions just do a disservice to a listening experience because when it sounds so right you do not even feel that you want to describe why. You just want to listen (and than sell your gear, give up this hobby and get a boom-box instead…). This is one of the best kept secrets that reminds me of the Buddhism phrases about whether a tree that falls in the middle of forest when nobody is there to hear it actually makes a sound or not..."

I've been aware of the heated dispute concerning these devices over the last few years. It all boils down to whether or not an ordinary record can first hold a magnetic charge, which can then be reduced, and, if so, whether that reduction can then be heard. According to the proponents theory, the carbon black coloring (the dye pigment used in the vinyl) can hold a magnetic charge, and there are supposedly objective measurements to prove this, along with the reduction.

I'm an agnostic at this point, despite the numerous "rave reviews" of the Furutech DeMag ($ 2,150), and even one of my associates positive, though brief, experiences. Here is a letter from a reader, which inspired me to make my own experiment (see below). There's no editing, but my bold:

"In an earlier email I had mentioned the importance I placed on removing EMI and RFI powerline distortions in the signal path. It didn’t occur to me at the time that the media themselves (vinyl records and CD discs) might have issues related to extraneous magnetization. After reading about the reputed effect of demagnetizing discs in the audio press, I got a surface demagnetizer* (8 inch wide plate) from an electrical supply company for about $300*. Needless to say this was a small fraction of the cost of the equivalent audio industry approved devices.

The LP or CD is moved back and forth over the demag device a few times. When I tried it out I was surprised to find that I agreed with the reported benefits of disc demagnetizing. For example on my system the piano sonics of Satie v1 piano works (Ciccolini ASD 2389) and Beethoven complete piano sonatas (Barenboim EMI) exhibit a slightly hard and glassy treble that is a bit disconnected from the rest of the spectrum. After demag, the piano sound was noticeably more balanced. The treble was better integrated with the midrange and bass. In addition, the overtones of the lower notes were much more evident. The demag generally improves harmonic completeness and detail particularly in the midrange. It also improves perceived spatial depth to a slight, but noticeable, extent."

Personal Notes- Even if a surface demagnetizer works, the question then becomes whether it works as well as the (much more expensive) Furutech. As usual, none of the "reviewers", alluded to above, have even attempted to make this critical comparison. In fact, they don't appear to recognize even the existence of surface demagnetizers. Their complete lack of curiosity, and their undying loyalty to virtually anyone in the audio business, is depressingly obvious. However, while I'm not able to add anything to that issue at this time, I do have some potentially good news on another front...

I recently found and purchased a surface demagnetizer, brand new, on *eBay for only $ 29.50, plus $ 13.77 shipping. It was initially advertised as 8.5" by 4.5", but it was only 6.75" by 4.5". Still, it should work just as well, though with a touch greater effort, so I will experiment with it in the near future. Since an A/B/A comparison is impossible (without multiple copies of the exact same LP), I will have to do my best to make sure that "hope" does not blind me from "reality". I also will ask some of my associates to join me when making the comparisons, though their visits are irregular.

Finally, and this is really important, the above reader later informed me that he kept the LP inside the inner sleeve during the entire demagnetizing process. This will help protect the LP from the worst case scenario of dropping it. He also demagnetized both sides of the LP, even though he wasn't certain that this was necessary.

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the March 2009 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, from a veteran reader, provides further observations about the positive use of grid chokes etc. There's very minor editing and my bold:

"I use grid chokes all over the place; in fact I always replace a resistor with a choke if I can (like in my RIAA correction). Both Stevens & Billington and Magnequest manufacture excellent grid chokes. Even the superb Audio Note 2 watt tantalum resistors are outclassed! Everybody ought to read the excellent articles by the (very unfortunately late Harvey Gizmo Rosenberg) about magnetics. He very correctly described how, by replacing resistors by chokes both in grid and anode, you get a much richer and organic sound. That´s my experience too; I use 40 chokes in my RIAA psu, evenly distributed on both the negative and positive B+, and also on the filaments. Try it yourself and be amazed!"

Personal Note- I added a Link to the Harvey Rosenberg's website, which is still up and running. It has a considerable amount of thoughtful and provocative information, theories and observations about audio. Rosenberg was one of audio's most avant-garde thinkers, even though he mainly used and recommended solutions from the (wrongfully neglected) distant past. He is irreplaceable and very much missed.

A reader has another view of this preamplifier, which has received virtually no "press", outside of this website, since it has come out. There's minor editing and my bold:

"I have had this component for 8 months. I would reemphasize the need to change the stock tubes. I replaced them with NOS Mullards. The Doge 8 is superb as a linestage in my smaller all tube system, where it currently resides. In this system, I essentially agree with everything stated on the site. It has both finesse and power and takes charge of the amp. At the price it is a screaming bargain.

In the main (SS) system, the Doge linestage is also excellent, with superb tonal reproduction of different instrumental colors, but I suspect that its sonic compatibility with different SS amps is more variable than with tube amps. Its dynamic punch and extended treble range is not objectionably exaggerated by my SS amps, but I think with some others it might sound overly aggressive. The high gain structure is also an issue with many SS amps. I measured only a small decibel change between Outputs 1 and 2 (~3db), although some websites insist that Output 2 has 10db less gain than Output 1. Some preamps, such as the tube Jolida Envoy, have high and low gain outputs, which are a big help in system matching. Overall, for the SS system, I still prefer my Hovland preamp, now recently orphaned, but I’ll also use the Doge.

The Doge 8 phonostage impressed me even less than your associates found, despite my only needing to use the MM tube circuit. I thought even the MM circuit noisy and a bit aggressive compared with somewhat more expensive phonostages such as the Herron I normally use. It does have significant strengths including image solidity and good harmonic structure, so I hope that its weaknesses can be corrected even if the price goes up a bit."

This letter, from the same reader just above, provides some observations about a cable I heard many years ago. There's some very minor editing and my bold:

"Like most audiophiles, I have gone through all kinds of audio cables; maybe eight different kinds through the years, not counting power cables. I have heard an equal amount in other people’s systems. While not owning any very high priced cable (above $1k per meter) I have heard a few examples and generally thought they exaggerated detail retrieval. Your experience with the discontinued Polk cable got me thinking recently to try some Mogami cable, which I have used with recording gear, but never tried with an audio system.

Mogami wire is used in many professional recording studios. Anyway, I had Mogami interconnects constructed with Neutrik RCA connectors (the cost was about $50 for a 6 foot pair, with about $30 of that due to the premium connectors). The interconnects look inexpensive and are as flexible as a wet noodle. I also got a 10 foot run of Mogami speaker cables with spade connectors (about $100), which look more substantial, but are still fairly flexible. When I hooked these cables up, and played the first LP and CD, I felt like an audiofool for spending so much money on all the other more expensive cables. In addition to outstanding clarity and tonal balance, what impressed me most was the boundlessness of the sound. I was reminded of the Haitink/Philips recording of (Debussy's) Iberia that you mentioned in your Supreme Recordings, except that I was now hearing it to an increased extent with most of my records. The bass clarity and extension is also noteworthy.

I did notice a slight increased gentleness to treble transients. At first, I thought the cable had blunted these transients, but closer listening led me to conclude it was due to the removal of distortion, rather than loss of detail. These characteristics remained stable when I used the cables in each of my 3 systems, which is a first in my experience for a cable. In the past, my cables have had definite system interactions, and I never was able to use the same one for all types of systems. At these prices, folks don’t have to trust my opinions, but can try it for themselves. There is another widely used pro cable company called Canare. However, I do not recommend their cables for audio systems."

A reader was very impressed with this book, and while I haven't read it myself, I also agree with the author's overall approach; optimizing what you have and avoiding component changes unless you have no choice. This is what he wrote me:

"The more I read, the more I think this book is a little treasure. It speaks a lot about Room Acoustics, 'playing the room' by proper speakers placement for a given space, how to find the best spot for the seating spot and so on and so forth. In addition, it speaks loudly against 'Upgraditis' and the need to ensure everything else in the reproduction chain is addressed before jumping into expensive and unnecessary components upgrade. I cannot agree more."

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 April 2009 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, who owns the Altecs, forwarded some initial observations concerning different output tubes with this amplifier. This was a year ago or so. Since then, he's had a change of mind based on his more recent experiences. Here they are with minor editing, but with my bold:

"First, my last note about the 572Bs: those tubes, bought on eBay from a Chinese source, turned out to be defective. The first batch of 4 I bought from them lasted about a month before they went bad. I got another quads, and those didn't last a week. When I complained to the seller, I was just told that they never have any problems with them, they sell all over the world etc etc. For them, the culprit was the amp construction. What a joke! So it's back with the 811As, which sound very good anyway.

In the meantime, Tom (Tutay) gave me instructions to change the wiring of these output tubes, so that I could use American 811As, such as the RCAs, which require a slightly bigger cap (the connector on top of the tube). He sent me new connectors, and all I had to do was to mount new jacks on the chassis so that I could easily swap connectors and caps in order to use either Chinese or American 811As."

The same reader, as above, also brings us up to date with his most recent experiences with two Galibier turntables, and with another change of mind. Once again, there's no editing but my bold:

"On the Galibier front, I must correct a statement that I made last year, after I had received my Serac. I had mentioned that the Stelvio (the top model) wasn't "tremendously better" than mine, as I heard it in two different systems in town. Well, I was wrong. The problem was that these systems weren't set up properly at all, something I discovered later.

Since that time, I've upgraded my Serac platter to the TPI (with graphite mat) platter, and that did improve things quite a bit, particularly in terms of the silence behind the music ("blacker background" indeed), and the quality of layering and separation between instruments. I've also had the opportunity to hear one of these Stelvios again with the system in better shape than earlier, and it is indeed quite a jump up again in performance. It still remains that the Serac is an incredible bargain for what you get!"

I made a few mat (and even record clamp) comparisons with the Linn back in the 1980's, but I never came up with a satisfactory and definitive alternative to their own mat, which I still consider a serious compromise, despite its "successful" use all of these decades. One reader sent me his observations on his own mat comparisons (as well as another reader's recommended "paper ring" platter modification), which I am posting here. There's some minor editing, and my bold:

"I read about the paper ring between the inner and outer platter on a Linn LP 12 on your website, and you asking for other people’s experience with this tweak. I used the preferred 80gm copy paper. Made no difference that I could hear. If the paper was intended to damp the ringing of the platter, it wasn’t very effective. But maybe I was doing something wrong.

On the other hand, I had a thin flexible grey rubber mat (of unknown origin) sitting on my SOTA. I put that on the Linn instead of the usual thin felt mat. That made a difference. Swapping between the two, the felt mat appears to extend and widen the bass and give instruments a slightly bigger image. But at the same time the images of individual musicians and instruments appear to extend or blend into each other – kind of fuzzy and warm (like a felt mat). The felt mat does nothing to dampen the ringing of the platter. Sibilants are more pronounced and the felt mat appears to be add a kind of glare to the top end. Overall the sound seems less focussed. If I look at a light without glasses on, the light appears larger and out of focus. With glasses on the size of the light is much smaller, but sharply defined. The Linn felt mat is like that – larger images from individual instruments, but a lack of focus. Just as I prefer corrected vision to uncorrected vision, I also prefer my music to be focused and the musicians and instruments to be delineated from each other, not blended in.

With the rubber mat, the bass loses some depth (extension) and width, but gains weight and impact, which I prefer. Bass also seems slightly rubbery (the cartridge 'reading' what is underneath the record?). Instruments and musicians are more focussed and delineated. The difference was most apparent on a Haydn piano trio played at a low level. With the rubber mat, the piano trills were obvious and easy to follow – a series of quickly played notes and a clear bell like quality. With the felt mat – not the same. The piano notes were slurred, lacking definition. Guess which I prefer. Less work was required to listen with the rubber mat.

And it supports what you say about sound floors! I could really notice the difference between mats at a low level. I also have the original Linn ribbed rubber mat. This mat just deadens the sound, and is less preferable to the felt mat. So not all rubbers are the same. So, as a quick and simple Linn tweak, try a thin rubber (non-Linn mat), but I can’t tell you what my mat is, unfortunately. A bit of fiddling for others out there, if they want to try. Ain’t hi fi wonderful. The mat I used is only slightly heavier than the felt mat, and I didn’t adjust, or need to adjust the springs. The slightly greater weight didn’t change things enough to fiddle further, but the Linn did seem to bounce ever so slightly better than before!"

Personal Note- Considering how many Linn turntables are in current operation, anyone who designed a "super mat" for it would have to be a potential millionaire. How's that for an incentive.

After a relatively "quiet period" this late Summer and Fall, which I required to recharge my batteries, I now have firm plans for the extensive personal auditioning of a variety of highly interesting components in the near (6 months) future. A number of my associates will also be involved, for the purposes of a wider perspective and verification. When I say "extensive", I mean it. Every single component in my system, with the exceptions of my phono cartridge and power amplifiers, will be seriously "challenged". (And even the SET amplifiers will be involved with output tube comparisons.)

I am not able to provide any of the juicy details at this time, nor even a firm timetable/itinerary, but the arrangements have been made. This will be an exciting period for my friends and I, and I promise to share everything we observe and learn, step by step. I realize that the particular components we audition will not be of personal interest to a majority of readers (for cost purposes alone), but they should provide some unique insights into audio reproduction, and this will help many audiophiles with their own personal audio journey.

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the May 2009 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.

The "Extreme" is simply the "Original" Pure Reference, with the exact same drivers and crossovers, but in two separate cabinets (a mini-monitor and a subwoofer), instead of one large floorstander. With the monitor sitting directly on top of the subwoofer (at the front), the Extreme is around 12" shorter, though its subwoofer takes up around 50% more floor space, because it is 4" wider. The price for the Extreme is $ 26,000, compared to $ 22,000 for the Original.

I have around 100 playing hours on the Extreme. Based on my experience with the Original, the Extreme will further improve with more hours, but not dramatically (see Addendum 2 below). The big questions are how the Extreme compares* to the Original, and whether the $ 4,000 price differential is worth it (since the Original will still be available)? First though, I would advise those seriously interested in these speakers to read, or at least skim over, my lengthy Review of the Original Pure Reference. This should help the reader to fully appreciate the sonic differences between these two (otherwise) similar sounding speakers.
Now, as to its performance...

*Both speakers were auditioned with the exact same components, and they also had identical positioning. Further, one of my visiting associates heard these speakers at the 110 hour mark, and verified my observations.

The Extreme is superior to the Original in a number of areas, equal in others and inferior in none. A typical "neighbor", or "brother-in-law", would not be able to distinguish one speaker from the other, but any experienced audiophile should easily hear the differences. In every instance, but one, the sonic differences between them are minor, meaning they are "noticeable", but not "obvious", unless you are an exceptionally discerning listener, or are intimately familiar with their sonics (as a normal long-time owner should be). I will deal with these minor improvements first.

The Extreme is a little cleaner, more immediate and faster than the Original. In short, the Extreme sounds even more like a top electrostatic, such as the Martin-Logan CLS (in its greatest strengths), than before. While its overall tonal balance, perspective and neutrality are the same as the Original, the Extreme does have a small reduction of those tiny frequency aberrations which are unavoidable in every speaker design. These deviations are too subtle to even describe, but they still signal you that a mechanical device is reproducing the musical instrument, rather than it being the real thing.

As for the frequency extremes, the highs are the same, though the bass appears to be just a touch more extended, and with a little more weight and body to it. The quality of the bass is also slightly improved, being, once again, a little more articulate, controlled and defined (see Addendum 2 below). The quality of the highs is also better, but it's even more subtle. This time, a very tiny resonance, only barely (and occasionally) audible with very specific frequencies (flutes, violins and sopranos), has now been effectively eliminated. (Since a very similar resonance was slightly more noticeable with the Ars Acoustica System Max, I wasn't able to isolate the cause of the residual problem when I first heard it being reduced with the Original Pure Reference.)

I saved the best for last, because there is one area that the Extreme is significantly superior to the Original: Image Focus. In my review of the Original Pure Reference (PR), I mentioned that my ultimate references for image focus were the Morrison & MBL, which are omni-directionals. Just behind them was the Ars Acoustica, which is the speaker that the PR replaced. The PR, as good as it was, still noticeably lagged behind all of them. This is no longer the case. Now the Extreme is in the same league as the Ars Acoustica. (I lived with the Ars for 10+ years, and just heard it again in June 2009, so I have high confidence in my memory.)

There is one small difference between them that I have picked up, and it's actually in the Extreme's favor. The Extreme is slightly better focused at the lateral extremes (to the left of the left speaker and to the right of the right speaker) than the Ars. In fact, the Extreme is about as good as I've ever heard, even including the Morrison/MBL, at the outer edges of the overall soundstage. (The Morrison/MBL are still the undisputed "champs" in the large middle.) I don't believe the soundstage itself is any larger, but it is better "organized", so it may appear bigger because it is more convincingly "seen" and "understood".
This brings us to the second "big question":

This question can only be answered by how much you value the various improvements. In my own case, the improved image focus alone makes it worth the extra money, with the rest being "icing on the cake". The bottom line for me is simple: I can't go back to the PR.

However, other audiophiles, who don't value "imaging", may have a very different perspective. In fact, unless you truly value imaging, I would most likely pass on the Extreme, unless either:
1. You just must have that last degree of purity, speed and detail etc., discussed above, or
2. The added flexibility of having two separate cabinets is important to you, especially if you want to "double up" the speakers one day, and/or place the subwoofers elsewhere in your room, while optimizing the position of the monitors on their own.

Then there is one last question: What if you already own the Original PR? Should you spend something like $ 10,000 to trade up? For me, I don't feel it's worth it, unless you are an imaging "enthusiast", meaning someone who is actually bothered by the PR's imaging performance, but otherwise satisfied. Other than that, the differences I've described are simply too minor to justify that kind of money.

The Extreme is a welcome improvement over the Original Pure Reference. If I was asked to make an analogy, I would say that most of their differences are the equivalent of "turning a page or two", while the Image Focus improvement is the equivalent of an entire "new chapter". In the final analysis, the Pure Reference, in its Extreme form, is another step closer to the music, and a step further away from the "mechanics".

The advantages of separate cabinets should be obvious to anyone, at least in theory. Those advantages are why all of my reference speakers had them for the 3 decades before the arrival of the (Original) Pure Reference. Further, and at my request, Coincident owner, Israel Blume, also the designer of the Extreme, has sent me the specific details which should help explain the reasons for the sonic differences mentioned above. Here is Blume's letter (my bold):

"I would like to discuss briefly why the Extreme will sound better, since many may wonder why the 2 cabinets make a difference.

1. Separation of the enclosures reduces vibrations and enhances cabinet rigidity. Sonically this translates to greater purity and transient precision;

2. Monitor- The connection from the woofer to the binding post eschews any wire at all. The crossover inductor is a direct, hardwired connection to the driver and the binding posts.
The PR requires a 5 ft cable to connect the crossover to the binding posts.
The wire connecting the tweeter to the binding post has been reduced from 5 ft in the PR to 4" in the Extreme.
The small Monitor enclosure (just large enough to house the 2 drivers) reduces diffraction affects dramatically, which results in a more open soundstage with greater focus.

3. SubWoofer- The wider stance (13" vs 9" for the PR) results in greater physical stability, which reduces micro movement of the enclosure. Furthermore, the extra width places the back of the side firing woofers 4" further away from the enclosure wall. This reduces reflections back to the woofer, which slightly reduces non linear cone motion at very high SPLs."

Based on my experiences with the Original Pure Reference, the Extreme will require around 300 hours of play for full break-in. Between 100 hours of play, where I am now, and those 300 hours, the PR will slowly sound cleaner, more open, more harmonically complete and also improve its reproduction of very subtle dynamic shifts (making it sound more "fluid" and less "mechanical"). Even now, the Extreme is already cleaner and more open than the Original, and very similar in the other areas.

As with the Original PR, I have changed the incline of the speaker, so that the tweeter is a little further from the listener than the midrange driver. I found this change improves the driver integration, making it sound even more seamless at its crossover point. This must be done in a manner which does not compromise the stability of the speaker. The sonic advantages of doing so are most noticeable if the listener is relatively close to the speaker (8 to 12 feet), which means that at a listening distance of 20' or so, there may not be much (if any) of a noticeable improvement.

As for separating the cabinets, I originally used (4 small pieces of) "Blu Tac" between the monitor and subwoofer, which Israel Blume uses himself and suggested to me, but now I use a rubber like compound. I also have a 1" metapolymer plate sandwiched between the two cabinets.

Finally, I have been using the Coincident Frankenstein M300B Mk. II exclusively with the Extreme, full range, as I had with the Original PR for the last 8 months (to respect the principle of "continuity"). Accordingly, my impressions of their comparative bass performance are based completely with this one amplifier. I must note that the Frankenstein's bass reproduction, as amazing as it is for its low power rating (8 watts), does not equal what I heard with the Coincident Dragon 211PP with the Original PR. The Dragon had greater extension, weight, control, impact and authority. However, it may take relatively demanding music to demonstrate some of these qualities. I must assume that those same improvements will also be noticeable when the Dragon is used with the Extreme's subwoofer, but I don't plan to use this combination until the Extreme is fully broken-in.

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the June 2009 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 veteran reader, and contributor to this website, just sent me his most recent observations. I have no experience with this tonearm, and very limited experience with an earlier model, the 505 (certainly not enough to give an informed and detailed opinion), but enough to know it was very idiosyncratic. Here's his letter, with some editing and my bold:

"I mounted the Dynavector on my Oracle Premiere. In order to do that, I had to defeat the suspension and basically support the subchassis on wooden pucks. It is an original 507, and weighs 1380 grams - that is over 3 pounds, and is actually heavier than the 505 by 130 grams (nearly 3 Cognac bar drinks!). It is definitely more modern and user-friendly that the 505. It sounds pretty good. As to interchangeable headshells - I don't see how it is any worse than Graham's or Tri-Planar's interchangeable wands. I have to do some critical listening, and throw back my MG-1 for a good comparison to get a good opinion.

So far - BIG sound, BIG midrange, populated by lots of midrange information, BIG bass with BIG slam, a feeling of solidity (no surprise there). Very good tracker, the Shelter 901 is pretty happy in it at 1.65 grams. I may be mistaken, but it seems to glide over some very low level information. It is not the most resolving arm that I have heard, but it is definitely very musical. What info it does get off the record, it presents with aplomb. Another thing that have struck me, is the sense of 'intimacy' and involvement in the musical experience. It seems to get out of the way, especially on live recordings.

Just from my memory of three days ago, MG-1 is a bit more accurate, more resolving, more neutral, with slightly more accurate and life-like bass, but not as 'solid' in it's presentation, not as dynamic, not as full sounding. While comparing Madrigal Carnegie I and Shelter 901 on MG-1, I heard the differences mostly in tonal balance. While the 901 was definitely better at handling transients and dynamic swings, difference in this respect was much more pronounced in the Dynavector. But the 901 is also darker sounding on the 507. The Dynavector has so much more midrange and bass, that ZYX would probably sound good on it.

But the price difference: new MG-1, with digital VTA readout, is $599 or something like that, plus pump. New 507 Mk II (exactly the same as original 507 from as early as 1984, but with different headshell and cables) is about 5 grand! One sealed NOS Mk II just sold on ebay for $2,500. so I guess mine was a bargain at $1575 (NOS 507, never mounted). They are probably the coolest looking arms out there, but I don't understand why they bring such big bucks... I have to play with it some more to make my final decision.

For a short period I played with EAR 834 with MC transformers and output volume pot. Was not impressed at all. Sweet, nice, musical, but non-resolving. Nearly everything sounds at least decent through it. Reminded me of an old Dynaco PAS preamps. The Hagerman Trumpet is light years ahead."

I have no experience with this model, and neither do any of my associates. However, a veteran, experienced and helpful reader sent me his detailed observations. The reader's first language is not English, so I did my best, within reasonable time constraints, to help with the grammar. Here it is, and the bold is mine:

"I would like to post some listening impressions about my new preamp that I purchased last year. It's the long-awaited unit from ARIA, a new brand owned by Mike Elliott, (ex-Counterpoint designer) very well known for many outstanding preamps in the 1980's. My choice was the WV11XL, a tube linestage only (but there is also available a full unit with MC phono, costing only $1,000 USD more), so my report refers to the line stage and not the phono (I do have an external SA-9jr unit from Counterpoint).

The unit has now reached approximately the full burn-in process required by the manufacturer (200 hours), and the sound is more cohesive and sweet. Please refer to the manufacturer's website for the complete specifications. All the listening sessions were made testing alternatively both the RCA and XLR connections. The remote is a cheap piece controlling the volume knob only. The construction is excellent and the finishing looks equal to the best competitors.

I have made some listening sessions in comparison with a few excellent preamps (see below), both tube and solid-state, using three different power amps:
BAT VK-55 first version;
EAR 509 monos;
Counterpoint-AltaVista NP220 (premium plus level),
These power amps have three different sounds, with EAR's apparently more vivid and dynamic, but much less refined. The BAT has a nice tonal balance (the best of the three), but it has limited power in the bass region when it's pushed hard. The speakers are my Kharma CE.2.3, with ceramic drivers for midrange and tweeter only. In this contest, the hybrid tube-SS NP220 is preferable, with more depth in the soundstage, and better definition and beauty on voices. It's also the most powerful of the three, with better control in the bass.

Preamps I had in my room for a comparison in the last year were the: ARC REF 1, Spectral DMC-20; Mark Levinson ML-26 and ML-320; BAT VK-51SE; LAMM LL2 linestage.

I understand that these are not the current flagships for each brand, but all of them are highly regarded preamps with very very good tonal balance, detail and flexibility. Some of these were better concerning the not important feature of the control range in the volume pot (steps of 0.5 db for BAT). The Spectral, as expected, more thin and one sweet spot; Lamm a little bit dark in tonal balance, ARC and ML-320 with a nice sound in all spectrums. The overall sound quality of the Aria WV11XL is just in another class; better on every parameter, sometimes with a little margin, sometimes with a large difference. You hear immediately a more lifelike presentation of the music. You have great and superior resolution of low-level details, both of the musicians playing and also the small ambience noises are clearly much more audible than the other preamps, and contribute to create a more lively performance.

The SPL variations of program music seems effortless, but at the same time musicians and singers remains in their place on the stage; superb depth and great sense of air. Music appears more cohesive. To my ears there's not a part of the frequency spectrum that is better than another; high frequencies are obviously extended, clear and not compressed, but never never fatiguing. You receive the involvement in listening that sometimes you obtain through different tubes designs that do their best in midrange resolution, but here, with the Aria, you have more speed.

It's not as fast as the Spectral (most preamps and power amps from Spectral are the fastest on the market), but at the same time you have IMHO a correct decay of the music, not slightly truncated as I have listened with some SS preamps. This is easy to hear, not only with solo performers (Oistrakh's violin on Bruch Scottish Decca 6035 seems now in perfect tonal balance), but especially when the music becomes complex, as in the most part with great symphonies, with many musicians.

For each comparison, I waited until the solid-state units remained turned on for at least one day before judging; but with other preamps in every match the general sensation is of nice detail and timbre, but less vivid sound; you play good music, you have detail but... you are two steps back. Please note that the comparisons have been made detaching for a few minutes all systems before start again. Units for comparison remained in my home from 3 days up to 2 weeks for listening.

Vinyl and CD were used alternatively; all kinds of music, with 50% classical (both symphonic and small scale); and the rest of jazz group and pop. I know very well the character of some of the greatly loved labels, like old Mercury's, RCA, Decca, etc. I do have a large selection of vinyl rated in your Supreme Recordings, so some of the discs of that list were used for listening.

The design circuit of the ARIA is unusual; a small switch allows the use of both 6 and 12 volt tubes; so... you can enjoy tube-rolling. Each change caused different gain, and also the tonal balance and soundstage will vary. I know only one other preamp that has a similar feature; it's the Italian Lector model Zoe (but this latter has less tubes). I'll try it in my home soon.

Actually the Aria comes with good new EH ECC88; until today my preference goes to old Tung-Sol 12BH7A black plate, but I have not tried yet all the long list of compatible tubes. I had a further little improvement with some rolling in two (of the four) tubes in the power supply section.

I gave attention to the choice of power amp input impedance. My EAR 509 were modified raising a value of 100K ohm; BAT given from a friend of mine is 215K ohm and NP220 is approx. 500K ohm. This last is a perfect match for a tube preamp that has a declared output impedance of 2-3000 ohms approx. I had the opportunity to try the huge and well reputed VITUS 101 SS power amp, but I refused, since the input impedance value is a prohibitive 600 ohms in balanced mode (a value that seems typical in professional market). It is impossible for Aria to drive it without losing high frequencies and dynamics.

My opinion is that the ARIA WV can probably easily compete with the best products on the market. I'm thinking of the most famous tube competitors, like ARC REF5, or the BAT REX. Sure it's possible that some other little brand may do better in some aspects, just for example, I read something enthusiastic about new Joule Electra 450 Marianne Electra, as well the Audion Premier Quattro and Jadis JP-80* you quoted on your site. Also, here in Europe, we have a few small brands with great reputations for their best preamps. Since I made any comparison side-to-side, I can only suppose that the WV11XL from Mr. Elliott will be in the same league.

About price, I can't make any consideration, since a brand that has the direct sales service only should be clearly cheaper than competitors that sell through dealers, I don't want to analyze this problem, for now."

*Personal Notes- The Jadis JP-80 is a "Reference" on this website only for its phono stage. I have bypassed the internal line stage completely (in 1992). Consequently, I have no idea how it would compare to other line stages, even if heavily modified.

I'm also not surprised by this reader's observations of the Aria, since I, and other serious audiophiles, felt Counterpoint (Michael Elliott) produced better components than Audio Research or CJ (and others), when they were in business, in both absolute terms and "for the money".

A European reader sent me his tube rolling observations with the Doge 8 preamplifier. They are more extensive than any person I know of at this time, including my associates. His first language is not English, so I had to do a good deal of editing. Here it is, with my bold:

"I have some observations to make on tube rolling for the last year I have had the Doge 8. On the line section, I used a SIEMENS NOS, and it was dead quiet on every source I tried. This was something I never experienced from any preamplifier I've owned in the last 20 years.

With the phono stage, things were more difficult. The included Chinese tubes were quiet, but with no life or musicality. The Reissue Mullards were good, but were noisy on MM and extremely noisy on MC. The NOS Valvo was better than the Mullards, or the Chinese, but was still nothing special when it came to noise.

Telefunken and Matsuchita brought life and less noise. Of these two, I prefer the Matsuchitas in my system. Then I read about the French MAZDA*. To be honest, I did not expect any huge differences, and the price was too high for four of them, but, on the other hand, I just had to try them. I can claim this after just one month I have had them: NOTHING IS BETTER ON THE DOGE PHONO THAN THESE TUBES. Every Doge 8 owner must try these tubes before they buy anything else!!!!! They are quiet, with enough gain and they also have musicality."

The reader's current audio system:
VPI TNT6 with SUPER PLATER and DOUBLE MOTOR/ADVANCED ANALOG MG1 LINEAR ARM/DYNAVECTOR XV1S
DOGE 8 PREAMPLIFIER
CODA SYSTEM 100 (PURE CLASS A)
SONUS FABER CREMONA

*Personal Notes- Until this letter, I've never even heard of the Mazda tubes. Any reader confirmation would be welcome. However, I've now seen their actual NOS prices, and they are extremely expensive, as the reader notes.

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 can now provide most of the important details of what components my associates and I will be auditioning and critically assessing in the next few months:

1. A direct comparison of the Kuzma Stabi XL 4 motor turntable to the exact same Kuzma 2 motor version. This will provide our baseline "Reference".

2. A direct comparison of the Kuzma Stabi XL turntable with their Air-Line tonearm to an all-out (plinth and bearing) Lenco idler-drive turntable and the Graham Phantom II tonearm.

Independent of the above...

3. A direct comparison of the Dynavector XV-1S to XV-1T phono cartridges.

4. A direct comparison of the Graham Phantom II to the Eminent Technology Linear Tonearm.

5. Two direct comparisons of the Lenco Idler-drive/Graham Phantom II to the Forsell turntable and tonearm (in two completely different systems).

6. A direct comparison of the Lenco Idler-drive/Eminent Technology tonearm to the Forsell turntable and tonearm.

7. A direct comparison of the Bent Audio (Silver), CineMag and Coincident Moving Coil Transformers.

8. An evauation of the Clearaudio Double Smart Matrix Record Cleaning Machine (A direct comparison with the Nitty Gritty RCM will be attempted as well, either with our group or just by myself).

9. We will evaluate an inexpensive Surface Demagnitizer (for LPs), to see if it can also achieve the alleged results of the Walker and Furutech models.

All of the comparisons will be direct, using the exact same system, with only one component changed at a time (except Comparisons #2, #5 & #6).

The above comparisons and evaluations will be our main focus until approximately April. Then I will move on to Preamplification; both phono stages and line stages. I have purposely delayed this Preamplification evaluation stage so we can completely focus on all aspects of phono source reproduction, which I have somewhat neglected during the last few years.

I asked my associates to evaluate any differences that could be heard going from 2 to 4 motors on the (top of the line) Kuzma Stabi XL turntable. This is important, because most owners (and reviewers) have only heard the original 2 motor version. This is their report, with my bold:

"The differences are subtle, but noticeable and more discernable the higher the resolution the audio system in which it is placed. The sonic advantages of the 4 motors are as follows:

1. Greater speed stability- Which results in virtually perfect pitch reproduction. This becomes apparent only when you switch from the dual motors to the quad, or if one is hyper sensitive to pitch deviations. The rock solid speed stability provides the feeling that sustained instruments such as piano, never alter their timbre and tone and sound disarmingly real.

2. Wider dynamic gradations- The gradations from ffff to pppp are more relaxed, and the levels between those extremes more obvious.

3. Enhanced sense of weight and authority- Akin to increasing the wattage of your amplifier, but with no sonic penalty. Hard transients have greater intensity, and instruments possess a heightened feel of more harmonic content.

4. More expansive soundstage- The sound field opens up, especially on large orchestral works. Grander sense of scale is revealed, and with no loss of focus or precision within the soundstage.

Overall, the improvement going to the 4 motors is worthwhile and, once experienced, there is no going back to the dual motors."

Personal Notes- The Kuzma Stabi XL4 is now our baseline Reference turntable. The first competitor for the Kuzma will be an all-out Wood Lenco (with a Graham Phantom II tonearm, while the Kuzma will use its own Air-Line linear arm).

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the July 2009 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.

I recently received this interesting letter from a reader. Any confirmation of this reader's experiences would be most welcome. Some editing and my bold:

"I too am looking forward to a North American introduction of Graz's Aussie Apogee. But those - both big and smaller (less big?) models are likely to break my bank account. But I think I found a partial and far cheaper substitute to what would be just plain cost prohibitive. I "discovered" line sources composed of BG (formerly Bohlender Graebener) Neo8 mid/tweeters. These are push-pull ribbon designs with high sensitivity and remarkable detail retrieval and imaging. There is also an OEM only Neo10 product with less FR anomalies that is currently used by Martin Logan and I suspect the new VMPS top end series.

First I came across them on the DIY audio web forums, and reading between the lines, I realized that the people using them despite complaints of a variety of problems in implementation are getting something special in the way of resolution and imaging that even as very experienced audiophiles, they could not get elsewhere.

I had a pair of (mostly stock) Tympani IV at the time, and I blew the crusty old midranges while playing very loud Wagner and clipping my poor PSE Studio 4 amps. Always having been dissatisfied with their thick midrange, I was looking for a substitute and decided to give a pair of Neo8 drivers a try. setting them up on the floor against the handles of my Studio amps without a crossover, I played some favorite chamber music to try them out.

The midrange clarity and imaging coming from the floor were nothing short of miraculous - on par with what I heard from the best experience I have ever had in this regard; with a Teac ReeltoReel playing Joni Mitchel without a preamp into an early Krell class A Mono amps (KMA 100? 5 years before it was released?) driving the original Martin Logan CLS in the middle of the empty hotel conference hall where the consumer audio show (I no longer remember its title) was in the last stages of dismantling. This was also when I learned that on some properly set up speakers, tape hiss has its own image, a ball sized blob significantly above the center image.

Since then, I first got a 3 way crossover, an adjustable commercial one and Marchand's solid state version, along with experimenting with a variety of passive crossovers and placement configurations with the Tympani Bass and 6 ft ribbon tweeter. Now, over 5 years of experimentation, I found that the trick is to:

(1) have at least 6 drivers per side,
(2) that they have some plinth on either side to avoid losing some lower mids to cancelation,
(3) the resonance peak at 14-16 kHz cancels out if you have at least 1/3 of the line source below ear level and the rest above.
(4) one gets good dispersion up to 5 khz and passable to 10 khz and response is pretty flat down to 200 Hz, Using the Marchand they are crossed over 4th order LR at just under 300Hz and at 5 Khz. Using a passive crossover network at line level, I have done well with 2nd order bessel for Bass and first order for the rest at 200 Hz and 6-8 kHz. (but requires positioning the mids in front of the bass panels to obtain time alignment).
(5) Sensitivity is a minimum 96 db for the 6 piece line source, and calculated max SPLat 1% THD is 116 db at 3-500 Hz, 10% THD at 122 db SPL, at 1% 106 SPL and 10%@ 115 db SPL at 1 Khz, 114 and 121 db above 3 khz (1 & 10% THD).

Needless to say, good clean loud midrange is a reality, no breakup on Wagner tutti + singers. Images remain stable at 115 db SPL and do not grow or recede with volume. Tonal textures are always retained. And way too many of your favorite soloists turn out to breathe heavily.

The Neo 8 line source reminds me of what I heard from the big old Apogees. It is amazing what under $1,000 in drivers can give you. The construction is simple as can be. Just bolt them onto medium or hard wood rails (poplar or red oak) and mount them to the bass speaker or a stand. They can be used full range from about 200 hz to 17-18 khz. or crossed over to a good ribbon or ring radiator tweeter. I experimented a little with horn loading, and you can get better dispersion and extend FR to beyond 20 khz with a shallow constant directivity horn, which also gives a couple db better sensitivity. I am sure you need no help in imagining what bass speaker/subwoofers would be a good match.

The Neo8 addresses the Tympani IV's weakest link and integrates wonderfully with the strong woofer and excellent tweeter. The flexibility in upper crossover point can allow the use of a medium power tube amp on the Maggie tweeter by narrowing its operating FR band outside of the musical fundamentals into the low energy frequencies that carry tonal texture, overtone and spatial information. The membrane on the Neo8 is actually just as light as the ribbon tweeter on the Maggie and integrates perfectly. I don't think there is anything lost to a good stat.

At 96db + sensitivity, anything over 10 watts can drive it. Perhaps you or one of your group would take the trouble to try it out. It is not an expensive experiment and it is hard to ruin the drivers with WBT silver solder and quick work. The main retail seller is http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=264-712

BTW, the Tympani woofer should not be mounted flat forward, the panels should have an angle between them for time coherence at the listening seat and to help in canceling out stray transverse creeping waves. The granite and other heavy plinths have a problem with trapping large amounts of energy and radiating it back to the tympani drivers. They suffer from a broad cavity resonance at 800 hz and suffer from transverse waves going across the mylar. By mounting them in a heavy plinth they are indeed carried into it and spread into a large mass but they are also reflected back and at additional frequencies. A lighter and highly transmissive metal or wood frame anchored to a solid floor to drain energy would do better, as would a stiff but reverberant hardwood frame that dissipates energy into the room and transmits it to the floor as well - the more modes for dissipation the better. Damping the magnet board with Dynamat strips helps too. with all this done, the woofers perform well into the 500 hz range before they start getting "thick" and losing significant detail.

The system configuration is as follows:
Room 19+ by 17 basement, with insulated walls and "wood" paneling. Small and large desks, recliner, many bookcases, rugs, acoustic tile ceiling and sofa loaded with junk.
Tympani IV bass Panels and 6ft ribbon tweeter, 6 neo 8 drivers mounted on rails placed in original midrange position, or 8 drivers placed at the edge of the mid/treble panel by the inside edge of the bass panel. tweeter to the inside, woofer panel outer edges 2 ft away from side walls, but with bookcases beside them to limit extent of dipole bass cancellation (adjusted by changing the gap to the edge of the bookcases). Panels arranged in an equidistant arc for driver time alignment.

Bass is flat to 25 hz and only down a few db at 20 hz with the passive crossover. (the Marchand has a subsonic filter I have not taken out yet). The drivers are aligned to produce a mono image about the size of a baseball just above ear level smack in the middle between the speakers. The drivers take a few hundred hours to fully break in but never sound bad.

Bass amp: Crown 5002VZ - 2500 W/channel - yes, the bass panels need (nearly) that much to deliver the right bass crack.
Mid amps (alternates):
Dynaco MkIII Triode, musicaps, relcaps RTX (PS) Vampire gold jacks and posts. KT 90EH
Classe DR-9 solid state
NuForce 8.5 modified by Ric Schutz of Tweakaudio. - Class D (wonderful transparent clean and neutral but must be used with an inductor in line with the output - or it gets "crazy" sharp sounding)
Fosgate 4125 bridged. (a Strickland design, based on the Acoustat Transnova amps)
Tweeter: Classe DR-9 or Nuforce, DR-9 does better.

Pre is an Audible Illusions Dual Mono, with Vampire jacks, Alps pots and selectors, teflon on 6N copper wires, Sonicap Gen 1 caps currently - moving on to relcaps and Vcaps for smaller values. Also Melos MA 333 Gold phono pre (more fun than precision, but sufficient precision) and Melos SHA Gold for backup.

Technics 1600 MkII suspended DD turntable rebuilt, with rewired and damped arm, Garrott FGS MM (has no damping whatsoever - quietest cartridge I ever heard - very dynamic and musical). Soundsmith retip AT OC9
Backups, Oracle Alexandria II, Oracle Delphi MkI, Sansui 929, Lenco L-75 (undergoing mods now). The Technics sounds better than them all. On par with normal VPI scoutmaster - not as nice as the rim drive version."

A reader sent me a list of the improvements he made with the venerable ET tonearm, which has been around now for around 25 years. English is not the reader's first language, so there is some editing and my bold:

"I would like to share my experience with readers in the US of my ET 2 arm. This arm is mounted on a full acrylic DD turntable of the Dutch brand Sphinx (15 years ago Sphinx was owned by Siltech). The Sphinx Project 6 uses the same motor as the Goldmund Studietto. It is the JVC type. I used to use the arm with the Takatsuki SPP-6GA pump, supplied by Eminent Tech.

The first upgrade was the homemade surge tank, made of PVC tube. Next was the damping trough. After using it with the Dynavector DV 17 MK 2, the ET had an upgrade to the carbon fibre arm, together with the large diameter magnesium arm wand. After that upgrade, it is the ET 2.5. I replaced the DV 17 with the TE KAITORA, also from Dynavector, and replaced the original wiring with Incognito silver loom, total length 1.6 M, so the wires from the cartridge directly connect to the Phono PH5.

The original pump was replaced by the Wisa 300, but this pump was too noisy. So I contacted the Takatsuki company in Japan, and I came by a Takatsuki SPP 15 GA directly from Hiblow France (price Euro 110). There is a branch in the US (Saline MI 48176) (www.hiblow-usa.com). I like this pump very much, as it is not noisy, and it is in use in the same room as the turntable. IMHO, this TT with the ET2.5 arm, TE KAITORA and the silver wiring will give me a lifetime of pleasure."

Coincident Frankenstein and Dragon Amps driving the Pure Reference Extreme 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).

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 performance 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. Next up is an extreme version of a vintage Lenco Idler-Drive (using a super heavy plinth and high quality bearing), with a Graham Phantom II tonearm.

Finally, I also have a new record cleaning machine, the Clearaudio Double Smart Matrix.

Oswalds Mill Audio (Interesting & Different Idler-Wheel Turntable, SET Amplifier and Horns) NEW 8/09

Transmission Audio (Amazing Variety of Full Ribbon and Hybrid Speakers from Sweden) NEW 8/09

Loudspeakers by Miro (DIY Speakers and Assistance, Dynamic and Ribbon Drivers) NEW 8/09

McAlister Audio (Wide Variety of Tube Electronics, located in Ontario, Canada) NEW 8/09

Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg (Fascinating and Informative Articles and Essays from the late and missed Audio "Professor") NEW 9/09

Audio Voice Acoustics (A Forum for Horn Enthusiasts, including some DIY Discussion) NEW 10/09

Daily Audiophile (They list what well-known audio websites are currently reporting on) NEW 01/10

Affirm Audio (High Effiency Speakers using Feastrex drivers - Formerly "Maxxhorn") NEW 01/10

Hawthorne Audio (High Effiency Dual-Concentric Drivers and DIY Projects) NEW 02/10

COINCIDENT VICTORY II- I've reluctantly decided that I don't require speakers of this outstanding quality in my Home Theater system, so I decided to sell and replace them with something more modest. This particular pair was part of the very last batch of 6 that were ever made, back in 2007. They are dark cherry and I had every possible upgrade done at the time, internally and externally, to optimize them, including the Extender Feet.

They are in excellent condition, with only a few minor blemishes that you must be very close to see. I have the original owner's manual and the original cartons. They were $ 7,000+ new, and I'm asking only $ 3,500 for them, with shipping extra.

I have some digital pictures of the Victory IIs that can be sent to anyone who is interested. Finally, here is my Review of these speakers.

NITTY GRITTY 2.5FI RECORD CLEANING MACHINE- In excellent condition, though the auto fluid dispenser hasn't been used for a while, so I can't guarantee that this feature will work. However, I checked inside the unit, and there are no clogs. A bonus- a Vac-Sweep Replacement Kit is also included. The Retail for this package is $ 850, while I am asking only $ 400. I also have the original carton and instructions. A picture is available.