RECENT AUDIO NOTES

This section contains ALL of the newest material before it is posted to the dedicated files. It will remain here for around 6 months. So readers can now 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.

My computer became basically dysfunctional the last week of August, and totally crashed on Thursday, September 1st. The hard drive had to be replaced. Most, but not all, of my most important files are safe, including all the emails I received prior to the crash. At this moment, I can now update the website (which is obviously how you can read this message), but my email capability is still zero, both incoming and outgoing. I hope to have this email problem solved in a few days. I ask for your patience, because this isn't fun for me either.

I had the Coincident "Kamikaze" Statement Phono Stage with all the latest Teflon capacitors installed, but there was an unknown problem with the dedicated power supply, so everything will be sent back to Coincident. This will cause a further few weeks of delay, but I (and Israel Blume) felt this was necessary if my evaluation was to be as reliable and definitive as possible.

Prior to the above, I was delayed once again because of weather/AC related problems, despite my best efforts to overcome them this year. In fact...

When this current, multi-year, "phono" focus is finished to my satisfaction, I next plan to investigate, if possible, AC problems and their "solutions", if any, which are particularly applicable to Florida residents, such as myself.

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. These letters furthermore, are not to be taken as being endorsed by Arthur Salvatore. 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 2011 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 some potentially wonderful news I just found out about from a reader. More information can be found on the importer's website. Minor editing and my bold:

"I wanted to inform you about the new Doge 8 Clarity. This is the newest offering from Pacific Valve. I have just ordered a new Clarity. The old Doge 8 has been on back order for some time, so I decided to take a chance. Apparently it is the same circuit, but with 'upgraded' caps using Clarity and Hovland musicaps. I will be putting 5751 GE black plates in the phono stage and some JAN 12at7 in the line stage. I will be using the MM phono stage with a Ypsilon SUT. I will report back after some extensive listening and break in."

Personal Notes- The new model is $ 1,900. This is $ 460 more than the original model, which is still available (as far as I know). According to the importer's website, there was a "redesign" of the phono stage, which is the model's "weak link", though the details are hazy. I will post the reader's Doge Clarity observations as soon as they become available to me. Maybe this website's criticisms of the original model, posted back in early 2009, and since then, finally bore some fruit.

I feel really priviliged to share this letter. It is from Bobby Taylor of Excalibur Audio, who gave me his permission to post it. Taylor's vast experience, seen below, speaks for itself. I will respond to some of his observations below. Here is his letter, with some minor editing and my bold:

"I was the only dealer in the world that had the Infinity IRS, sold the Wilson WAMM (I sold the dealer pair just when I opened in 1984 and did not replace them), and the Apogee full range under one roof. I sold 3 pairs of the full blown IRS, well over 50 pairs of the IRS-B (the $8,000 baby) in a 3 year period, and if I recall, seven pairs of the full range Apogee.

The Scintilla was almost impossible to sell because of the 1 ohm load, though I loved them and took a review pair home, which I still have to this day. We required that a potential owner of the Scintilla fully understand what he was getting into and we tried our level best to keep Krell out of the process.

My store was Excalibur Audio In Alexandria, Virginia, which I owned during the mid 1980's.

Bill Conrad and Lew Johnson used my store for their Premier series amps and preamplifiers. I was the largest CJ dealer in the world. Their designer (Bill Thalmann) was my service manager.

The best speaker I ever heard, driven by top line Audio Research gear in bi-amplified mode, was a pair of 1 ohm Apogee Scintillas. They were so hard to get right, and the slightest mishap, speaker wire, interconnects, the playback system, etc had to be right.

However, with great records (not those stupid audiophile recordings with cannon shots and effects), I heard information and a sheer transparency that was nothing short of magic. And they were so incredible in how they created inner detail.

If you visit the Apogee users site, then click on reviews, and then the Stereophile review by Tony Cordesman, the first segment of the review names my store as perhaps the best listening environment in retail hi-end at the time. Reviewers and manufacturers were coming and going all the time.

Without question, all those reviewers fell all over themselves for the Scintilla in the private listening room I kept for well heeled customers in the upper level. Excalibur had five floors and because I was located in the wealthy area of Washington, DC, I got a lot of diplomatic traffic as well as professional musicians.

It was all about that pair of Scintillas in a dedicated room, with no expense spared, and a professional staff to get it right and keep it that way. Jason Bloom was a frequent guest. The big failing of Apogee was that they got stuck in a political relationship with Krell, with the dealers held hostage, with the end result great hi-end dealers and their customers never heard them right. I sold Krell, and later Mark Levinson when Madrigal acquired the company.

My sales guys liked the look and feel of the Krell and sold a lot of it. Mostly to folks who should have stuck with McIntosh and be done with it. The only Krell product I ever liked was the original KSA 50. I thought it an honest product and still have one that Dan D' from Krell gave me after the sample came back from the review cycle. It could be really good on the Quad 63.

And a sleeper speaker for you. Have you ever heard a pair of Koss 1-A electrostatics? Not the original Koss 1, but the 1-A that bought the current from the wall. They really were before their time. Much better than the CLS and as good as any electrostatic ever made if you had the right equipment. It has to be tube equipment, too.

Did you know that the designer of the Koss went on to become the designer for Martin Logan? With decent binding posts, rewired, and the internal cabinet dampened. They could be something special.

I have a pair of Scintillas in storage, a pair of Martin Logan's early version of the CLS (given to me by Gayle Sanders as a gift), a double pair of KLH-9's as well as some of the speakers on your list. The (Celestion) SL-600, a pair of (Acoustat) 2+2's, a pair of Quad 63's.

Most of the later stuff I purchased when I owned the store or took on trade and simply hung onto it. And a list of vintage tube equipment, mainly ARC and a pair of the old Marantz model 9's, and two mint condition (Marantz) 10-B tuners. And my special favorite, an Audio Research D-150, the very one Harry Pearson used as his reference for several years.

If I had to go into the storage and bring back a real audiophile system simply for the musical enjoyment, I'd get out my old (Audio Research) SP-10, the two D-79-B's, and probably the Goldmund playback system from my store.

And the speakers? Probably the Koss 1-A. They really were something special with the right equipment."

Personal Notes- Taylor's letter is almost like learning about a real-life audio version of Forrest Gump. I have also heard almost all of the components mentioned above, though not all of them in my store and/or home (where it really counts). However, concerning those components where I do feel qualified to make a comment:

Krell- I've also had many disappointing experiences with Krell. However, the Krell Standard II/III SACD players are also quite desirable, and an outstanding deal when purchased used. I even have one myself.

Apogee Scintilla- I also had a pair for a while, and likewise set them up in a dedicated room, with excellent properties. We tried numerous amplifiers with them, and sometimes had very good results, but they never approached the performance of the original Apogee at its best. I agree with the reader about the damaging relationship between Krell and Apogee, which is the reason why I was never able to pick up the Apogee line when I owned my store.

A veteran reader, who made an earlier contribution concerning the VPI Super Scoutmaster a few years ago, has sent me a letter with his most recent observations, which I felt should be shared. Here it is, with no editing:

"I have written to you before about the VPI SSM, and the platter/rimdrive upgrades.

Some months ago I received a new 'plastic' belt ring to replace the old black, rubber ring which made the contact between the SSM’s platter and flywheel. This made a very big improvement – the sound from the flywheel disappeared completely, and the setup process (putting the distance between the motor and the plinth) became much easier. This new material cost almost nothing, and is a 'must have' for anyone with a VPI rimdrive-based turntable."

The computer problem I've recently experienced has now caused me to have to change the URL to the lengthy review/essay of the Coincident Pure Reference Extreme speakers. This is the new URL link: The Coincident Pure Reference Extreme File.

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the March 2011 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.

Bobby Taylor is a veteran audiophile, who was once a substantial presence in the audio business (Excalibur Audio). He has an enormous knowledge base of some of the finest audio components ever made. Taylor strongly feels that the Koss 1-A is extra special, and should not be forgotten by audiophiles, even if it is now rare. I promised to help him out. Accordingly, below are Taylor's thoughts and observations concerning the Koss, which I put together and edited from several of his letters:

"The Koss electrostatics should never have been released in its original model 1 version. The magazines killed them with justification and most of the nasty comments are related to that original release of the model.

But round two does go to Koss as they got it right. There has been a fair amount of electrostatics that have come and gone over the years, both in my store and at home, and to this day, the Koss 1-A bi-amped, with internal damping and decent internal wiring, is still in my living room and I have moved four times in 25 years. I once drove them with my old Mark Levinson ML-2's and remember the sound as glorious. I used my old ARC D-150 for several years with my Koss. Those panels love vacuum tubes.

I have wondered on and off why the speaker never ended up at the next level. The original Model One was a disaster with so much potential and the review process probably scared Koss off. Most of the Koss model ones never got upgraded, with the exception Koss sent out the free of charge AC adapter to replace the battery.

To go to the model 1-A, there was a significant amount of internal work; removing a bass panel, removing tweeters, and replacing them with a mirror image tweeter and super tweeter and converting the mid range panel to di-pole. The speakers in the shipping boxes weighed 180 lbs each, so the $450 conversion charge and the shipping was a real effort.

When Koss went back to the drawing board with the many changes, mirror image, powered from the wall, etc, it was such a world standard to folks that knew what music was supposed to sound like. As I never sold them at Excalibur (they came out with the Koss 1-A in late 1977 and I opened Excalibur in 1984), so the speaker ended up at my house on and off, and I loaned them out to audiophile friends on occasion.

It seemed the better the electronics got, the better the Koss got. The only solid state amplifier that ever sounded worth a damn were my old Levinsons, and in bi-amped mode were really special. And then they went into storage for a decade before I moved to Tennessee. When I got around to unpacking them after all those years I tried the Krell KSA 200s amplifiers. The speaker sounded so poorly that I though something was wrong with them, but it turned out to be the Krell. With my tube gear they once again are glorious.

Ask yourself this? Is there an electrostatic ever built that never broke, or acted up, got better as playback front ends and amplifiers got better, got passed around from place to place over the course of 35 years, and they still perform just like the first day out of the box when they were new.

And let's face it, you and I have been around the audiophile block with equipment over the years, and through thick or thin, so I don't say this lightly, the Koss is as good as an electrostatic ever made and if musicality is your bedrock, then the midrange is almost as good as the Scintillas I have downstairs, and, from top to bottom, the Koss is a better speaker without all the nonsense of mating amplifiers, as the one ohm load is a real killer. My record collection expands with the Koss and shrinks with the Scintilla.

They have to be one of the very few underrated speakers of all time, better than anything I sold or owned from Martin Logan or Acoustat, and yes, a lot better than the Quad 63, with none of the arcing problems. I must have replaced 10-15 panels for customers with the Quad, and those protection circuits were a nightmare. Damn shame they got panned before enough of the Koss could have gotten into the hands of people like you who really understand how hard it is to bring an esoteric product to the market.

The Koss 1-A review in TAS; I have the very pair of Koss 1-A's in this review, which represents one of the last 20 speaker pairs produced, so any and all Koss changes are in them, and we have to think Koss would bend over backwards with the reviewer, so no excuses for a bad review. The review reads much like other hi-end products that probably were ahead of their time. The amplifiers in the review were awful, but you get the general idea."

Personal Notes- I've been invited to audition the Koss 1-A speakers in Taylor's home. If I am able to make the visit, I will report back with my observations. It would be particularly interesting to hear the Koss electrostatic with a top notch triode amplifier, like the new Coincident Dragon Mk. II, something that wasn't available 30 years ago. I wonder what a pair of these speakers sell for on the used market?

The Kamikaze phono stage, which I sent back to Coincident in September, has now been repaired and will be sent back to me in the last week of October. After it arrives, I will first break it in and then compare it, as promised, to the (highly-modified) Jadis JP-80, which is my Class A (Upper) Reference Phono Stage. I should have some postable results in November.

Various Phono Cables (with DIN plugs)- I have several phono cables to compare, including the Graham IC-70, plus a couple of promised "loaners". This will take place only after the Coincident "Kamikaze" Phono Stage is evaluated (or there could be some confusion).

Audiophile Records/SACDs- I received a few LPs from RTI for an audition; Jacintha (2), Jung Trio and Anthony Wilson Trio. Some of them are at 45 RPM. I also received some of the matching SACDs. I will audition and report on these records and SACDs as soon as my system is "stabilized". (I have already auditioned one of the albums sent to me, the outstanding "Diana Krall Live in Paris". It is now included The Supreme Recordings, see below.)

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. These letters furthermore, are not to be taken as being endorsed by Arthur Salvatore. 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 2011 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 "Kamikaze" phono stage, which I sent back to Coincident in September, was repaired and updated and is now back in my system. I am currently in the process of breaking it in. I will very shortly compare it to the (highly-modified) Jadis JP-80, which is my Class A (Upper) Reference Phono Stage. I should have some preliminary results posted in late November.

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the May 2011 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 his observations of the new version of the Doge 8 preamplifier, which has long been a "Reference" (Class "B") on this website. It is called the "Clarity". Here now is his letter, with very minor editing and my bold:

"A few months have passed since I purchased my Doge 'Clarity'. I feel that after about 200 hours of break in that things are settling in.

To review my system; VPI HMW 19 Mk IV (Sorbothane)/Audioquest PT6/Denon 103 (cocobolo wood body) table, Ypsilon MC16 SUT, Adcom GFA555, Acoustat 2(medallion),
Morrow cables (#6) throughout.
A budget system by many standards.

The Doge came with reissued Mullards 12AX7 in the phono and JAN 12AT7 tubes (No need for immediate change). It was tested at Pacific Valve for 4 days before shipping. It came double boxed and in perfect condition. Their customer service kept me abreast of the entire process and even emailed me for feedback after initial listening.

Their customer service was impeccable. This point needs to be made since most dealers/manufacturers don't seem to care after the credit card clears. It is doubly important since we are talking about a Chinese product, and many are afraid of their quality.

I opened up the Doge and the same exceptional build quality is there, but more so; with the bright blue Clarity and Hoveland Musicaps lined up and soldered with what looks like great care taken in manufacturing.

I have a good friend that has the original Doge and I am very familiar with its excellent sound. I was immediately impressed by the sonics of the Clarity. It had the same incredible quiet line stage with dynamics, pace, inner and outer details. With vinyl, the differences really showed up with a lower sound floor.

Both the line stage and phono had a more pinpointed and defined soundstage. Voices and instrument placement seemed easier to hear. The new design seems to require more volume (less gain?). My friends volume knob is usually around 9 o'clock where the Clarity is more like 11.

The phono has gotten quieter and the soundstage wider. Micro dynamics are more defined and pleasing. The line stage the same, but there is less difference from the old Doge and when the Clarity was new, maybe a tad smoother and extended.

This is a wonderful preamp. Being paired with a SUT that costs more than the preamp isn't hurting it any, but that is the hobby we live with. I got to listen to the Doge with the Ypsilon phono stage and that combination was the best I have ever heard anywhere, but of course the Ypsilon phono stage is silly money at $30k.

This gave an opportunity to compare the Doge phono stage with what the audio press says is the nirvana of phono stages and it came away respectively. The much more expensive Ypsilon had a lower sound floor, but because they both had the same source and SUT, the sound was very similar. With its lower sound floor, the Ypsilon inner details were strikingly good, but not $28k better. Indeed, I believe their SUT is a big part of their magic.

PS: I tried tube rolling the Mullards for GE Blackplate 5751s and put the Mullards back. The 5751 was too soft and not as excitingly dynamic or as well defined. Clearly, the phono stage circuit has been changed from the original. I also tried the MC section and it was quieter, but still not as good as the MM due to the jfet topography.

I hope that this review is clear and concise. I feel that the Doge is a great product and a true bargain in our increasingly overpriced hobby.

In the future I plan on trying a Soundsmith modded Denon 103. I will let you know my findings on it."

In my decades of experience setting up and using numerous tonearms, the Eminent Technology, without a doubt, was the most difficult for me to optimize. I was "OK" at it, but I (and my then store) eventually found some real experts to set it up properly. One helpful and generous reader, who is enthusiastic about the ET, has sent me an email with his suggestions that may assist the owners of these potentially superb tonearms. Here it is, with minor editing and my bold:

"I would like to discuss the ET 2.0 and ET 2.5 tonearms.
I hope you find some of this info useful for other owners if questions come up.

I have been using ET Tonearms for over 8 years. I am still learning about them. They keep teaching me. Bruce Thigpen is a great resource. I own pivot arms as well.

I use an ET 2.0 with High Pressure Manifold for MM cartridges. Its spindle resonates at 5-6 hz.

I use an ET 2.5 with Carbon Fibre arm wand and High Pressure Manifold for MC cartridges. The larger diameter 2.5 spindle resonates at 3-4 hz.

Timeter Aridyne 50 psi Medical Pump regulated down to 19 psi for both arms.

Idler - Jean Nantais 100 lb Classic that has the Metacrylate mat, Bear claw feet and Jean's newly designed spindle
Direct Drive - Technics Sp10 MKII in a minimum plinth w/20 lb brass armpod
Thread Drive - TNT - Pneumatic Suspension

I see a number of ET setups online and it is obvious that the owners have not optimized them for the best sonics. They are very misunderstood tonearms.

1)PROPER I-BEAM SETUP- One of the biggest problem areas I see from looking at pictures and in talking with owners. There is no standard on how to set it up. The I beam setup is critical as it holds the lead weights and this is the area that is used to adjust VTF and customize the horizontal/vertical ratio of the arm thereby changing the sound.

The Brass Rings are NOT counterweights (P.32 of the Manual). Most owners use the brass rings as counterweights. They resonate and can move on the thread when the arm is raised and lowered over time. For ultimate rigidity only lead weights should be used and more can be ordered from Bruce Thigpen or owners can make their own - you can find lead at auto shops - wheel rim weights. Cut into similar rectangular squares and drill same diameter holes through them. Keep the I-beam parallel with the Arm wand. If you are using a heavier MC you will need to get more lead weights IMO. Don't leave all those lead weights way out on the end of the I Beam "end of the plank" to get the proper VTF. Get more of them and bring them closer to the spindle.

2) BASS RESPONSE- The ET2 has a horizontal to vertical mass ratio of 6-1 and flat neutral response down to 5 hz. This has been tested by Eminent Technology. If you want to 'customize' the sound - add more bass: Increase the vertical weight. This can be done by adjusting the location and amount of counterweights and their position on the I-Beam. For example: If you use 5 weights in the middle of the I- beam to give you the VTF you need. You could add two more weights and move the counterweight holder closer to the spindle. You have increased the vertical weight by doing this. You will get more bass. This does not refer to the SRA which is a separate control. See manual.

3) Do not use the sub base plate- This will only introduce resonances with an extra layer - mount the arm on its spikes directly to the surface of the platform.

There are many more tips.
Hope you find this info useful for owners with questions."

Important Note: Below is a link to an Audiogon thread with relevant information, observations and advice concerning optimizing the various ET tonearms:

Jasmine & MiniMax Phono Stages

Plus the JLTi KT-88 Mk2 Integrated Tube Amp

I received a letter from a reader who modified his Jasmine phono stage and them compared it to another value model. He also had other experiences and observations I felt should be shared. Below is the relevant part of his letter, with some minor editing and my bold:

"When last I emailed you, I was extolling the virtues of the Jasmine LP-2.0 (SE or Mk2) and you passed (your reader's) details on to me, as I wanted to consider his enhancements to it. As a result I did a complete rebuild of the Jasmine with top quality components (a much more substantial upgrade than your reader's own). The result was excellent.

Annoyingly, barely had I completed it before I had an opportunity to compare it to a MiniMax Phono Preamp, which is a tube phono stage based on a 6X4 rectifier, a 12AX7 (matched halves) for the first stage amplification and a pair of 12AX7s for the 2nd stage. I fell in love with the MiniMax on the same day as I fell in love with a JLTi KT-88 Mk2 integrated tube amp.

Let me tell you about each in turn, starting with the JLTi KT-88. Joe Rasmussen, who lives in Sydney Australia, is one of the key product designers of Switzerland-based Vacuum State Electronics, founded by Allen Wright, who died last year. Joe took a Chinese underpriced push-pull integrated amp, the Yaqin 100B, and used a heap of techniques and technologies to improve it for not much money, coming up with an amplifier with an all-up price tag below $2000, and a performance which blows most $10K+ amps out of the water. I presented my Once Analog turntable at a meeting of the Audiophile Society of NSW (ASoN), and Joe supplied the amp (JLTi KT-88) and speakers (also his own design).

On a whim, I suggested to the Australian distributor of MiniMax electronics, that maybe he would like a shootout between the MiniMax phono (retail $1500), a JLTi solid state phono stage, and my enhanced Jasmine at that ASoN meeting. Cut to the chase, for sheer scale and openness, the MiniMax ate the other phono stages for breakfast. No competition at all. Mind you, it was somewhat noisier, and slightly less detailed than either of the other two, but then again the tubes had just over 1 hour's burn-in as it was brand new, and they were stock tubes anyway.

As I write this, I now own both a JLTi KT-88 integrated (using KT-120 tubes) and a MiniMax phono, and they have both now had about 60 hours burn-in in my home. The KT-88 is starting to sound amazing. The MiniMax is still a little shy on detail and has a touch too much noise. I shall soon receive Psvane 12AX7 tubes and a British military-grade NOS Mullard 6X4 to replace the stock tubes in the MiniMax, as suggested by the US distributor of MiniMax, Morningstar Audio. He says the upgraded tubes in his own personal unit took the MiniMax to a whole new level, even before the tubes had settled in.

Stock, I believe that the MiniMax is easily a class B phono stage, at $1500. I cannot say yet how it will be with the better tubes, but I shall get back to you once I have them and they have had 100 hours or so.

The JLTi KT-88 is by far the best sounding amp I have ever owned and, I think, ever heard. Certainly I have heard amps which sound grander, but not more realistic. It simply lays it in front of you as if you are there."

Personal Note- It would be very interesting to directly compare the MiniMax to the Doge 8 preamplifier, including the new Clarity version. If someone does this, please pass on the results so I can post them.

In my experience, the most critical part of the Phantom setup is the amount, and viscosity, of the damping fluid. One reader has sent me some suggestions, which I am passing along. I will experiment myself with alternative damping sometime early next year. There's minor editing and my bold:

"I... came across your hiccup of being able to get the ration of damping/viscosity correct for you to really enjoy your arm. I'm not sure if anyone has recommended this, but there are some very accurate/scientific sources for the viscous fluid those and many other arms need.

In SoCal, they call the places Hobby Lobby...basically, for the weight you're looking for and to try all points in between, these places that deal in RC cars have what they call super silicone for differentials...it's exactly what Mr. Graham is using ONLY you get to choose the weight of the silicone!!! The range is all over from 100,000 to 5,000-and like I said, to tweak, all points in between.

For those who have the older arms (Gray/Neat, etc unipivot viscous damped), there is a supply house online that sells in large quantity: http://www.clearcoproducts.com/super_high_viscosity.html

In smaller sizes, you have this place: http://www.turntablebasics.com/silicone.html

I hope this information helps you and your readers as even in today's amazing wealth of information at the fingertips, it can still be a bit of a challenge."

I've had to further delay the final phono stage comparisons between the Jadis and Coincident because the Coincident "Kamikaze" phono stage was delivered damaged (for the second time), making any comparisons irrelevant. I now have the latest model of the stock Coincident Statement Phono Stage, which is working perfectly, while the Coincident "Kamikaze" should be repaired and sent back to me working by the end of January 2012.

The entire phono stage essay/review, which began in June 2011, and is still incomplete, now has a dedicated file for the sake of continuity.

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the June 2011 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 his observations about his experimentation with this interesting phono stage. Here is his letter, with some minor editing and my bold:

"I am interested in electronics and have built several amplifiers. I was inspired by your writings to attempt building the Shure M-65 phono preamp, and have been very pleased with the result. I thought you may be interested to know the details regarding it.

It was necessary with the power transformer I used to add resistance to lower the B+ voltage, so I did so by adding an extra stage of filtering. The preamp did not sound right until the voltage was within 5% of that specified on the schematic. After listening to it for a few days, I decided to try substituting a diode bridge rectifier for the single rectifier, thereby providing full-wave instead of half-wave rectification, and found that the sound was considerably improved by doing so, becoming much more solid and articulate.

I have never had a stand-alone tube phono preamp before, but compared to the Shure M64 solid-state preamp I had been using previously, the M65 has a very broad and deep sound that is very smooth, with excellent detail. I can understand the words of songs which I could not before. The 3db boost at 10 khz is slightly bothersome with only a few records, and seems to improve the clarity of FFRR discs, which do not usually sound good using an RIAA preamp. I intend to experiment with a few other phono stage circuits, but expect that I will not find one which sounds better than this."

A veteran reader, who I believe is one of the most experienced and knowledgeable persons in the world when it comes to tonearms, has sent me two messages concerning the Graham Phantom damping problems. Here they are, in chronological order, with some minor editing and my bold:

"I just read your info about the Graham tonearm and your plans for the damping fluid. I do not use the silicon from Graham, because it needs a long time to go to the deepest place and this is also depending on the temperature.

Instead of that, I use the bearing oil from a Basis Turntable. It works very well, with no hassle for the user how much he wants to use and it is independent from the temperature in your area. I've used that oil since the Graham 2.0 up to the Supreme, and I always get a stable sonic performance independent of temperature. When you want to use the Graham silicone, I recommend to warm it up before you fill it.

I got the results by accident when I thought about the original fluid, temperature, how much I need (too much and you get a kind of 'underwater sound'), and then I had the Basis fluid from my turntable..(Basis Audio). I simply tried that and think that is the easy way to go. But I am confident there is something similar out there. You can try whatever you want I think (even motor oil). You only need 2-3 drops."

Until I find a list which is more definitive, and objective, here are some speakers that I, and mainly 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.

Two of my associates, who have considerable experience with the best of today's Digital Source components, made some interesting comparisons at a recent audio show. These are the results that they sent me on my request, with only minor editing and my bold:

"To anyone following the trend in digital playback, it is quite clear that computer based systems are in vogue with CD players being viewed much like turntables were in the early 90's. The argument in favor of computers is that not only are they more convenient in use, they are less costly AND sound better. When have we heard this before? Oh yes, when CD players hit the market and when they were compared to vinyl. We all remember the notorious slogan of "Perfect Sound Forever". Fans of computer based digital seem to be making very similar claims.

To analogue devotees, listening to music using a CD/SACD player is sufficiently difficult to reconcile, but actually having music processed through a computer is tantamount to heresy. Conversely, the generation brought up with computers not only completely embraces the concept, it proclaims its inherent superiority. So much so, that the compelling sentiment is that CD/SACD players are on the brink of extinction since they are obsolete technology.

All this talk about computer based digital reproduction peaked this writer's curiosity. With so much hoopla about music servers and computers being the gateway to a new revolution in digital sound reproduction, with no downside on any level to current systems, one would have to be an idiot not to pursue its acquisition and implementation. To determine the real differences between the two methodologies, and in order to make a valid comparison between a computer based system and a CD player, all the variables have to remain constant. The only variable should be the music server versus the CD transport. The same DAC, cables, musical sources and audio system, at the same time, in the same room, must be used. A/B comparisons using the same music burned from a CD onto the music server, and hi rez files downloaded directly to the music server, compared to the same hi rez discs played back on the transport, are required. Well, this is exactly what we undertook.

The music server used in the test is sold direct from the manufacturer, and costs $5,000, and is considered by many as state of the art. Its identity is reluctantly being concealed as part of the agreement in being able to use it in the comparison. The manufacturer of the unit optimized it implementing all the upgraded audiophile options available. He personally burned the CDs supplied to him, and downloaded the hi rez files. He downloaded all the finest music programs currently being used, and proclaimed his system absolute state of the art, and easily capable of outperforming any CD transport in existence. An ipad was used as the monitor and remote.

The comparison was now ready to proceed. Seeing all the music that I have downloaded over the years from the internet and burned from CDs on the ipad was thrilling. At my finger tips in excess of 4,000 tunes were easily and conveniently accessible. I, and my significant other, who has golden ears, passionately were rooting for the server to sound at least as good as the transport. If it outperformed the transport, we considered this a huge bonus. The CD transport being used was the latest MSB Technology ($4,000 retail), which was connected with their matching Signature DAC ($ 25,000) with all the options, including 24/192 USB input and hi rez capability.

We, meaning the manufacturer of the music server, my significant other and myself, first listened to a Redbook CD, John Klemmer "Touch", burned onto the music server. Within 20 seconds of auditioning, my partner and I went from eager anticipation and excitement to puzzlement and disappointment. Being intimately familiar with the sonics of this excellent recording, we became immediately aware that much was missing. The purity and air of the high frequencies, the transparency and immediacy of Klemmer's saxophone were severely compromised. The highs were darker and dirtier, and a slight veil was apparent over the entire sonic presentation.

On the server, we then listened to the RR Rachmaninoff "Symphonic Dances". This was download directly from the internet in hi rez. While it still sounded excellent overall, we sensed that bottom end weight, dynamics and the complete rendering of harmonics seemed compromised. We then switched to the MSB transport and listened to both cuts again. It was painfully obvious how much better the sound became. Music played on the transport was more transparent, immediate, with wider dynamics. The soundstage was more open and focussed and the musical rhythmic flow was simply more natural. The differences were not subtle. It literally took the three of us seconds to hear the deleterious affects imposed by the server.

What does all this mean? As far as I am aware, this comparative test is the only one where all the variables remained constant. The server was purported to be amongst the best, and was set up by the manufacturer himself, who was present and confirmed our findings. There might be a superior music server in existence, but the fact is clear that computer based digital reproduction cannot be considered a priori superior to transports. Indeed, based on this experience, it would appear that computers have a LONG way to go before they are competitive with good transports. Cost is not really a benefit when using a computer, since the price of a top quality DAC is the same whether it is connected to a server, computer or transport. The price differential between a competent transport and laptop or server may or may not be of significance.

Furthermore, the budget DACS, those selling for under $1,000, can sound anywhere from, well budget to pretty good. None are close to state of the art, and do not be fooled into believing that they are. I assume that an audiophile, who is financially restricted, can assemble a computer based digital front end for reasonable cost, and those with unlimited funds can purchase an all out similar set up. Both will provide a plethora of convenience features, but what they will not do is playback music competitively to the finest transport based systems.

Admittedly, based on this single experiment, albeit tightly controlled and in a high resolution audio system, with 3 very acute listeners, the conclusion to be drawn is that it must not be assumed that computer based digital reproduction is inherently superior to transports. The test, at the very least, demonstrates that more controlled testing is necessary before definitive conclusions may be made. The test does demonstrate that simply because a server, or a computer, is your method of choice, do not assume that a CD transport must be inferior. It may or may not be. Start listening and comparing with your own ears."

"The connection from the server to the DAC was optimized by manufacturer of the server for AES/EBU connection. The same connection was used for the Transport to DAC. The manufacturer of the server was very aware that this was going to be a shoot-out to determine the best sound. He did everything in the building of his unit, and in the ripping of the music, to ensure the highest fidelity: Non compressed wav files. However, not the identical cable, since the cable from the server to the DAC was hardwired from the server. The exact audio show can also not be mentioned, because it may help identify the server."

Important Note- See "Readers Letters" (this month below) for more on this subject, including letters from a manufacturer of Computer Audio.

I have now twice received the Coincident "Kamikaze", and in both instances it wasn't working at 100%. Israel Blume, the owner and designer of Coincident, took full responsibility for the first problem, which dealt with the power supply. The second shipment was different, this time the actual phono stage had the problem. It is being shipped to Coincident for repair (I'm keeping the matching power supply), and I should have it back by the end of January. Meanwhile, I still was able to accomplish another promise I made earlier in 2011, which is discussed below.

As discussed above, and particularly in the Second Intermission, the Coincident Statement Phono Stage has had several changes since I originally heard it in early 2010. I was able to hear the latest version, with all the changes, and compared it directly to the Jadis JP-80, my current Class A (Upper) "Reference", which has also had a few changes since 2010. The results of these comparisons are described below.

JADIS JP-80 (W/BENT SILVER MC SUT)
VS.
COINCIDENT STATEMENT (LATEST VERSION)

Two direct comparisons of the phono stages were conducted; the first was with a long-time associate present, and the second by myself a week later, for confirmation. The system was exactly the same for both of the comparisons, with the exception of one important component (the MC Step-Up Transformer), which is discussed below.

There were two differences between these 2012 comparisons and those made back in Spring 2010:
1. Both phono stages had their signals going through the Coincident Statement Line Stage, in contrast to the 2010 direct connections.
2. The reference system was bi-amped, in contrast to 2010, when just one amplifier, the Coincident Frankenstein SET 300B, played the speakers full-range.

I felt these two changes were necessary, and would present a greater challenge to the phono stages, while also revealing more of their ultimate performance capabilities.

The results of the 2012 comparisons are similar to the 2010 comparisons. My associate and I both felt that the Jadis JP-80 (heavily modified) is still superior overall to the Coincident Statement, but this time there are some important caveats, which did not exist almost two years ago.

The Jadis still has a noticeable edge in transparency, immediacy, purity, delicacy, inner detail, separation, focus and individuation. It is also better at reproducing natural ambience and a real sense of space. The differences between them are similar to what one hears when comparing an outstanding push-pull tube amplifier to an outstanding SET amplifier, assuming the speaker is "SET friendly". Still, the two components were so alike in basic sound that it required actual A/B comparisons to hear these differences convincingly, meaning they were not "obvious".

However, unlike in 2010, this time the Coincident Statement has two noticeable sonic advantages to the JP-80, which many audiophiles may feel are critically important.

First of all, the Statement has the "largest sound" that I have ever experienced. It is very noticeable when the volume is set to a natural level and/or louder. It was the very first attribute that my associate and I heard during our initial A/B comparison (we both commented on it within literally seconds). It is so noticeable, I believe anyone can hear it, which is the strongest verbal description I can imagine. Considering that the Jadis is itself excellent* in reproducing a large image, it's possible that the Coincident Statement may be in a class by itself in this area. (For an analogy, think of a "50" screen compared to a "65" screen.)

*In the past, the only preamplifier I heard that had a larger image than the JP-80 was the (ultra expensive and rare) Jadis JP-200, though the difference was not as pronounced as with the Coincident Statement (at least at that time). The only other preamplifier that may have had a larger image than the JP-80 was the MFA Luminescence. Critically Important- The Coincident Statement, JP-200 and the Luminescence all have dual-mono power supplies. The JP-80 does not.

The Statement's second area of improvement was in the mid to deep bass (20 to 80 Hz), which now had more weight and impact than the Jadis, though the quality of the bass was around the same. This was also easily noticeable. Once again, the Coincident may be unique when it comes to the combination of outstanding bass quantity and quality. From my own perspective, the observation is simple: I've never heard anything like it before. (From a different angle, I would be shocked if Harry Pearson, who has always been obsessed with deep bass and a "big sound", didn't go literally crazy if he heard the current Coincident Statement.) I must finally stress that neither the huge image size, nor the extraordinary bass, existed in the "original" Coincident Statement which I auditioned back in Spring 2010.

I also have a caveat concerning the Jadis' areas of superiority; They were most noticeable at very low to "average" sound levels. Once the sound was "loud" (90dB or higher), the improvements described above were basically inaudible to us. However, the Coincident's two areas of superiority were almost always noticeable, with the exception of the giant image size, which was compromised when the volume setting was lower than what most listeners would consider "normal". This means that it is particularly important to optimize the volume setting of the Statement Phono Stage for each LP to hear it at its very best. I have no explanation for these observations, which both of us heard.

Finally, it must be remembered that the Jadis used the superb Bent Audio Silver SUT, while the Coincident has its own (internal) SUT, which proved to be slightly better than the Bent when direct comparisons were made in 2010. This disadvantage means that the Jadis' areas of superiority should be slightly larger than described, and its deficiencies, compared to the Statement, may be slightly smaller than described. I should have the Coincident Statement SUT to make the final comparisons, which will solve this particular "unknown".

If you listen to a large variety of music, especially with plenty of acoustical instruments (classical, jazz), then the Jadis will be superior most of the time. However, if you mainly listen to music that is recorded and/or cut loud (rock/pop music), with only a few soft volume periods, then the Coincident will be superior almost all the time. This should be obvious, since the unprecedented strengths of the Statement will always be easily noticeable, while the relative weaknesses won't be audible.

As for myself, I will be keeping my Jadis because I fit in the former listener category above. I particularly enjoy "Ancient Music" and other small ensembles, though I also greatly enjoy large orchestral works and soundtracks as well. I realize I may be in the minority here, but I feel my requirements are more challenging overall than those of the latter listener category. This means that the Jadis remains in Class A (Upper), while the Coincident remains in Class A (Lower).

Finally, I also realize that many more audiophiles are in the latter listener category, so I wouldn't be surprised if most listeners preferred the Coincident Statement in a direct comparison, especially if it was only "rock music" that was auditioned. Even listeners with similar tastes to mine may still prefer the Coincident, because it truly has a "big sound", which can even be overwhelming at times. To be able to "overwhelm" a listener, while still reproducing most of the subtleties, is an ultra rare, if not unique, accomplishment, but the latest* Coincident Statement Phono Stage has done it.

*I was informed that this "latest" version of the Coincident Statement has been shipped out since September 2010.

Primary Music auditioned for the comparisons:
THOMSON-PLOW THAT BROKE THE PLAINS-STOKOWSKI-ANALOGUE PRODUCTIONS AP 001*
MEDIEVAL CHRISTMAS-BOSTON CAMERATA/COHEN-NONESUCH 71315
LA SPAGNA- ATRIVM MVSICAE DE MADRID/GREGORIO PANIAGUA- BIS LP-163/64

*Has both very soft and very loud passages. A superb component and/or system test record.

This will be written only after I am able to audition the optimized "Kamikaze" version of the Coincident Statement Phono Stage.

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the July 2011 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 article posted above was mentioned on "Computer Audio Asylum" (along with a link), and some "controversy" was quickly generated (mainly based on a misinterpretation of what was written, which I will respond to below). I have now received two letters from Steve Nugent, of Empirical Audio, which specializes in "Computer Audio", which I felt must be posted. I do this to display the thinking, assumptions and reading "skills" of someone in the Computer Audio business, as well as a prolific poster (4775, and counting).

Here is Mr. Nugent's first letter, without any edits (but my bold), followed by a reply by myself:

"I read your article "MUSIC SERVER VS. CD" which was linked from Audio Asylum.

I recommend that you choose more carefully next time and draw a more realistic conclusion."

I don't believe that you did "read your article", or, if you did, not very closely, because in the first sentence you would have noticed that it was NOT I that actually wrote it, but instead the two associates who conducted the comparisons.

Even the manufacturer of the Music Server agreed to the results that were posted. Unlike other comparisons, everything was exactly the same and the manufacturer had all the time in the world to optimize his component.

Frankly, I don't care what John Atkinson (or almost anyone else from a commercial audio magazine) feels about any particular component. You shouldn't either. Why? The reasons are countless...Atkinson has more than 50 amplifiers, at the same time, all described as "the best available"; he has "recommended" more than 60 components in a row; he has more Class A+ (an absurdity in itself) components in certain categories than Class C, etc. etc.

I freely admit that I am no digital expert by any means. Further, I wasn't even there for the actual comparisons, so I will forward your letter to the appropriate parties. If they send me a reply, I promise to send it to you. If I also feel it is worth it, for further edification, I will post your letter and the reply on my website. If I decide to do so, I will inform you beforehand to find out if you would prefer to remain anonymous or not.

Personally speaking, and my two associates agree with me, I can't imagine any audiophile NOT wanting the computer solution to be superior. This was also true when CDs became available, and transistors before them. Audiophiles should be excused for being sceptical of the latest "advance". However, if there is a better method to achieve the best results, as you claim, we would all be interested in hearing it for ourselves.

What we have done so far is report accurately on one direct and fair shoot-out, which proved that the claim of the universal superiority of servers to transports is not justified. We are interested in taking it to the "next level", if such a level exists, as you again claim.

The people involved in these comparisons, with the obvious exception of the Music Server manufacturer, had no financial or emotional stake in the results. I feel that this is not* true in your case. If there was any "bias", as you claim, it was IN FAVOR of the Music Server.

This is clear if you read the article closely: "With so much hoopla about music servers and computers being the gateway to a new revolution in digital sound reproduction, with no downside on any level to current systems, one would have to be an idiot not to pursue its acquisition and implementation".

Finally, my website, in stark contrast to Stereophile and TAS, does not exist "to sell more products".

*Mr. Nugent designs and sells a DAC, reclocker, converter and power supply, all of which he claims are requirements when optimizing Computer Audio. This conclusively demonstrates that Mr. Nugent has a vested financial interest in Computer Audio, while we have none, for either option. Here's the proof, plus a small favor to Mr. Nugent...

"I dont (sic) object to shootouts, but this was not one of them. The products were not mentioned. The conclusion was that Computer Audio was inferior to CD's. This was the wrong conclusion IMO.

BTW, you are getting a lot of flac (sic) on Asylum for this. Not good for business."

Important Note- Because of the last sentence in Steve Nugent's second letter, my original offer of anonymity is now revoked.

This is a very ignorant letter, which is literally depressing to contemplate. Even worse, the last sentence is both comedic and despicable at the same time. Fortunately, it is short:

My Reply- Yes they were; the MSB Transport and DAC. It was the ($ 5,000) Music Server which was not mentioned, because of a promise we refuse to break. If the manufacturer gives us permission, I can assure you it will be mentioned.

Nugent- The conclusion was that Computer Audio was inferior to CD's. This was the wrong conclusion IMO.

My Reply- Complete nonsense. We never claimed that "Computer Audio was inferior to CD's" was our "conclusion". This interpretation can only be the result of poor reading skills and/or some misplaced fear.

Nugent- This particular all-in-one server, brand name XXX was inferior to the particular CD transport. This is the real conclusion.

My Reply- True (finally!). This may be the first (and only) correct interpretation that was made of the entire article. Anyone, with average reading skills, understood that conclusion from the beginning. However, this particular comparison also proves that it can not be assumed that computers are always superior to good quality transports. That is the main point of the article.

Nugent- BTW, you are getting a lot of flac on Asylum for this. Not good for business.

My Reply- I don't care what kind and amount "of flac" I'm getting on "Asylum". As for "not good for business", this may be the single most ignorant comment I've yet read about my website, which is saying a lot. Why?

I haven't been in the audio business since Fall 2001, more than 10 years ago now. I have a totally non-commercial and independent website, dedicated exclusively to home audio journalism. I also see this remark as some sort of veiled threat. To be clear, I won't be intimidated, because I have no finances at stake. Others (Michael Fremer and Charles Hansen/Ayre) have tried to do so in the past, and they too have failed.

A veteran reader has provided further information about his experiences with Mogami cable, which many audiophiles feel are some of the best values available today. Here it is, with my bold:

"...Only Mogami W3103 (2 conductor @ $2.80 p foot) or W3104 (4 conductor@ $5 p foot) speaker cable receives my highest recommendation. Their model number W3082 is half the price, but noticeably less transparent. At these prices why cut corners? These prices are for unterminated cables. Terminations are another $30 or 40 per cable. BTW, the recommended interconnects are model 2528, also cheap. I have found much less system dependency with these cables. I use them with all 3 of my systems that I described in a previous message. I find Redco a reliable vendor for sales and assembly of these cables."

I have very limited experience with this tonearm, which many serious audiophiles swear by. In fact, I've probably read more about it than actually listened to it. One veteran reader, and former customer, sent me his observations about it, which I felt should be shared. Very minor editing and my bold:

"I have had the good fortune of picking up a new 507 mkII tonearm. This is easily the finest tonearm I have used, but then I have not used many, if any, really good arms -- Mayware Formula IV and the Black Widow being the two I favoured.

The Dynavector is unique in it's construction, but the bi-axis geometry makes for a similar result to a linear tracking tonearm, in that horizontal effective mass is decoupled from vertical effective mass. (Dynavector refuses to tell me exactly what that is....) In that regard, the tip from getting more bass from the ET tonearm should be considered -- use the highest weight stub counterweight you can. This will decrease the resonant frequency, as vertical effective mass will rise, and so, increase bass along with it.

The trick to using the 507 is that the spring used to dynamically balance the tonearm may also be used to provide some resonance control. For example, a cartridge that has some resonance issues would benefit by setting more weight by the spring, and the rest by the counterweight. A damp cartridge is better using more static balance (counterweight only). Obviously, you need a digital scale to do this.

To use this feature, it is best to first establish that the SRA is set properly. This can be done with a USB microscope. I recommend a 'pen' type, as it can be moved far closer to the stylus. 92 degrees has been the recommended SRA, measured with the top of the stylus further from the arm pivot that the tip.

Once the SRA is set, set the tracking force dial at zero, and set the VTF using only the counterweight. This results in a statically balanced tonearm, with no damping from the spring. If this sounds too bright or distorted in the HF, set the tracking force to 1/2 of the current tracking force with the counterweight, and make up the rest with the spring. If this is too dull, use more counterweight and less spring. If this is not satisfactory in the HF or otherwise too 'lively' use more spring and less weight.

eg. Suppose you track at 2 grams. Set it up statically balanced at 2 grams. Then, try 1 gram static plus 1 gram dynamic. Suppose that is too dull. Set it for 1.5 grams static and 0.5 grams dynamic (spring). If the HF is too distorted/lively, set it for 1.25 grams static and 0.75 grams dynamic. Once it is not clear which direction to go (more spring/more counterweight), it is dialed in. IMO, it is possible to dial in the right amount of spring force in 3 steps, though your ear may differ.

With a Benz ACE, I found the best setup was all spring. With a Benz Wood, it was about 1/3 spring and 2/3 counterweight. The Benz Wood is just a loaner. I'm trying to locate a Yamamoto Sound craft cartridge. It is supposed to be a very good match for the arm and a good match for my phono section - the Peter Daniel phono stage (Audio Sector in DIY audio) in dual mono format. This is a modified 47 Labs, using Vcaps, high end op-amps (OPA627/637) and shunt regulated power supply. IMO, it is competitive with phono stages in the $5-$7K range.

I am currently using a Technics SP-10 in Panzerholz, 507 mkII, and Benz Wood, into the Peter Daniel phono stage, a Melos 110B line stage into a *heavily* modified Phase Linear 400, driving my old Watson Lab 10's. (I used to use a Paragon System E preamp and Marantz 250, with Ariston and Black widow/SME IIIs). While competitive with modern amps in the $3K-$5K range, the Phase linear is by far the weakest link -- it needs something with a MUCH bigger power supply, say 120,000 uF storage...."

A reader sent me a letter concerning the Rockport and his observations when directly comparing it to other famous and highly expensive designs. I feel his perspective and experiences are truly unique and therefore must be shared. Further, he's highly opinionated, and doesn't "pull his punches". Here's his letter, which I had to seriously edit for various reasons, and my bold:

"...I just wanted to share some insights into the Rockport turntables I currently own. I am a great analogue enthusiast, and over the past 26 years I have owned many offerings from the likes of: Linn, Alphason, Kuzma, Verdier, Continuum, Rockport, Pink Triangle, Basis, VPI, Voyd, Brinkmann, Goldmund. I currently use the Rockport turntables, and I have also owned and purchased, with my own hard earned cash, the wonderful Continuum Caliburn with the Cobra tonearm. So I have listened to the Continuum and the Rockport System 111 Sirius side by side.

My journey started with Rockport in 1995, when I purchased a System 11 Sirius, and in 1997 I purchased a System 11 Sirius Mk2 le. To my ears, the Rockports were above any other turntables. They just sounded more natural, with a huge sound stage and were less mechanical. The only problem with owning a Rockport was that they were sold factory direct, which meant that there was no dealer or reviewer accommodation price...there was only one price for all...

I currently own three Rockport system 111 turntables. I actually own the last ever turntable to be built by Rockport, and the only deck to be shipped out of the facility for the past 8 years. I received the unit in May 2011. This is an awesome device, as it has all the latest revisions that were implemented by Tim Sheridan of Lorien Consultants. People just don't understand to what degree Tim and Andy (Payor) went to to produce what I believe is the finest turntable ever built.

Tim, who produces very complex instruments for NASA and the medical world, put his life and soul into this unit. The Rockport turntables are just not commercially viable products. The motor alone in 2012 would now cost $35,000; the drive amplifier would cost £25,000. These are just two items. If the Rockport were to retail with current dealer distributor mark ups, in 2012, it would cost in the region of $650,000. For sure, it is the most completely perfect bit of audio design I have ever come across.

Tim Sheridan is a world authority on speed rotation and air bearing design that goes far beyond anything ever done in the audio world. I have had the Continuum side by side, and, in direct comparisons, the Rockport wins all day long. It is just in a different class. Now I have no axe to grind since I have spent my own money. The Rockports have a sense of solidity and presence that the Continuum just does not have at all. The Continuum just does not have the sense of correctness in the midrange, with natural textures. The Continuum is very good and a superb product, but just does not feel like a true quality product like the Rockport.

The build quality of the Rockport is the finest I have ever come across. The Continuum seems much more home made and does not exhibit the same class of finish. I paid a big big amount of money to own a System 111 in 2011, far more than what it retailed for in 2000, but it was worth every penny, as it is, what I believe, the finest record deck on this planet, full stop. The Continuum, which is the only other deck I would own, just does not have that freedom and sense of ease.

Of the three turntables, one has the Koetsu Blue Onyx Diamond cartridge, the other with a Clearaudio Goldfinger Statement and the final unit with a Koetsu Tiger Eye."

Personal Note- I am not able to confirm the reader's opinions or observations, or the costs of the Rockport's parts, or the projected retail selling price.

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.

LOBET IHN MIT SAITENSPIEL-PASSION UND OSTERN-VIOLA DA GAMBA CONCERT WIEN-CARUS 63.122*
SATIE-SOCRATE-CUENOD/PARSONS-NIMBUS 2104

BERLIOZ-REQUIEM-FREMAUX-EMI ESDW 718
BRAHMS-FOUR SERIOUS SONGS-BAKER/PREVIN EMI ASD 3605

*This album will definitely be in "The Demi-Gods". Close miked and very immediate, like a direct to disc. Natural and dynamic, but it has a limited sense of a large space. Superb pressing.

ALWYN-LYRA ANGELICA/CONCERTO GROSSO NO.2/AUTUMN LEGEND-ALWYN-LYRITA SRCS 108
DAN-CANTATA "THE TRUTH OF CREATION"-DAN-TOSHIBA TA-60068

RAMEAU-ORCHESTERSUITE AUS "HIPPOLYTE ET ARICIE"-KUIJKEN-DEUTSCHE HARMONIA MUNDI 065-99 837

A veteran reader has asked me to relay a message which I also believe is important. Here it is, with my bold:

"I am a co-administrator of a web based discography for Indian music lps (mainly HMV India, with some Polydor titles from 1955-1990). The discography includes classical instrumental and vocals, as well as Bollywood songs. I add and edit the classical titles, while a gentleman in India does the same for the Bollywood titles. We have about 10,000 lps listed now, but there are probably another 5000 or more that are yet to be found. I don't know if any of your readers have any interest in Indian music, but I'm just letting you know. We would greatly appreciate readers telling us about missing catalog number titles."

My main focus in 2010 was on turntables (and tonearms), specifically an extreme version of a vintage Lenco Idler-Drive (using a super heavy plinth and high quality bearing), with a Graham Phantom II tonearm. I also took on MC transformers and an all-out version of the Coincident Pure Reference Extreme.

In 2011 I will concentrate on preamplifiers, both phono stages and line stages.

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

Beveridge Audio (Legendary Electrostatic Speaker Manufactuer, reborn, which now sells direct) NEW 10/11

Simply Physics (Cables, turntable, isolation devices and accessories) NEW 01/12

Legend HiFi (North American Importers of Piega Speakers from Switzerland) NEW 01/12

The Forsell was my personal reference turntable and tonearm for more than 17 years. This is the exact model that I personally used between 2003 and 2010. I am NOT the owner of the Forsell. It is owned by my close friend, Irv Isenberg (Ars Acoustica), who generously loaned it to me during this period. I am listing it on his behalf. My postings on the Forsell are in the Reference Turntable File.

My friend is asking $ 6,000 for the combination. It includes one high quality air regulator for the tonearm. Pictures are available on request, though their quality is poor because they were taken in a closet. The Forsell can NOT be shipped, due to safety concerns. It can be either picked up, or possibly hand delivered, if the purchaser resides on the east coast of the United States, or in south Ontario Canada.

Please go to High-End Audio for other components and/or accessories.