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 12 months, thus enabling readers to discover 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 a simple 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 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 skepticism in our audio world is a perspective that is difficult to argue with.

JANUARY/FEBRUARY/MARCH/APRIL 2024

For the first time in 16 years, I now have a new Speaker Reference. The review of this new speaker reference will be posted in sections, in the May/June/July/August/September 2024 "Recent File" Updates, beginning sometime in June 2024.

However, I seriously advise any interested party to first read the original and lengthy Coincident Pure Reference Essay/Review, for important and necessary context, history and perspective (see below for the link).

Further, as I don't have the finances, let alone the room, to simultaneously own, and utilize, two large speaker references, there is now the inevitable "personal business" to attend to...

My former speaker reference, the Coincident Pure Reference Extreme Mk. II Speakers, are now For Sale - There are two pairs available.

Six pairs of Coincident Speaker Cables are also now For Sale as well. They are all short lengths, ranging from 22" to 4'.

The Truth" T-5x is the latest iteration of a family of line stages we have been evaluating since early 2016. It's sonic performance is an advancement when compared to any of the previous models we've heard (listed below). The T-5x has two unique technical advantages which explain this superiority; it uses a next (3rd) generation step-up transformer (with 6 db of gain*), and it also has no selector switch (which explains the use of the added designation "x" in its name, see below).

*The T-5, and the earlier T-4, both have transformers that can be wired for either 6 or 12 db of gain. In both instances, we have only heard the 6 db versions.

The "T5" is basically a simpler version of the "T4", with an advantage and a (directly related) disadvantage. I will first illustrate their respective signal paths, both of them with gain, by using a step-up transformer (SUT), which will help to clarify the critical differences between them:

T4 Signal Path = RCA Input - Buffer - SUT - Selector Switch - Buffer - Optical Volume Control - Buffer - RCA Output

T5 Signal Path = RCA Input - Selector Switch - Buffer - SUT - Optical Volume Control - Buffer - RCA Output

Attentive readers will have noticed two important changes:

1. The selector switch on the T5 comes before the SUT and
2. There is one less buffer in the signal path (and, consequently, one less formerly required dedicated power supply).

The end results of these two changes: The T5 has a simpler signal path than the T4 (one less buffer), providing it with a theoretical sonic advantage. However, there is a corresponding (and inescapable) disadvantage: The T5 no longer has any "direct inputs", which bypass the SUT, while the T4 has both direct and "gain" inputs. (Their choice and options of outputs are unchanged.)

The choice between the T4 and T5 is pretty straightforward: If you require, or desire, some gain on all of your inputs, with no need of any direct inputs, than the T5 is obviously the best choice. Alternatively, if you want the flexibility of both gain and direct (no gain) inputs, than the T4 is the obvious choice.

With the introduction of the T5, it's now a good time to update the current versions of "The Truth" line stage (as of March 2024).

T1/T2 - Both models are now discontinued. The T1 was the original version of "The Truth", and now updated to the T3. The T2 was the first model with gain, which later evolved into the T4. Only one T2 was ever built. (Both of these models were reviewed, see link below.)

T3 - My personal "Reference", which I presently use in my own system, also reviewed (see link). The T3 has no gain on any input, and has choices of inputs and outputs, plus wiring (copper and/or silver).

T4 - The T4 is the only model with both a direct and (a single) gain inputs. The first built T4, owned by an associate, was in my personal system for over a year. Also reviewed (see link).

T5 - All the inputs have gain. I presently have this version, though it has only one input (see below). The T-5's step-up transformer, which is required for gain, has also been updated from the T4 model.

Tx - The simplest version of "The Truth". One input only, so there's no need of a selector switch. In theory, this "x" model should sound the best of them all, though at the obvious expense of flexibility.

Three highly experienced listeners have auditioned the T-5x at length, including myself. Further, we all heard one or more direct comparisons of the T-5x with the T-3 (but not the T-4). While there were some important differences between us, we generally agree with the below evaluation...

The primary improvement of the T-5x is that its sound-floor is noticeably lower than either the T-4 or the T-3. The T-5x's lower sound-floor allows it to reproduce more of the recording's natural harmonics, decays, space and dynamic intensity. The T-5x also has better transients, greater detail and improved separation of instruments. While I feel that this overall improvement can not be honestly described as "significant" in nature, it is still critically important for natural music reproduction. However, I must also report that at least one of my associates felt the T-5x's sonic improvement was "significant". Accordingly, it may be possible that I am being overly conservative, so a Level 4 improvement may be the most accurate and justified description of the T-5x's sonic achievement (see below).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Level 4- The sonic improvement can be heard by any serious audiophile all the time, and without any effort. It is now also easily possible, if not even probable, for "ordinary listeners", meaning those people with no interest in sound quality, to observe this improvement. This level of improvement may or may not be "significant", depending on the priorities and the listening ability of the listener. However, regardless of their personal priorities, almost all audiophiles will now suffer if this level of improvement is removed from their system.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The T-5x is a great and unique technical achievement, though I can understand why it is far too easy to underappreciate it at this time. Consider this history: Within 8 years (2016/2024), we've gone from the original T-1, which easily outperformed the finest line stages we've ever heard (no matter what their technology and at any price). Further, it also retained that outstanding performance with virtually any source or amplifier load. In retrospect, the T-1 is the only "Truth" model which justifiably deserved being described as a "dramatic" sonic improvement over the status quo.

The T-3 (my current line stage) then further improved on the T-1 in both its sonic performance and its practicality (the volume control). The T-4 then finally added some gain and, most importantly, achieved this same gain with no sonic downsides, which was an unprecedented achievement for us at the time. This brings us to the T-5, which has that same added T-4 gain and even has noticeably improved sonics as well. This is now yet another achievement, which I didn't even think was technically feasible back in 2016.

So, what am I going to do in my own system? Easy decision! I'll be getting a standard T-5, with multiple inputs and outputs, sometime in 2024/5. It's a win/win! I get both 6 db of gain, which I require occasionally, plus superior sonics. When I receive the T-5, I will report back with the results.

Because of their literally unprecedented achievement, gain with no sonic pain, the T5 and the T4, along with their no-gain sister model, the T3, must all be considered in a class of their own. Accordingly, I have now updated and adjusted my list of Reference Line Stages to reflect their present unique status.

Class A (Upper)

"THE TRUTH" T5, T4 & T3

Class A (Lower)

COINCIDENT STATEMENT*
EMIA VOLUME CONTROL
"THE TRUTH" T1

*There is now a Mk. II version of the Coincident Statement. We have not heard it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Horn Shoppe (Home of "The Truth" Line Stage, plus high-efficiency speakers)

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 12 Month posting, 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 has generously sent me his observations concerning the Emotiva AC Line Filter, which I felt should be shared. According to the Emotiva website, see link below, this unit has 2 outlets and sells for $ 149. They also have a similar unit with 6 outlets, which sells for $ 199, which the reader has not heard. Here is the letter, with some minor editing...

"I've been experimenting with the Emotiva CMX2 line common mode filter/DC offset in different situations. I might note that I have tried many line filters over the years but only the Emotiva CMX2 as well as the PS Audio Ultimate Outlets seem to do more good than harm. I would note that both devices have common mode filtration. What follows are my tentative conclusions:

Highly Recommended: Plug in digital media player whether DVD or SACD/CD player and CRT TV

I saw and heard only significant improvements without noticeable downside by plugging in my SACD players (currently Sony ES models) and DVD player (currently Marantz). For example in watching the DVD of Tchaikovsky's opera Cherevichki (The Tsarina's Slippers) I was astonished by the details my large late model Samsung CRT TV was displaying. As performed at Glyndebourne (2009), the Russian embroidered costumes for the women have myriad fine details. Before the CMX2, they were a bit blurry on my CRT, which understandably excels more with 3D imaging and accurate blackness (tubes!) than fine visual detail. With both the TV and DVD player plugged into the CMX2, I was seeing astonishing detail for a CRT without losing anything positive from it. The sound remained excellent and undisturbed. Although the amps were plugged separately into an PS Audio Ultimate Outlet, the PS Audio was plugged on the same double wall outlet below the TV/DVD. The audio sonics also sounded more coherent and lively.

I heard no drawback from plugging in my VPI TT into the CMX2, but that assumes you don't need a RPM controller to maintain proper speed. SS amps exhibited some modest improvement primarily from tightened bass. In addition, the midrange seemed a bit more lively and immediate. I did not notice any change for the worse in the treble. One other positive is a very noticeable increase in rhythmic accuracy, whether in the bass or treble. For example, I was astounded by the precision and accuracy of the reproduced xylophone playing on the Boulez recording of Varese's orchestral works revealed with the CMX2.

Plugging in tube power amps, headphone amps or preamps tended to clarify the texture but not to an unpleasant level. There was a noticeable tightening of tube bass which no longer seemed sloppy. in addition midrange detail was more noticeable and seemingly accurate. I listened to a performance of Stravinsky's Agon on the web with score through my headphone amp, which is all tube with tube rectification (Cayin HP1A). Agon was chosen because it has a variety of instruments, but within a chamber orchestra so the different instruments can be heard reasonably well. The level of instrumental detail was remarkably better with the CMX2 and the overall sound seemed more coherent. One aspect that may bother some though is that occasionally there was a slight reduction of what I might term instrumental glow or fullness compared to not using the CMX2.

I could not get my computer or monitors to work with the CMX2. The CMX2 consistently went into a line fault condition of Hot Neutral/Reversed Ground when they were plugged in. The CMX2 is designed to accurately indicate Any line faults. When they were removed the CMX2 promptly returned to normal. I don't know if this is universal or a peculiarity of Hewlett Packard, Lenova or Samsung LED monitors and computers.

Plugging in two CMX2s into the same wall outlet produced a noticeable degradation of the sound. The treble sounded harsh and the music flow seemed disjointed."

The same reader sent me a follow-up letter with further clarification:

"I was able to have a direct conversation with an Emotiva engineer and we discussed the issues of the computer and monitor I was having with the CMX2. He said that the issue is the switching power supplies on these devices. They have unpredictable effects with the CMX2. Sometimes nothing unusual happens, sometimes an error light warning appears on the CMX2 indicating Hot Neutral, but the devices keep working and in extremely rare situations the line noise can cause an interruption which turns off the devices (not the CMX2) until they are disconnected from the CMX2 and plugged in elsewhere. He said that the CMX6 does not have those issues because it does not have the DC offset correction of the CMX2.

He recommended the CMX2 for audio devices and said that's where customers were using it. The CMX6 is more of a power strip with common mode filtering added. Hope this clarifies the situation with the CMX2."

The headline above appears rather routine at first glance: "The Sadurni Acoustics Horn System Max is a new Speaker Reference." However, in this instance, such an understandably simple judgment would constitute a serious mistake, because the Sadurni's accomplishments are of a much greater magnitude than the inevitable discovery of another "Reference". Further, the Sadurni has even achieved something I had never imagined would ever happen. Fortunately, these accomplishments are easy to explain and understand.

1. The Sadurni has now replaced my previous top Reference, the Coincident Pure Reference (Extreme MK. II) (PRE). This is an outstanding accomplishment in and of itself, especially when one considers that the PRE has had a 16 year "reign" (2008 to 2024) as my top reference, which is the longest of any speaker system in my entire audio lifetime. However, Achievement #2 is even more important and remarkable...

2. The extraordinary performance level of the Sadurni (and its directly related performance-gap, above and beyond every other speaker I've ever heard) has finally inspired (and required) me to create a new Speaker Class A Level Category and distinction; "Upper" and "Lower", which, until now, I previously felt had never been warranted, and/or necessary.

Explanation: Since the commencement of this website, I strongly believed that only a worthy Full-Range Speaker could actually initiate the creation of an "Upper" level, while also reluctantly accepting that I may never even personally experience such a speaker during my remaining lifetime. (This is also the reason why I waited until now to also place the Acapella Ion Super Tweeter in that same "Upper" category, though I felt that it had, otherwise, fully earned that distinction even when first hearing it at an audio show in 2004.)

The Sadurni Staccato Max review will be posted below in sections, since it is still breaking-in as this is written. The review will be quite lengthy and exhaustive, as befitting such a serious component/system change, with my usual commitment that all of the important events, experiments and details will be completely revealed within the review.

The Sadurni Staccato Max is a large 4-way horn system (including its self-powered subwoofer). It is, simultaneously, both a new direction in speakers for me, while also the culmination of a personal trend going back for more than 3 decades (increasing speaker sensitivity).

I believe that I took the Coincident Pure Reference Extreme (the basic design) as far as possible. It is important to first recognize that the PRE was only able to stay at the top, for such an unprecedented length of time, due to its unusually intelligent design, augmented by the manufacturer's excellent execution, especially considering its (relatively) reasonable selling price. (See the link below for the dedicated file on the various PRE models, and its evolution for over a decade. This same file also includes "My Personal Speaker References", starting from 1972.)

This recent Sadurni Speaker "Project" (a word which is fully justified by reality) was 16 months in planning, with three people heavily involved (including the manufacturer), plus some local assistants required for all the unavoidable grunt work. The three of us worked intensely, and continuously, for the entire week of the project, both day and (late at) night. At the end of the project, all of us were physically, mentally and/or emotionally exhausted. However, to be clear, I had absolutely nothing to do with the speaker design or its execution. I simply assisted the manufacturer, and my associate, with a number of technical and logistical issues (in my home) whenever it was required, listened to the results of the various experiments, and came to my own conclusions.

Frankly, I've always realized that for another speaker to substantially outperform the PRE (which, at certain times, I even thought was actually "impossible"), it would have to come "somewhere out of left field". Why? Because the PRE was so exceptional, in almost every manner, that any "conventional" design, at almost any price, would have serious trouble even equalling it, let alone transcending it. And, as it turned out, that is exactly what happened. It all began in a deceptively quiet and ordinary manner...

One day, in October 2022, I received an e-mail from my close friend, and associate, Irving Max Isenberg (the former owner/designer of Ars Acoustica*). The e-mail contained 3 pictures and not even one word of actual text. All 3 pictures were of a large horn-type speaker system, which also appeared unfinished and/or a prototype, but no explanation was provided. I assumed Irving, who was not visible in any of the pictures, was visiting someone who owned the speakers, but everything else was a mystery. A few days later, Irving called me from his home in Toronto, Canada, and it's that telephone call which initiated the entire "Sadurni Project".

Irving was more excited than I had ever heard him during all the decades we had known each other. First, the relevant back story: Irving was currently in the process of seriously designing, and then building, a new no-compromise DIY speaker for himself. He had already heard, on many occasions, all of the variations of my PRE speakers. In fact, the latest PRE model had, for the most part, greatly impressed Irving, but he was highly confident he would eventually build a speaker with an even superior level of performance.

To further his research, Irving had travelled to Texas, and visited the home of Jorge Sadurni, an hydraulic engineering entrepreneur, and the owner and designer of Sadurni Acoustics. At Sadurni's home, Irving had heard, at length, a custom horn prototype speaker. Further, they had also conducted some interesting and edifying experiments with the speaker. As a result, Irving now strongly believed that while this speaker still had some sonic "issues", it also had "great potential". Enough potential, in fact, for him to now terminate his own DIY project!

From my perspective, at that time, the speaker's "potential" was the key issue. Why? Because I've long been convinced that, ultimately, a component's sonic potential is more important than anything else. Accordingly, this means the component, with the greatest sonic potential, must also commensurately deserve the greatest future investment in time and money. Irving then went on to describe, in detail, what he had heard and experienced in the Sadurni listening room, which I will attempt to paraphrase:

"There was space, but no depth. It was loud and dynamic, but with little natural harmonics and color, almost like a large radio. They were 'exciting'! (And, most importantly to Irving) There was no 'horn sound'!!"
Irving then went on to describe the actual speaker and its associated components...

Irving felt that Jorge Sadurni was somewhat inspired by the veteran audio theorist Romy ("the Cat" - See the link below to Romy's system), but was then using a "worse amplifier" (when compared to my Coincident SET Frankenstein). Irving was now imagining this same custom horn system, but with superior drivers, and with the "worse amplifier" also being replaced. He described the Sadurni horns as a "perfect amplifier", with the lowest possible distortion. However, unlike most horn enthusiasts, Irving would insist on using non-compression drivers, similar to the Avantgarde Duo, which I had auditioned almost two decades earlier.

Irving's bottom line was simple: He was convinced that the shape of the Sadurni horns, with their imposing thickness, utilizing ultra-dead materials, all cumulatively made it the equivalent of a proverbial "sledgehammer" and, consequently, completely immune from any unwanted vibrations. Irving theorized that with an optimum implementation, meaning with quality SET amplifiers, ultra-low distortion dynamic drivers and the exact same tapped horns, for the (deep) bass, already being utilized in the Sadurni Staccato 2022 model, it would all combine to achieve true state-of-the-art performance. Further, Irving was now confident enough to be quite willing to figuratively put his money where his mouth was.

Irving then asked me for a favor, a big favor actually; He wanted me to review the Sadurni speaker, though only after all of his custom changes were implemented. After some thought, I agreed. However, considering the entirety of what this project entailed, I had several conditions which were non-negotiable. I first had to hear, as closely as possible, in my own listening room, what Irving had heard while visiting the Sadurni home in Texas, including all of the sonic issues. (In other words, we had to start off "on the same sonic page".) Irving also promised to finance the entire project, which would take a week or more in my home. I was responsible for all of the planning and basically everything else. Finally, I could purchase the Sadurni speakers, from Irving, if I preferred them to the PRE, but not if they were "the only pair ever made".

After finishing my negotiations with Irving, I began to look at the "big picture" of what was coming my way, namely another horn system and, in this instance, one that was both large and ambitious in design. Inevitably, I couldn't help reminiscing over my long history and experiences with horn speakers of various types and designs, which, most of the time, were sadly not that satisfying and/or successful. Accordingly, it is at this point that my lengthy personal history with horns becomes highly relevant to this review, and so I will share it below for the required perspective, context and disclosure.

*Ironically, the Coincident Pure Reference replaced the Ars Acoustica System Max as my top "Reference Speaker".

Introduction - I've heard numerous horn speakers during my entire audio lifetime, far more than I can now remember, let alone care to discuss, so I've chosen to focus below only on those 5 models which provided me the most important, relevant and memorable impressions. When going back to the very beginning of my audiophile life, which I'm defining as prior to 1972, I had already auditioned many speakers, some at "stereo stores", and especially at various audio shows, but I had only actually owned just a few. In 1972, that all changed...

In Spring 1972, despite living in only a (medium-size) rented room, and already owning a high-quality audio system, I purchased a second complete audio system used, which consisted of several excellent and desirable components (the used system was selling at an incredible discount, which I couldn't resist). This used audio system was also highly unusual, because it had two speaker systems! In the end, after purchasing even yet another pair of well-reviewed speakers (also used, and at a huge discount), I owned, simultaneously;

Acoustic Research AR-5 (already owned),
Dynaco A-25,
Quad electrostatic and
Altec Voice of the Theater (VOT).

It didn't require any audio expertise, on my part, to quickly recognize that while all of these (then well-known) speakers had sonic strengths, they also had obvious sonic flaws, both in absolute terms, and when compared to each other. Further, my rented room, though of decent size, could still only properly accommodate one pair of speakers. Accordingly, I was forced to make a single choice among the four speakers listed above and, after a month or more of direct comparisons at my new friend's large home (the same person who had sold me the "unusual audio system"), I kept only the Quads, and eventually sold, or traded, all of the others. So, what about the specifics of the Altec VOT, the only horn speaker among them and, frankly, actually too large to even fit in my rented room?

I need to be clear; The Altec VOT came in last place among the 4 speakers and, even worse, this would have been true even if its large and bulky size was not an issue. I truly disliked the Altec, probably more than any speaker I've ever personally owned. The numerous colorations, which couldn't be ignored, and its related and inherent "horn sound" were extreme to my ears, to the point of active irritation, if not actual pain. In fact, I can still remember, even 52 years later, that sometimes the music sounded like it was coming from a tunnel, and that is not an exaggeration.

Finally, over the years, I've also heard the same Altec VOT in a number of commercial settings (jazz clubs, theaters etc.), and I actually found them more than "acceptable". This contradiction only confirmed my experience that even decent quality "commercial speakers" are not only not guaranteed to work well in a home environment, they can actually be a disaster.

I have never owned the Klipschorns, or had them in my home or even my former audio store, but I have heard them on countless occasions, including audio shows, audio stores and, most importantly, at the homes of two friends. I have truly enjoyed the Klipschorns for the odd, and short, listening sessions, but I couldn't live with them on a long-term basis, despite the fact that they are far superior to the Altec VOT. Below is a paraphrase of the description of the Klipschorn (a Class C Reference Speaker - see the link below), which I wrote and posted many years ago...

The Klipschorn has state-of-the-art dynamic range, tremendous detail, an excellent sense of "immediacy" and a "huge sound". The efficiency is an incredible 104 dB at 1 watt, which allows it to capture a decent amount of low-level information. Both of the frequency extremes are missing, and, far worse, there are some easily noticeable frequency aberrations, which will seriously irritate many, if not most, contemporary listeners. This problem has been significantly reduced by the improvements made since the 1980s, but it is still there.

The Klipschorn, like almost all good horn speakers, is the epitome of the "loving it or hating it" concept. If the listener is amazed on their first listen, without any qualifying negative response, there is a good chance the Klipschorn could become "the speaker of their dreams". On the other hand, if the listener is immediately put off by its sonic problems, it is highly unlikely that anything can ever be done to change that first impression.

The Westminster Royal saga was one of those unpredictable, and yet highly satisfying, audio adventures which made operating an audio store ultimately fulfilling, despite the usual annoyances. I was a Tannoy dealer for a few years in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This was almost entirely due to the persistent efforts of one of my employees, whom was highly impressed with the Tannoy line. This same employee also had exceptional listening and evaluation skills, and even demonstrated, on at least one fortunate occasion (see below!), outstanding selling abilities. If not, this entire Tannoy Westminster Royal experience would have never happened.

In Spring 1988, my employee (I presume utilizing his contagious enthusiasm) talked a customer into purchasing Tannoy's recently updated version of their famous "flagship" model; the Westminster Royal. The entire transaction was highly memorable for several reasons. The Westminster Royal customer was not even an "audiophile" (no matter how encompassing that term is defined), though he obviously had a considerable amount of discretionary funds to spend. We gave the customer a decent discount on the Westminsters, but with a "quid pro quo" that we could use them for a few months, though only in my personal and private listening room. This arrangement would allow us to break-in the Westminsters, evaluate them at our leisure and, if we were really lucky, maybe even sell another pair (we didn't). And so I came to live with the Westminster Royals, in my own private living room, for almost 3 months.

What did I think? To my genuine surprise (as someone whom, at the time, preferred only ribbons and electrostatics), I enjoyed the Westminsters much more than I expected, and with all types of music. To my further surprise, I even ended up appreciating their imposing presence in my living room. I understood then, and now, what made the Westminsters so compelling, and even prestigious, to such a wide variety of audiophiles, and especially well-off music lovers.

The Westminster's substantial physical appearance, and high-quality finish, is impressive and even comforting despite, or even due to, their huge size. They play almost all genres of music equally well, and never sound "disturbed", at any volume level. The Westminsters were generally detailed, full-range, and with a large, effortless sound, that the late J. Gordon Holt used to describe as "authoritative". In the end, their stately appearance, and consistent level of performance, provide the listener an unshakeable confidence that the speakers will always perform as well as they look, under any circumstances, and they do.

The Westminsters had obvious colorations of course, but they were the type that most audiophiles would consider (and describe as) "euphonic", and rarely actively irritating. I admit that I enjoyed them to such a degree that I even missed them somewhat, like an old friend, when the customer eventually picked them up. However, that doesn't mean I was then relegated to living with an inferior system. Quite the contrary, I still preferred the speaker system I was using before (and after) the Westminsters were in my listening room (the modified Martin-Logan CLS with Entec Subwoofers).

Now we must "Fast Forward" to 16 years later...To the 2004 Las Vegas CES to be exact, though by this time I no longer owned an audio store. I was now an "audio journalist" only, and I attended the annual electronics show with a close audiophile friend. It was there that we both auditioned the two horn speakers which are discussed below: The Acapella Violin (with the Ion Super Tweeter), and the Avantgarde Duo, and its associated (sub) woofer system.

In 2004, to my best knowledge, the Violin was the least expensive Acapella model (at $ 30,000) which still utilized their Ion super tweeter. I also found the Violin to be an unusually attractive speaker. We visited the Acapella room multiple times, mainly to hear the Ion super tweeters but, with a few exceptions, we were never truly impressed with the Violin's overall performance. While I clearly remember our ultimate disappointment, my current memories of the Violin are no longer detailed and distinct, so I decided to review my "2004 CES Show Report" (no longer posted) for further contemporaneous information and greater clarity. In fact, at times, I will even plagiarize myself below.

The Acapella Violin had a number of good qualities, and the world's best tweeter of course. Further, it was also highly detailed, dynamic and with a large image, but there were a few sonic problems as well. The bass didn't match up with the midrange, though it wasn't too bad. Unfortunately, the woofer was not self-amplified, so Acapella had to lower the efficiency of the two other drivers to match it. This, in turn, slightly compromised the Violin's dynamics, at least when compared to the finest horns. This "solution" also obviates the use of a good SET amplifier, unless the Violin can be bi-amplified.

For some audiophiles, the most serious problem may have been the Violin's tonal balance. It was pretty good with most records, but the Classic Record's Reissue of "Harry Belafonte Returns to Carnegie Hall" exposed its primary weakness; It had a "lean quality" in the voice range, which was easily noticeable. Of course, this may have been caused by the cartridge, or the Ayre amplifier or even the Aesthetix tube phono stage, which I seriously doubt. However, I have no doubt that there was some problem related to the Violin. Why? Because we heard this same record on other systems at the same CES, and rarely noticed the same problem. And, for definitive confirmation, I even played the same LP once again, this time on my own system, shortly after I returned home from the show. The Result: This specific "leanness" problem also entirely disappeared.

Until 2024, the Avantgarde Duo was, without a doubt, the finest horn loudspeaker I had ever heard. Sadly, I've never heard the Avantgarde Trio, which was, and still is to my knowledge, their top model. This was because it wasn't at the 2004 CES (which is where I heard the Duo). Once again, I will paraphrase my short evaluation written and posted over 20 years ago...

The Duo was the first horn loudspeaker I ever heard that didn't have obvious horn colorations. That was its most important achievement. It disappeared well and its dynamic gradations were state of the art. Its sense of immediacy and transparency were amazing, with an unforgettable "alive" sound. At the show, the Duo passed a number of tough tests: massed violins, various voices, piano, woodwinds, and, most impressively, it accomplished all of this with digital sources, transistor amplification and ($1/ft) generic interconnect and speaker cable. If that wasn't enough, the listening room was mediocre. Despite all this, it provided, in the opinion of both my associate and I, the best sound at the entire show, at any price. Of course, its highest frequencies could not equal the Acapella Violin, but it was superior in every other manner, with one notable exception.

The Duo still had two sonic problems, one of which was serious: The setup is critical and there was only one listening seat that was optimum. Far more serious, I was highly unsatisfied with the Duo's bass integration, which is the major weak point in the design. It was still noticeably UN-seamless. The Trio's lower horn goes 70 Hz (170 Hz Vs. 100 Hz) deeper into the bass, which should seriously reduce this problem. (On the other hand, a 3-way horn is inherently less cohesive than a 2-way horn.) The Duo (and the Trio) has its own built-in bass amp and crossover, so that avenue can't be changed for the better. They also manufacture a powered, "horn subwoofer" called the "Basshorns". They may even be incredible (neither I nor any of my associates have heard them), but they cost around $ 27,000 a pair, and they are also gigantic. Extra (stock) bass modules, used in the distributor's room at the show, did NOT help to alleviate this problem.

To be crystal clear at this point: If not for its serious bass integration problems, I would have definitely purchased the Avantgarde Duo 20 years ago and, inevitably, the Trio at a later date. If so, I believe those two speakers would have been my "Top References" for 20 years, because I further believe they would have even withstood the later challenge of the Coincident PRE models, as good as they are. (Relevant "Historical Note" - Since 2004, the Duo has been deservedly designated a "Class A Reference Speaker".)

I did make a serious attempt at finding a solution to the Avantgarde bass integration problem, but I ultimately failed. It's not an easy or routine problem to solve, because of the extreme difficulties in matching the Duo's large horn's outstanding speed, detail, sensitivity and dynamic range. In fact, I have long felt that this specific bass problem may have even been literally "unsolvable", until I actually auditioned the Sadurni Staccato Horn System Max, in my own home.

Accordingly, we have now reached the point where the focus must naturally shift back to Sadurni Acoustics, (its founder, owner and designer) Jorge Sadurni and the Sadurni Staccato Horn System...

Sadurni Acoustics, Jorge Sadurni & the Sadurni Staccato Horn System

Jorge Sadurni, the founder/owner/designer of Sadurni Acoustics, like countless other audio entrepreneurs and enthusiasts, started off as a music lover. However, at only 16 years old, his audiophile career began earlier than most; building DIY speakers, buying and selling old tube amplifiers in flea markets and on eBay, while also experimenting with vintage horn speakers from Electro-Voice, Altec, JBL and Western Electric with his friends. Having actually grown up with horn speakers, Sadurni was surprised by "the level of playback" they achieved.

The earliest event of importance was a trip to the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest (RMAF), in the 1990s, which opened Sadurni's eyes, or ears, to what was actually possible in serious home audio. The most influential speaker models Sadurni heard were from Avantgarde and Genesis, plus some interesting speaker drivers for future DIY projects, such as those from Lowther. Though Sadurni's audio ambitions during this period were strictly personal and non-commercial, two critical events, in the first decade of the current century, began the process which eventually caused him to change his direction.

In 2002, Sadurni, by now an actual Professional Engineer, specializing in hydraulics (and with several patents in his name), opened a factory in Mexico. This ended up being fortuitous, because Sadurni soon realized that the factory provided extra working space, and even some spare manpower, thus enabling him to design and build virtually every horn speaker he could imagine. Also around this time, Sadurni began following the audio and horn enthusiast, Romy (the Cat), on the Internet. A few years later, the two men would meet in person, when Sadurni's travels brought him to New England. More importantly, during this visit, Sadurni experienced another audio milestone when Romy conducted a demonstration of his personal audio system for him, which was an unusual privilege, since Romy is generally a private person (like myself).

Sadurni's Reaction: Without any doubt, Romy's audio system was the finest Sadurni had ever auditioned, deeply affecting and inspiring him. Meanwhile, during this entire period, Sadurni had closely studied Romy's generous website for practical ideas and information, and eventually used that knowledge, along with his own extensive research and experience, to build custom horns on his factory's lathes, experimenting with all types of materials, including plastics and metals. Sadurni, with his various experiments presently bearing fruit, was now approaching the point of manufacturing horn speakers for the public, but he was not quite there yet.

A few years later (2011), Sadurni finally felt confident enough to start his own audio manufacturing business ("Sadurni Acoustics") specializing, of course, in horn speakers. Sadurni began modestly, with an advertisement in Audiogon, plus the creation of a dedicated website. However, the true breakthrough came in 2013, when Sadurni Acoustics exhibited its Staccato Horn System (which included his own unique version of a "tapped horn" subwoofer) at the RMAF and, even better, the same speaker system also received a rave review from Larry Borden, then writing for Dagago. Borden, in turn, later introduced Sadurni (still located in Mexico at the time) to Merrill Audio, whom soon became the U.S. distributor for the Staccato.

In 2014, the Staccato Horn System received the Axpona "Best of Show" award. Later that year, Sadurni Acoustics moved to Texas, became its own U.S. distributor, but still kept exhibiting with Merrill Audio for the remainder of the year, and in 2015. (Also of note, the Sadurni wooden horns were still manufactured in the Mexico factory, the custom aluminum frames now in Chicago, and the final assembly and finish now in Austin, Texas.) In 2016, Sadurni exhibited a smaller version of the Staccato at the New York Audio Show, with Wolf Audio and Linear Tube Audio, again winning the "Best of Show" award and, becoming almost routine, they also won the same award in 2017 and 2018. Soon thereafter, my close friend and associate, Irving Isenberg, came into the Sadurni Acoustics picture.

Sadurni informed me that, through their mutual acquaintances, he had been talking with Isenberg about horns, and audio in general, for several years before their consequential October 2022 meeting. Sadurni felt that Isenberg's 2022 visit, lasting a full 3 day period, was serious and highly productive. They continually experimented with different drivers, crossovers, volume/balance levels and frequencies. Sadurni stated that, at first, Isenberg was deeply unsatisfied with the prototype speaker he was auditioning. However, Irving eventually became highly enthusiastic after they experimented with new drivers, a larger "big horn", plus some crossover changes. It was at this time that Irving contacted me with the specific email which initiated the entire "Sadurni Project".

Finally, and for complete clarification, I had never even heard of Jorge Sadurni, or Sadurni Acoustics, let alone the Staccato Horn System, prior to receiving that initial email and, shortly thereafter, talking with Irving about its contents. However, after some serious thought, I soon wanted (almost desperately) to audition the Sadurni Staccato Horn System for myself, while Irving also wanted to audition it (after his modifications) in my home (audio system), so a mutually satisfying agreement between us, as to the terms, was inevitable.

And so, after a lengthy, though necessary, introduction and history, we have finally reached the "Marathon Week" of the "Sadurni Project".

As soon as I committed to planning and overseeing the Sadurni Project (SP), I also recognized that it would require a serious effort on my part to take full advantage of this unique opportunity. This was because I only had one chance to organize it in a manner which would completely optimize the knowledge and skills of 3 people, and to then complete as many useful experiments as practically possible, in a structured period of time, which couldn't be changed once it started. Fortunately, because of all my various experiences in the 20+ years of operating an audio store, I had a huge amount of practice with complex component and system experiments and evaluations. Further, because a serious home improvement project took immediate precedence, I also had plenty of time to consider what exactly had to be accomplished, what exactly I required, and how it would eventually be achieved.

I first wrote down all that I wanted to be accomplished with the SP and, just as important, then decided in what order all of various steps must take place. The order of the SP or, in other words, its itinerary, was critical, and actually similar to a typical construction project. (I am very familiar with construction protocol, since I actually built the structure where I both lived, and worked, for 20+ years, in Toronto in 1978/9.) For example, it is obvious that certain events in a construction project, such as laying the foundation, or installing the sewer pipes, always have to come first. With complex audio experiments, an itinerary is also important if the ultimate purpose is to maximize the number of relevant experiments (though not as critical as a construction project, as only time, and usually not money, is wasted when there is a mistake).

The first schedule I created was for 10 days, but that proved too much, for a variety of reasons, for all three of us. However, after a considerable amount of thought and three-way correspondence, I was able to eventually condense the complete schedule to 7 days, but no less, or else we would have to eliminate, or at least seriously compromise, a number of critically important tests, auditions and evaluations, which would then, in turn, inherently compromise the integrity and veracity of the final report and review. Also pertinent, it was obvious that we required extra help to safely dissemble, move, handle and box a number of various extra-heavy objects (6 subwoofers and 2 large horns), so I also had to find some reliable and sturdy helpers to assist us for the strictly manual work.

Then, at almost the last moment, health became an issue when our first start date, originally scheduled for the end of June 2023, had to be postponed due to a sudden sickness. Six months later, the second start date, scheduled for December 2023, was also cancelled, though this time for a different health issue. (Both of these delays were announced on this website at the time.) Finally, in January 2024, after making certain there were no further time conflicts and/or health issues amongst us, all three of us agreed to a new and specific schedule I had created for the middle of February 2024. Nothing could now prevent the SP from starting and proceeding without any serious issues and, indeed, we were able to finally start the SP exactly as planned. (Note - The actual Sadurni speakers arrived, on three 40" X 48" pallets, around one week before the project started, which meant "the Rubicon had been crossed".)

As I posted previously, I had some non-negotiable and uncompromising requirements, which we all agreed to, before the commencement of the project:

1. Within practical reason, all of us had to be, "on the same page", as to sonic experiences, prior to installing the Sadurni Staccato Speakers in my listening room. This meant that both Irving and Jorge had to hear my current Pure Reference Extreme System (PRE), in depth, before we transitioned to the Sadurni Staccato. For Irving, this wouldn't take too long, since he had heard my system for many years and was obviously highly familiar with it, though I had made some minor changes since his last visit. For Jorge, who had never been to my home, or ever even heard the PRE at any time, much more was required for him to feel a justifiable confidence and familiarity with my system, so I primarily focused on his needs. By doing so successfully, Sadurni would then be able to fully appreciate (and thus able to intelligently discuss with us) any of the sonic differences, big or small, which we would later observe between the two speaker systems.
Just as important, if not even more so, as I already discussed above...

2. I had to hear, as closely as possible, in my own home, what Irving had heard during his October 2022 visit to Sadurni's home in Texas. I realized that this obviously meant that Sadurni would have to ship (otherwise useless) extra drivers, various parts and crossovers etc. However, I again had to experience and understand, myself*, what had exactly caused Irving to become so excited about the Sadurni Speakers in the first place, or I wouldn't be able to fully appreciate his current perspective. This extra step would mean, of course, that we would then delay hearing the current Staccato at its very best, after making the initial transition from the PRE to the Staccato. While admittedly true, I strongly felt that a short (and necessary) delay to be a relative trifle when ultimately considering the entire scope of the SP.

*I did make one minor concession. I agreed with Jorge Sadurni that it would be impractical, and costly, for him to also ship the subwoofers which Irving had heard in Texas. For me, auditioning these (inferior) subwoofers was a complete waste of time and, effectively, an academic exercise.

Thence, after these two requirements were both satisfied, we would eventually begin the process of transforming the Sadurni Staccato to (and then auditioning it at) its current level of development, and eventually attempt to even further improve the speaker system's performance with my cables, amplifiers, set-up etc. Accordingly, and with all of the above in mind, below is what actually happened during that unprecedented week, for better or worse...

My two SP guests and associates, Jorge Sadurni and Irving Isenberg, arrived together in the afternoon. Sadurni immediately checked my garage to make certain that the speaker shipment had arrived complete, safely and was still in good shape. My own audio system (including the Acapella Ion Super Tweeters) was already warmed up for them, so we began listening that same afternoon, though with digital sources only. We first listened to the CD player, and then (using some devices Sadurni had brought along with him) moved on to direct digital streaming, which was a first time experience for me. The sonic performance of Jorge's streaming devices proved to be a disappointment to Irving, and while I generally concurred with my friend as to its overall sonics, I still felt there was some promise with this new source. We finished off the lengthy afternoon listening session with a completely spontaneous, and unrelated, experiment. The Result - The Aural Thrills interconnect cable, going from the line stage to the midrange amplifiers, actually sounded a little better when using a Herbie's tube damper, which surprised both Irving and myself.

We then all went to dinner, and while my two listening partners had an extended break after we arrived back in my home, I prepared for a lengthy evening session playing records. So it was Digital in the day, and Analogue at night. My main concern at that point (considering the limited time I had) was for Sadurni to experience the widest range of some of my best, and most revealing, recordings. The Results, Digital & Analogue - Sadurni was highly impressed with my system, noting, in particular, its wide frequency range, neutrality, its consistency in reproducing the details at all frequencies and its ability to play all genres of music at a high level. Further, at no time did I feel that Sadurni was ever condescending, patronizing or insincere in his descriptive and/or complimentary remarks. On the other hand, I also never observed Sadurni demonstrating any sense of nervousness, or losing any confidence, that his own speaker system would still, ultimately, outperform my current references (after replacing them in my audio system).

After Jorge and Irving both went to bed, I finished the night listening, on my own, to the two records I had previously chosen to be the very last I may ever hear on my long-time PRE References: Beethoven's 6th/Bruno Walter and ending with Richard Strauss' 4 Last Songs/Schwarzkopf. Although "Day One" was not exactly auspicious, it was still highly useful and, most importantly, it fully achieved my only serious objective; Jorge Sadurni now had a good appreciation, and understanding, of the performance capabilities of MY PRE II Reference prior to his own speaker system being installed in the same audio system.

While it was obvious that every day of the SP would be important in some manner, Day One was the least important day, both in the original plan and, as it turned out, in reality. Finally, I slept well that night, even while knowing (for the last 16 months) that "Day Two" could be "the end of an era" and, consequently, one of the most momentous days in my audio life. Accordingly, I felt a combination of extreme excitement, tempered with a small amount of inherent, and related, dread.

TRANSITION DAY! - We all went out to have a hearty breakfast, where we discussed our goals for the day in detail. We were back at around 11 AM, and I immediately began the initial steps required for completely taking apart the back end of the system (disconnecting all the cables, amplifiers etc.), making certain that all the relevant items would retain their (L/R) channel identification if, and when, they were used again in the system. Meanwhile, Jorge was in the garage, first opening all of the shipping containers and then organizing all of the various and numerous contents. (Irving had no responsibilities during this entire period.) Shortly thereafter, in the early afternoon, our two extra assistants arrived to help us with the heavy work (this was Sunday, a day I had chosen specifically so it wouldn't interfere with our two assistants' regular jobs).

The transition was an immense process; We had to first take apart the "Double" PRE System, Acapella Super Tweeters, 4 mono amplifiers and also all of their associated stands and platforms. The Double PRE had to be either moved or packed back into their original shipping cartons, while the 4 amplifiers had to be L/R identified and then moved to some safe place until again needed. Then, after thoroughly cleaning the listening room (especially in places not visible for years), the Sadurni Staccato System (originally in pieces) had to be safely moved into the listening room, assembled and "adequately" positioned. The details are unnecessary, but the complete transition took (the 4 of us) around 6 hours to accomplish, while working basically non-stop during this entire period. Then the 3 of us went to dinner. Almost as soon as we returned, at around 8:30 PM, the Sadurni horns were playing music.

As per my own Requirement #2 (see above), our first Sadurni Horns listening session mimicked (as closely as practically possible) what Irving had originally heard (with the "custom models") in Sadurni's home in Texas, in October 2022. By utilizing (and paraphrasing) my contemporaneous notes, posted below is my best description of what we experienced that first evening:

"The bass and the lower midrange, meaning the 'big horns' and the self-powered subwoofers, were outstanding, probably the finest I've ever heard overall, though the subwoofers' volume level may have to change. A ceramic driver, similar to those in the PRE, was also used in the big horns. There were noticeable sonic problems with the two upper drivers. The left speaker was generally fine, though it sounded noticeably louder than the right speaker. The right speaker also sounded muffled. In effect, the channel balance was obviously off between them. Example - Both the focus, and the position, of the singer noticeably changed, depending on the frequency/pitch of the notes. With the exception of the big horns, we heard only compression drivers tonight or, in other words, there were no dynamic drivers used in either the upper horns or tweeters. Further, we only used my CD player during the entire listening session, so there were no analogue sources heard on the Sadurni speakers during this first evening. We played a large variety of music until we were all literally exhausted. (We were up to after 4 AM!)"

Bottom Line - From my perspective, nothing had changed. I heard all of the speaker's important "potential", which I expected, along with the horn system's incredible sonic strengths and obvious sonic problems, so my earlier combination of "extreme excitement" and "dread" was justified and still remained with me. Further, what about my friend Irving's opinion? The overall sonics were now better than what Irving had heard in Texas, but he was still not that impressed, at least compared to some other drivers he had heard. However, much more was to come from Sadurni. We had just started.

Finally, and while completely unrelated to our audio experiments and results, a precedent started this day, and would continue for the remainder of the week. In practice, this "precedent" epitomized both our focus and the intensity of this project: Due to necessity, we would have only two meals a day; a big breakfast and a big dinner, in which we also discussed, in great detail, our recent and future experiments and plans. We had quickly realized that there was simply not enough time for us to also have lunch, or even a snack, if we wanted to accomplish all that we agreed was necessary.

This is the first day listening exclusively to the Sadurni horns. According to our schedule, and our focus, this would be a lengthy day of numerous replacements, trials and experiments, and it was. In the end, we experienced both great success and some serious frustration and failure. Our primary goal for the day is pretty simple to understand: Irving and I wanted to hear, for ourselves, all (or at least most) of the incremental, step by step, technical changes (with the resulting sonics improvements) which Jorge Sadurni had made over the past 16 months, as he slowly transformed the original, October 2022, "custom horn speaker", into the current Sadurni Staccato Horn System Max. This lengthy and detailed process may even, understandably, be considered tedious for some audiophiles but, due to our extreme audio curiosity, it was exciting and enlightening for Irving and I.

These were the highlights of the day: The afternoon session couldn't have started off better, as Sadurni replaced the existing compression drivers, in the upper midrange horns, with 8-ohm dynamic drivers, which provided a huge sonic improvement. After confirming this serious performance advancement, with a large variety of music, and with all of us now feeling truly excited, Jorge later attempted replacing the existing compression tweeters with some highly regarded ribbon tweeters. However, to our great surprise and dismay, this time we almost immediately observed a serious problem: The ribbon tweeters, despite their reputation and excellent build quality, badly distorted during any challenging musical passages, and so they were almost immediately removed (along with our short-lived ecstasy!). Then, after some reflection, and with many other experiments yet to conduct (see below), we decided not to replace the ribbons at that time, but instead we chose to play the midrange horns "full-range" (meaning now above 5K) for the remainder of the day, and then experiment with an entirely new type of tweeter on Day 4. Meanwhile...

We had also began experimenting with different electronics and cables during this day, which we were confident would also improve on the sonic performance we had observed on Day Two. We first replaced the Berning integrated tube amplifier, which Jorge had brought along with him for continuity, with the Coincident Frankenstein 300B SET amplifiers, along with The Truth T3 line stage. We also started using the same speaker cables I had previously used with the PRE II; Polk for the upper midrange/tweeter and Coincident for the big horn. The Results - The sonic performance was noticeably improved in each instance, but we also now observed that the overall bass output had been reduced relative to the midrange/tweeter output, even when the subwoofers were at their highest gain setting, so the system was no longer balanced. Further, the system's bass impact was also now compromised when directly compared to the PRE II. Unfortunately, we ran out of time that day but, for the following day, we planned to use a second line stage, dedicated specifically for increasing the gain to the subwoofers.

When this very long day, filled with numerous events, finally ended, we were, once again, all exhausted, but we were still firmly optimistic as to the ultimate success of the SP. To answer the obvious questions, begged for by the above events: Yes, I still felt some dread and, further, I even still preferred the PRE II, overall, at this exact point in time. However, I still slept well that night, because I constantly kept in mind that the Week (and related Schedule) wasn't even half over and, in fact, as it turned out, Day Four would end up being "the turning point" for the entire SP.

The three of us began the day extremely excited. In fact, we couldn't wait to begin our experiments. We were now highly confident we could overcome most, or even all, of the sonic problems which still remained at the end of Day Three. We first agreed that the two midrange horns (lower and upper) were fine as is, and so we instead concentrated on the tweeters and the (tapped horn) subwoofers. The tweeters had to come first, of course, since they weren't even installed in the speaker system as the day began. Beginning quickly, Jorge installed some new ceramic tweeters, which I had never seen, heard, or even heard of, prior to this day. The resulting sonics were simply outstanding. This had to be described as a Giant improvement, if not a complete transformation of the speaker system. The new tweeters also worked extremely well with the upper midrange horns and, needless to say, they eliminated all of the distortion we had previously observed with the ribbon tweeters. These ceramic tweeters were basically new, and not yet broken-in, so we realized that they would obviously improve with play, but that was a relatively minor issue at this point.

After this great success, we turned our attention to the subwoofers which, while quite impressive at certain times, had also been somewhat problematic from the beginning (see above). We quickly realized that optimizing the subwoofers' performance would require a lot of time, effort, highly focused listening, while making numerous (though mostly minor) adjustments, with much of it inherently intense in nature. Note - The Staccato subwoofers have their own dedicated, built-in, mono amplifiers, plus a large variety of critical settings; volume level, various crossover choices and phase.

We first concentrated on the low-pass crossover adjustment (which is the upper frequency where the subwoofers begin their roll-off, so that they don't adversely affect the lower midrange frequencies). We experimented with different crossover frequencies, in increments, until the setting reached 115 Hz, which proved to be ideal. Fortunately, this crossover frequency change resulted in another large sonic improvement and, it even further illuminated, for all three of us, the underlying reason for at least some of the sonic aberrations, and inconsistencies, we had been observing for the first two days. However, we couldn't celebrate at the time, a number of other critically important subwoofer settings still had to be optimized...

We then increased the subwoofers' volume level (in small increments), as required per Day 3's results, using various musical software which especially exposed bass weight, bass impact, musical balance and cohesiveness. When we were finished, we had achieved another serious improvement. Next, we moved on to the phase of the subwoofers (in relation to the large upper bass/lower midrange horns). In this instance, cohesiveness was the primary goal, and we ended up making a large change (though, once again, in small increments), going from "0" all the way to "+ 120" degrees. This change in the phase also provided another sonic improvement, though modest in nature, and not nearly as noticeable as either the previous changes in volume or crossover frequency. In our final decision of the day, the 4th order crossover setting (24/dB octave) was not changed.

In Conclusion - We may have ended another day completely exhausted, but Day Four was still the most productive and satisfying day for all three of us. It was also, without a doubt, the most important day for me. Day Four was the actual day I realized that the Sadurni Staccato Horn System Max had now, definitively, surpassed the overall performance of the Coincident PRE II, and was, accordingly, my new top, and personal, "Speaker Reference". This also meant, of course, that the Sadurni speakers would now remain with me. Further, and while I assume this is needless to say, all of the "dread" I had felt, for almost a week, had now entirely disappeared, and for good. Finally, while further interesting experiments were still planned for the remainder of the week, none of them would prove to be as consequential as those successfully conducted on Day Four.

When compared to the unrelenting work and intensity of the previous four days, Day Five would be considerably more tranquil. Further, after working so closely together with me, for five consecutive days, Jorge and Irving decided that they now required some temporary "space", along with a short work break. Accordingly, they decided to spend that night at Irving's home. So we then planned for basically a half-day, with only one experiment for the afternoon session, which, of course, also provided me an entire evening of listening on my own. For our single experiment, we decided it had to be, all at the same time; exciting, "fun" and complex. Our unanimous choice (among the few remaining options now left to us): We would replace the new tweeters, which had so impressed us on Day Four, with the finest tweeters available, the Acapella Ion Super Tweeters! However, I must also emphasize that, in this specific instance, the Acapella tweeters would completely replace the existing Sadurni tweeters, and not just augment them (as had previously been done with the PRE II, and the original PRE earlier).

We had the entire afternoon to accomplish the switch of tweeters, plus then evaluate them, and we ended up needing all of that time, because a number of serious problems arose almost immediately. The Ion tweeters could not be placed on top of (or attached to) the Sadurni Horn system, so we instead utilized the stands for the PRE II monitors (though we had to raise them slightly). We also had initial difficulties with grounding, since the Acapella tweeters have their own internal amplifiers, but eventually all of these issues, plus the critical matter of positioning, were resolved. However, even after all these hurdles were overcome, we still had one final (and important) setting to make; matching the Acapella tweeters' volume to exactly the same precise level of the Sadurni's stock tweeters. To do so, we used the same CD (Mark Isham/Blue Sun) that I had used originally back in 2017, when I (with the assistance of Jean Nantais/Ultimate Lenco) initially installed the Acapella tweeters in my system, at that time with the PRE I "Doubles". In the end, we all agreed that this Isham CD was an excellent choice for this specific task.

The Results - As could be easily predicted, the Acapella Ion super tweeters provided performance improvements in the areas of purity, extension, space etc. However, both Irving and I estimated they were only about 40%, or less than half, of the sonic gains we experienced with the original PRE Doubles back in 2017. The reason for this disappointing performance gain was immediately obvious to both Irving and I: The Sadurni System already had superior tweeters and midrange drivers, when compared to the PRE II, so any further improvements would/could not be as noticeable. I even had a feeling of "Deja Vu", because this exact scenario had played out years earlier, at that time with the Acapella super tweeters and the PRE II, when I experienced another similar result and the associated disappointment. For the record: This is what I wrote and posted, back in 2021, concerning the sonic improvement of the Acapella super tweeters, when used with the PRE II...

During our extended listening of the new tweeters, for the remainder of the afternoon, I eventually realized that I was less impressed with the Acapella's relative performance than either Jorge or Irving, but we all agreed that they still provided a nice improvement, just somewhat less than we expected*. Then, as we planned earlier, Irving and Jorge left my home late in the afternoon to go to the former's home for the evening. They would arrive back to my home early the following afternoon, so they both lost one "listening period" (that evening) with me.

As for my evening, I listened to the new system from around 10 to 1:30, though with only my analogue source. As usual, it took some time for the system to warm up and perform at its best. However, something else had also changed; this unavoidable warm up process was now more obvious, meaning the sonic problems were more noticeable. At the end though, after the warm up was completed, the sound was simply magnificent. Being completely alone, I took advantage of the moment and played some specific recordings which I assumed my two listening associates wouldn't appreciate as much as I; "Peter Gabriel Live", plus some opera highlights from Mussorgsky (Boris Godunov) and Wagner (The Ring Cycle), with all three recordings sharing the rare capability to totally overwhelm the listener. That evening I went to sleep a very happy man indeed. All that was left in the schedule now were some cable changes and speaker positioning. From my perspective at the time, these remaining changes were only the "fine tuning" of an extraordinary device, as all of the important events, and their associated results, had already been successfully accomplished.

*Note - The Acapella Ion Super Tweeters, when utilized with the Sadurni Horn System Max, will be analyzed in much greater detail, in a dedicated Addendum, after the SP review is completed.

Somewhat refreshed after our half-day, we still made some further sonic progress, though we all realized that no "dramatic" improvements were possible at this point in the project. In the early afternoon, after providing Sadurni with some suggestions, Jorge made some important modifications to the inputs of the Bass Horn's external crossover box. After Sadurni's modifications, we were able to connect the same crossover box directly to the Frankenstein SET amplifier's speaker binding posts, which thus allowed us to remove an entire (and now unnecessary) speaker cable (4'/Coincident) from the signal path. The Sonic Results - We are able to hear even more low-level information (harmonics, space, decays etc.), plus more details in the rear of the soundstage.

We then moved back to the tweeters. We first removed the Acapella Super Tweeters, since they were always meant to be only experimental, and strictly temporary, at this point, and reinstalled the stock ceramic tweeters. In short, the stock tweeters were still outstanding on their own. Then Jorge and Irving (but not I) spent a good deal of time and effort optimizing their volume level, but now using the Acapella as the new "reference" to aim for. There was definitely another improvement, but we still decided that further level changes, to both the tweeters and the subwoofers, plus some other "fine tuning", would have to be made on Day Seven. That evening, after dinner, we concentrated only on analogue sources, and played some of my finest and most challenging records, for both pleasure and edification, though we made no further adjustments. We stayed up late again, but the 3/4 AM marathon evenings were over.

The final day of the SP ended up being another half-day. However, in our last afternoon session, we were still able to make some more progress, and in a variety of areas. Once again, we first concentrated on the tweeters and subwoofers. We made some final adjustments (a reduction) to the ceramic tweeter's volume level, to optimally match it to the upper midrange horn, so they would sound as close as possible to a single driver. Then the subwoofer's phase was again re-adjusted, to best coordinate it to the output of the large horn. We eventually finished with a phase setting of +180 degrees.

With the speaker drivers optimized to the limits of our abilities, we then focused on the placement, and angle, of the speakers in relation to the listening positions. Sadurni was in charge of this process, while I assisted him. He used a tape measure to make fine adjustments to a fraction of an inch. In the end, the speakers were only moved very slightly, and ditto for their angles. Meanwhile, the listening couch was moved back (twice), and later moved "sideways", thus better centering it. One final change; We moved the large "Tube Traps" to better reflect the new positions (no pun intended).

Justifiably filled with enthusiasm, for our last evening, we planned to have a special meal, and then end the week with a final listening session which would combine some of Jorge's favorite recordings, plus some of my Supreme Recordings "Divinity" choices. Then, out of nowhere, disaster struck us when Jorge's rented car wouldn't start. The Unfortunate Consequences: My two SP associates now had to leave early in the evening. Thus, no dinner and no final listening session. So, our Day Seven "big night", which I had meticulously planned to the Nth degree, was cancelled to my great heartbreak. As we all said goodbye, my feelings at the time were both powerful and mixed; With resilience, we had all overcome and achieved so much during this week, but the commensurate, and consummate, celebration, which we all had also so much earned and deserved, was not to be.

While it unfortunately ended on a sour note, the "Marathon Week" of the SP was, overall, a great success. In the beginning, I took a leap into the unknown, by allowing Jorge Sadurni (a stranger at the time) and his horn speaker system, which I hadn't even heard of before, into my home, for an entire week (taking apart my own audio system in the process). I took this "leap" only because I completely trusted the judgment of my long-time close friend and associate, Irving Isenberg. In our inescapable, intimate and temporary environment, the three of us quickly created a close working and personal bond, which proved necessary for the endless experiments we conducted together, from the traditional, complex and exciting, down to the simple and tedious, though all of them provided us with at least some useful information. The final results, which were beyond our expectations, attest to their success.

There were plenty of long nights, enjoyable meals, and many intense, lengthy and interesting conversations (and not all about audio), which were both challenging and refreshing. In the end, I now have a new Speaker Reference, with a commitment to write a review worthy of it, which I plan to keep.

Shortly after my two guests left, my priorities were quickly reduced to the audio fundamentals; Optimizing the Sadurni Staccato Horn System Max, while also breaking it in, with all of this achieved in an expedited manner. First, I almost immediately started a routine which I have, since then, rarely changed; I played CDs every morning, at least 3 hours at a time, while also playing records in as many evenings as practically possible, when considering all of my other (non-audio/musical) interests and commitments.

The initial system optimization was mainly focused with the existing speaker cabling, and I made an important change almost immediately. Near the end of February 2024, I built a brand new (DIY) 2' pair of Polk speaker cables, which directly replaced the existing 3' Polk pair being used on the Sadurni upper/midrange horn and tweeter. The (now available) 3' Polk, in turn, simultaneously replaced the 2' Coincident Statement cable, which I had been using on the large Staccato Bass Horn. Even though the new 2' Polk speaker cable still required a considerable amount of break-in to perform at its very best (and also equal the older 3' Polk cable), the Sadurni Horn system (now finally using all Polk speaker cables) still sounded slighlty more detailed, and more cohesive, that same evening (listening again to 3 AM). My friend Irving visited me around this time, and verified these sonic improvements (and then flew back to his Toronto home for a few months). I also made some final adjustments to the speaker positioning during this time, though they were very minor in both their relative degree and their related sonic consequences.

Almost 3.5 months went by before the next actual component/cable change to the system. During this entire period, I observed a continual improvement in sonic performance (thus delaying the formal review). From my past experiences, now over many decades, I believe the majority of the sonic improvements were the result of the Sadurni speaker system continually breaking-in, while some of it was, undoubtedly, from the new 2' Polk speaker cables, which were also breaking-in. This cumulative, and specific, break-in improvement was later verified when Irving again visited me a few times, over a two week period, during the very end of May and also early June. He was almost shocked by the overall improvement which he immediately observed, all at once, literally from the time he first walked into my home (when compared to his last listening sessions in very early March).

Then, in the second week of June, after Irving had once again returned to Toronto, Jorge Sadurni sent me an ultra-short (5") Y-cable, which consisted of one RCA female input and two RCA male outputs. This Y-cable now allowed me to make a direct connection to both of the Sadurni subwoofer's two RCA female inputs, and, in the process, added 6 dB of gain. This 6 dB increase in gain, in turn, then enabled me to completely remove the (extra) Berning ZOTL line stage from the signal path (along with the now superfluous interconnects, also in the subwoofer's signal path, as a bonus*). To compensate for the Y-cable's 6 dB of added output, I then reduced the subwoofer's gain by the same exact 6 db.

The Sonic Results - The bass level sounded like it was still "in the ballpark", while the sound quality had noticeably improved. The overall system sonics were even more delicate and purer, while the Staccato's (deep) bass is the closest to "live" that I've ever heard - extended, tight, detailed, controlled, solid, with weight and impact, and, most importantly, yet with no fat or any unnatural emphasis. However, I still wasn't quite finished with the subwoofer's adjustments.

Next, I decided to basically start all over again in my goal of matching the respective volume levels of the Sadurni subwoofers and the large upper bass horns. I first experimented with raising the subwoofer's gain (three separate times, due to a combination of bias and a misunderstanding). However, in each instance, the gain increase, unfortunately, caused some noticeable, and unexpected, sonic problems. Then, after a short interval back at the "starting point" of -6.0 dB, I instead began reducing the subwoofer's gain, though in very tiny increments of -.1 dB (the smallest possible interval). Finally, success! Over time, I ended up (in August) with an absolute setting of -6.6 dB, or, from a different perspective, a net gain reduction of -.6 dB from the starting point. While the overall sonic balance of the system was, frankly, only a touch more natural, the most important sonic improvements were in the upper bass/lower midrange frequencies, where the sound was quicker, more immediate and cleaner. In other words, the Sadurni system was now "lighter on its feet", and all of this without any sonic downsides.

Meanwhile, the Sadurni System, and its associated DIY Polk speaker cables, are still slowly breaking in. This isn't a surprise, since the Coincident PRE II, which uses similar drivers, also required hundreds of play hours to break-in, even though a greater amount of amplifier power was used (because of its lower sensitivity). To summarize, I now have around 600 hours of play time on the Sadurni Staccato Max (near the end of August 2024), and the speaker system appears to have mainly stabilized at this point. However, it must also be kept in mind that, in my personal experience, the PRE II was still improving, albeit very subtly, even after 1,000 hours of play! Accordingly, I obviously have no idea when this Sadurni System break-in process will finally end, but I will report any noticeable and relevant sonic changes when I am confident they actually exist.

*The Berning ZOTL line stage, and the associated interconnect signal cables were, generously, on temporary loan from Jorge Sadurni. They were all returned at the time of transition.

Introduction - Below is the technical description of the Staccato Horn System Max, which Jorge Sadurni forwarded me upon my request. I made this specific request because I felt it was critically important that serious readers have the necessary information to understand the technical foundations for the Staccato Max's unparalleled (in my experience) performance. However, I have removed most of Sadurni's purely subjective comments, which I feel are more appropriate on the manufacturer's own website, plus I made some other minor edits (and any bold is my choice). Finally, my "Personal Comments" are, unambiguously, only noted in (bold):

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Sadurni Acoustics Staccato speaker system is a 4-way horn-loaded design, featuring the following components:
- Upper Bass Horn
- Midrange "Turbine" Horn
- Tweeter Waveguide
- Added Back Wave (ABW) Subwoofer (Concentric Tapped Horn)

This system utilizes drivers chosen for their minimal distortion. Inside a horn, the harmonic distortion profile is significantly reduced because the driver's movement is minimal, requiring less power and thereby reducing total distortion. As a result, the amplifier operates with much lower distortion at reduced output levels...(Personal Comments - Thus both the speaker drivers and the amplifiers have lower distortion, which is my direct and long-time experience, and why I feel, and have long posted, that high-efficiency speakers are a serious audiophile's "most important choice".)

Upper Bass Horn:
The Staccato system is built on a logical design philosophy... The frequency range from 100 Hz to 800 Hz, known as the "musical range", is where most instruments produce their fundamental tones. In the Staccato system, this range is handled by the Upper Bass Horn, a massive component measuring 36 inches across and approximately 3 feet deep. Constructed from wood composites, this horn is driven by a highly efficient, rigid cone driver with extremely low distortion. Positioned close to the floor, it provides better loading for lower frequencies, allowing it to reach as low as 100 Hz... The Upper Bass Horn integrates ... with the Midrange Horn to cover the main part of the musical scale.

Midrange Turbine Horn:
The midrange, covering 800 Hz to around 5000 Hz, is critical for clarity and transparency. Horns are renowned for their dynamic range and clarity, but achieving balance between the midrange and other system channels can be challenging. Mismatched horns, especially when paired with less sensitive drivers struggling to reach low frequencies, can result in the "cupped hand" effect - a common issue with limited horn systems. In contrast, the Staccato system pairs a horn with a horn,...The Midrange Horn is time-aligned with the Upper Bass Horn and shaped like a turbine to minimize diffraction and avoid obstructing the time-aligned tweeter. This horn radiates sound in free air, with its stand doubling as a...diffuser...
(Important -) The Staccato Max system uses no compression drivers.

Tweeter Waveguide:
The tweeter, responsible for the harmonic envelope of music, is another crucial component. The best tweeter is not necessarily the one that extends to the highest frequencies, but the one that reproduces the most harmonic content without resonances. The tweeter in the Staccato system is loaded with a waveguide to match the radiation pattern and dynamic contrast of the horns. It features a high-efficiency, rigid dome driver with negligible distortion. Like the midrange horn, the tweeter is time-aligned and radiates in free air, supported at the lower section which also acts as a diffuser...

Crossovers:
The horn sizes are designed for the specific driver so each horn "loads" the driver accordingly due to its size and length, to the frequency they are designed to play at. This loading effectively acts as a crossover without any phase changes. First order crossovers are used as a finishing touch to get the range perfectly integrated. (Personal Comment - The Upper Bass Horn has an exterior crossover, eliminating any distortions/resonances caused by internal vibrations.)

The most complicated part of a horn system is the bass, and so this has been the longest research and development task we have performed. After testing almost all bass systems, starting with the ubiquitous 15" woofer in a 100 liter box many years ago, to open baffle bass, to several horn loaded types and several 10" bass arrays, we eventually tested a Tapped horn bass solution, which had terrible cabinet resonances, but a nice speed/dynamic/clarity content. Now, if we could just get rid of the huge size and cabinet resonances, and also be able to use the smallest subwoofer possible for speed. Our solution was a cylindrical, concentric series of chambers that guide the back wave of the bass driver to the front, much like a transmission line, or back loaded horn, which blends in with the front wave... Cylinders, as most round containers, can hold an enormous amount of pressure when directly compared to their flat counterparts, and thus vibration is also greatly diminished. Further, being concentric, the radiating area to the outside of the cabinet is also minimized.

The subwoofers on the Max System are built inside an enveloping cabinet constructed from over 25 parallel sheets of 1¼" of HDF, CNC machined, bolted and glued together for...rigidity.
The New ABW double subwoofers are driven now by ... (dedicated mono) 500-watt DSP amplifiers, with enormous tuning capabilities*. (It is no longer servo controlled.)
The bass integrates...with the horns, without taxing the main amplifiers with long extension drivers, which generate feedback and also rob power from the main amplifier.
Having a separate subwoofer also helps positioning of the speakers according to the best midrange/soundstage response, and further allows for a better positioning of the bass frequencies for room integration, with the added benefit of isolation from the vibrations generated by the bass drivers.
(Personal Comment - I fully agree that the separation of the subwoofers with the main speakers provide many sonic advantages, as per my personal reference speaker choices over the last 40+ years.)
Phase alignment is crucial for the perfect bass integration, with any change in gear upstream, bass phase should be reevaluated.

*(Personal Comments - The Staccato Max subwoofer's "tuning capabilities" include volume/gain, crossover frequencies high/low, crossover slope order, phase (to 1 degree!) and delay etc. In other words, all encompassing, and similar to my "Reference" Behringer DCX2496.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because of its various sonic breakthroughs, describing the overall performance of the Sadurni Staccato Horn System Max may very well be the most difficult reviewing challenge I've ever faced, and, to be clear, even more so than the original (2010) Lenco Reference (which also achieved a sonic breakthrough at the time). First, beginning with the most basic audio fundamentals: The Staccato Max is highly neutral, possessing a wide frequency range, and with the ability to play extremely loud, cleanly, even in a large room.

Still, these specific sonic attributes of the Staccato Max are neither routine nor rare. In fact, there are many other commercial speakers, of various designs, both requisitely well-engineered and competently executed (and usually very expensive), which can also legitimately claim to possess (at least some of) these same sonic attributes. Though, in my experience, it is still rare for a single speaker to possess all of these desirable sonic attributes simultaneously (as does both the Staccato Max and my former Reference, the Coincident PRE II).

However, the Staccato Max's sonic capabilities go far beyond these fundamental audio basics, and, most importantly, even enters a new performance realm, all by itself, as one of a kind, and this is what makes the speaker truly special and unique. Accordingly, I feel it would be redundant to simply duplicate, and/or regurgitate, the usual descriptions of speakers (or any audio component) which master the audio basics. And so I will, instead, focus and concentrate only on those rarer sonic attributes which elevate the Staccato Max's performance to the hitherto unprecedented, in my experience.

The Staccato Max has the lowest sound-floor of any speaker I've ever heard, which means it is even lower than the PRE II (now the 2nd lowest I've heard), and "lower", at least in this specific category, is always better and/or preferable. Since the two speakers utilize similar drivers, there must be another technical reason to account for, and/or explain, the Staccato Max's superiority, and there is. In fact, there are two technical reasons: The Staccato Max has even deader structures than the (already outstanding) PRE II, plus it also has greater sensitivity*. When these two technical advantages are combined, the lower sound-floor is easily noticeable and observable, along with all the important, usual and associated musical and sonic benefits, which I have always highly valued, even long before the birth of this website.

The Details - There are more natural harmonics, longer decays and a greater sense of space. Further, the space has more integrity, so there is not the usual degradation and/or compromise at softer volume levels. In more general terms, there is simply more realism at lower volume levels, which thus means the speakers can be played at lower/realistic volume levels and still sound natural. Further, the musical flow is also improved, especially with digital (CD) sources, with positive effects even similar to using a turntable with superior speed stability. In total, this specific sound-floor reduction can only be described as a significant sonic improvement.

*I've argued in the past, and on this website, inspired by a post on another website, that "higher sensitivity" is not a different definition, or the single cause, of a lower sound-floor. However, if everything else is equal, higher sensitivity will result in a lower sound-floor.

The Staccato Max has the capability of creating a huge soundstage. Comparatively, the soundstage is as large as any speaker I've heard (including the PRE II "Doubles" with the Acapella Ion Tweeters) and yet, at the same time, it can also still feel intimate. The image focus is outstanding as well, and it's superior to every speaker I've heard (including the PRE II), though with an important exception: The Omni-directional designs, which, for me, means the various Morrison and MBL models, are still "the best available" when it comes to image focus (assuming optimized setup), though the Staccato Max has now noticeably reduced the past performance gap to almost insignificance.

The main sonic improvements of the Staccato Max are the superior separation and organization of the instruments and vocalists, and the greater amount of musical information heard at the rear of the soundstage, which also makes it more convincing. Cumulatively, these various sonic advances are, unquestionably, very important. Still, with my long-time audio/musical priorities, I don't feel they are quite as significant as the reduction of the sound-floor. However, many serious listeners, with other sonic priorities, will feel differently of course.

The Staccato Max is the most uncompressed, and/or dynamic, speaker I've ever heard, and, for clarification, this includes the PRE II "Doubles" plus all the horn speakers I have experienced (and not just those horn speakers discussed above) in my audio life. The Staccato Max has a degree of sheer intensity, at all volume levels, that I have never previously experienced, which, most importantly, makes it difficult for the listener not to become involved with the music, no matter what the genre. In fact, it can be, with some specific recordings, actually shocking at times, and, in this particular instance, I am using the word "shocking" literally, meaning possessing the capability of giving you a heart attack! Further, although it's already implied, I believe it is still important for me to specifically note that, because of its ultra-low sound-floor, the Staccato Max also has the widest dynamic-range of any speaker I've ever heard.

None of this dynamic superiority is accidental. I believe there are important elements which noticeably separate the Staccato Max from all the other good horn speakers, since they all share the effortless quality you should always expect from these models (which is, of course, their inherent sonic strength). The Staccato Max, in comparison to other horn speakers, has superior purity, completeness and focus. These same desirable elements, inevitably, provide the Staccato Max an unique performance advantage when there all then combined with any good horn's common attribute of effortlessness.

Using the common audiophile definition of the word, the Staccato Max is as immediate as any speaker I've heard and so, to be clear, it directly rivals, though it does not exceed, the finest electrostatics (the Martin-Logan CLS & the later Audiostatics) in this category. However, the Staccato Max has a serious sonic and musical advantage over those two auspicious rivals; Its sense of immediacy is noticeably more convincing because the reproduced "subjects" (vocalists and instrumentalists) have greater, and more natural, substance to them, which, in turn, provides them with increased presence. Thus, in the practical sense of the word, the Staccato Max has greater immediacy than even the finest electrostatics I've heard, because it reproduces a more convincing portrayal/body of a real person and/or a real instrument, and not, comparatively, proverbial "ghosts" or "phantoms" (like the electrostatics). Furthermore, using another relevant and related expression, for added clarity and perspective; The Staccato Max sounds more "alive" than any speaker in my experience.

The Staccato Max's sense of immediacy, which is unparalleled in my experience (regardless of the speaker design), has many favorable sonic advantages; Well recorded records sound more like a good direct-to-disc, or even a Master Tape on occasion. The improvements with digital sources are similar, now possessing a "continual presence" and natural flow I've never observed before, and the closest I've heard to the best analogue. Further, with both analogue and digital sources, was the experience of actually being (temporarily) "fooled" into believing real musicians were literally present in my listening room! This most desirable of experiences, which audiophiles usually only dream of, now occurs at a greater frequency, and with a wider range of software, than I've ever experienced before. While it's still a relatively unusual event, it was almost non-existent prior to arrival of the Staccato Max.

This general performance category is related to "Immediacy" above, with similar speaker designs excelling in both attributes. Accordingly, the Staccato Max's speed, once again, rivals, but does not exceed, the finest electrostatics and ribbons I've heard. However, its reproduction of details, outer and inner, when combined, is unprecedented in my experience. With the Staccato Max (after break-in), you quickly, and continually, feel that everything in the recording, including the most delicate and subtle, is clarified and exposed, good and/or bad*.

Further Clarification Concerning "Details" - While the Staccato Max's reproduction of outer details (articulation, organization and intelligibility of notes) is similar to its electrostatic/ribbon rivals, it is far superior to them in the reproduction of inner details (harmonic timbres, complex textures), which, importantly, individualize the musicians. Consistent with my past experiences with other components (turntables and transistor electronics come first to mind), the finest electrostatics/ribbons may actually appear, at first, to be more detailed, though only in a superficial manner. How and why? When the complex inner details (like the colors in a "coloring book") are absent (for whatever reason), whatever remains (like the simple outlines in the coloring book) is more prominent and thus easier to perceive. This particular phenomenon is most easily observed with quality recordings (usually Classical and Jazz) of actual acoustical instruments and voices, though it is still noticeable, and still important, even with purely electronic recordings.

*However, this outstanding sonic achievement has never been universally desired in my experience, so this brings us to a related and inevitable issue and question, which is simple for serious audiophiles to describe and understand: Are you going to enjoy "hearing everything"?

The Staccato Max reproduces the body, substance and solidity of vocalists, and acoustical instruments, more naturally than any speaker I've ever heard. It's neither noticeably lean, or even ghostly, like electrostatics, nor corpulent to some degree, like dynamic speakers. In contrast, the Staccato Max has weight and solidity, but without any noticeable fat, while it's still as "light on its feet as a (proverbial) ballerina". The 2nd best I've heard, in this category, is the PRE II "Doubled", but, in direct comparison, it's relatively "fleshy" and it's also not quite as agile as the Staccato Max.

The Staccato Max has, by far, the finest subwoofer/bass system I've ever heard and is, in my experience, unquestionably in a class by itself. In fact, I feel so strongly about this near-zealous evaluation, that I'm even compelled to repeat myself: "The Staccato's (deep) bass is the closest to 'live' that I've ever heard - extended, tight, detailed, controlled, solid, with weight and impact, and, most importantly, yet with no fat or any unnatural emphasis".

The Staccato Max's bass reproduction (and integration) is the largest, and most noticeable, improvement between it and the PRE II (and its bass is excellent!). I've never heard bass sound this "right", and with the additional capability of being literally frightening with certain recordings. Further, its Concentric Tapped Horn system has an unusual degree of settings to both tune and optimize its performance. These settings must be utilized, over time and with thorough experimentation (as I did, see above), to ultimately achieve the optimum performance which I describe. Finally, and very importantly, the Staccato Max's bass reproduction has profound performance implications far beyond its frequency range, which I'll focus on next.

This is really important, a "big deal" in fact, and it's why I chose to discuss this attribute last, because I believe the most unique sonic quality, and technical achievement, of the Staccato Max, is its singularity across the entire frequency range. I have chosen to use the word "singularity", instead of the commonly used audiophile word "cohesive", because of the Staccato Max's exceptional degree of advancement, and its resulting unparalleled level of performance. In short, a new word is required, because I believe that simply using the common expression, and accolade, "XYZ is more cohesive", does not do full justice to the particular and overall achievement of the Staccato Max, and to be clear: Greater Singularity = Fewer Listening Distractions.

There are other speakers which can also make a legitimate claim to being unusually cohesive, such as the Quad ESL-57 from the distant past, as well as high-quality contemporary designs, such as the Coincident PRE II (my most recent reference), plus many others, some famous and some not. However, there have always been some (even serious) qualifiers associated with them, while the Staccato Max is different, because there are no qualifiers this time. The Staccato Max is the only speaker I've heard which is able to check off all (and not just some or most of) the common clichés and platitudes which audiophiles typically use when describing the basic attribute of "cohesiveness". Examples: "Seamless; coherent; of one cloth; uniform; integrated; of one character; of one voice", plus a bonus description which I haven't used before; "Stable".

In effect, the Staccato Max is the closest in performance to a theoretical single driver that we (both Irving Isenberg and I) have ever heard, being both nimble and homogeneous, and at all frequencies*. My friend Irving also pointed out to me that even single-driver speakers have more than one character, either in the treble, bass or some other part of the frequency range, and my friend has spent literally decades seriously experimenting with single-driver speakers. Further, when you consider the Staccato Max's overall performance, combined with its singularity, there were times I felt it could almost be described as a "full-range tweeter", with a sonic consistency regardless of the genre of music or the volume level. This all leads us to the important and interesting question of how and why the Staccato Max was able to achieve this exceptional level of performance?

A number of important factors are involved of course, since the technical transformation of a 4-way speaker design to mimic an ideal single-driver speaker design, would appear, at least in theory, to be almost impossible, because even one small mistake means ultimate failure. It is obvious that two large contributing factors are the choice of speaker drivers, and the critical phase alignment, of the 3 horns, but I am still convinced that the real KEY to this astonishing achievement is the Staccato Max's Tapped Horn Subwoofer. In fact, achieving a singularity is only possible because of the subwoofers, and audio history is consistent with (and also confirms) my conviction, since a speaker's bass integration has almost always been the primary source of cohesive failure in the past (the Avantgarde Duo/Trio being the most obvious examples, see above).

Finally, there's an important (audio history) perspective which must be recognized and noted; The Sadurni Subwoofer/Upper Bass/Lower Midrange Integration is an even greater technical achievement now than it was in the past. This is because its lower/upper midrange horns are noticeably faster than the PRE II, or any other dynamic speakers I've ever heard, thus making them that much more difficult to integrate with in the first place. Only electrostatics rival them in speed and difficulty to integrate seamlessly, and without notice, and so far they have also all failed in that desirable endeavor.

*Upon reflection, the most easily noticeable examples of "Singularity" are solo and well-recorded modern piano music.

Below is a short list of the LPs and CDs that provided the greatest impressions during the months of testing the Sadurni Staccato Max. I also provided some contemporaneous notes as well for context.

La Fete De Lane/Harmonia Mundi 901036 - So incredible that my friend Irving was almost shocked. Sonically competitive, or even superior at times, to the LP!

L'Fete de Lane/Harmonia Mundi 1036 - The claps on Side 2 are like gun shots!! I'm impressed even in the sections I've heard hundreds of times over 4 decades!

Music in the Age of Leonardo/CBC MV 1022 - Some cuts actually Fooled Me!!! I thought it was real!

Landowski/Les Hauts de Hurlevent (Wuthering Heights)/French EMI C069-73140 - Shocking at times - So dynamic!

Crumb/Music Summer Evening/Nonesuch H-71311 - Incredible immediacy and dynamics!! Literally frightening bass! An all-time great recording! Side Two - Just unbelievable!! As good as it gets! Stunning!! Can give you a heart attack!! Every pressing I've heard is noisy!

Trouvers/Deutsche Harmonia Mundi 1C 157 1695013 - Side 1/Cut 2 - Unbelievable!! The Woman singer was in the room!! Never heard such a difference between two cuts! Side 2/Cut 5 - Simply incredible!! and it's Digital!! These two voices may be the best I've ever heard!!

Van Der Geld/Patience/ECM 1-1113 - U.S. Pressing. So "alive", including the bass, that it may fool you that it's "Live"!, especially at the beginning of the 1st cut on Side 1.

Zakir Hussain/Making Music/ECM 1349 - Shocking, even when you are prepared! Digital!

Important Note - Some rare records have literally shocked me, but no CDs have as of yet.

Since the beginning of this review, I've had a dilemma I never experienced before: I had to solve the unique challenge of simultaneously doing full justice to the astonishing performance of the Staccato Max, while also still finding enough faults with it to appear (and, ultimately, still be) credible. This is why I began the "Performance" section of the Staccato Max like this: "Because of its various sonic breakthroughs, describing the overall performance of the Sadurni Staccato Horn System Max may very well be the most difficult reviewing challenge I've ever faced...".

In short, I had a problem I had never encountered before when evaluating a speaker: The Sadurni Staccato Max's sonic flaws were so insignificant, it required a conscious effort on my part to even notice them, or, expressing that same important experience in a different manner: It has never been so difficult for me (or my friend Irving) to observe the sonic faults of a speaker.

Moreover, I also believe the Staccato Max's performance is so unprecedented that it may have even accomplished a once unthinkable achievement, which I had previously felt was technically impossible for any speaker. The Details: During my listening sessions, there were several times when I seriously considered the possibility that the Staccato Max was the first speaker which actually approached, or even matched, the overall performance levels of other categories of audio components, such as phono cartridges, or even some electronics.

Further, I criticized (the now late) Wes Phillips, almost 3 decades ago, when he favorably* compared the audio performance of the Wilson WATT/Puppy 5 to "most wire" in his Stereophile review* of the speaker system. Frankly, Phillips invited ridicule when he chose a wire (and also cables) to make his larger point concerning the performance of the WATT/Puppy 5. However, 29 years later, I believe the Staccato Max's absence of obvious flaws does now allow it to finally being credibly compared to other audio components, which are normally considered inherently superior (though still not wire!).

There is no mystery and/or magic involved in explaining, and understanding, the reasons* for the Staccato Max's unparalleled performance. Furthermore, Sadurni's technical achievement is not an "accident", a "one-off" or some fortuitous event. To begin with, it is an established fact that all horn speaker systems start off with an inherent technical advantage when directly compared to all the other speaker designs: The horns essentially provide "free amplification", without any negatives, assuming they are designed and built in a correct and serious manner, or, in other words, "all-out". The Sadurni Staccato Max then separates itself from all of the other high-quality horn systems I'm aware of by:
1. Maximizing* all of the sonic strengths of its horns, while also
2. Minimizing* all of the potential weaknesses and problems of its horns.
This "separation" is all accomplished, by Sadurni Acoustics, through a combination of (primarily) a highly intelligent and thought-out design, along with outstanding execution and the application of a huge quantity of sheer dead mass and/or brute force, though only when absolutely required.

Finally, as far as I know, only Sadurni Acoustics, with its various Staccato models (highlighted, of course, by the "Max"), has achieved this ultimate horn/maximization/minimization status, though I believe that Avantgarde also deserves some credit for beginning the process decades ago.

*For all the important and interesting technical details, see the above section: Sadurni Staccato Horn System Max - A Technical Description

During one of my many lengthy listening sessions, I realized that there were some interesting similarities between the Sadurni Staccato Horn System and the (Jean Nantais) Reference Lenco idler-drive turntables. Obviously the functions, and resulting solutions, of the two components are completely different, but their respective histories appear to closely imitate each other.

First, both horns and idler-drives, for home audio, have been around now for more than a century. Further, during this entire period, both technologies have always remained popular with a small, yet dedicated, segment of serious audiophiles and music lovers. Moreover, it can be credibly argued that the technical problems with both technologies have only been solved, and their respective sonic performance finally optimized, during this century. Furthermore, in each instance, a combination of engineering finesse, plus the further utilization of common and deadening mass, greatly elevated the sonic performances of both the respective horns and the idler-drive turntables.

(This recent audio history inevitably begs an interesting question, even though it is, ultimately, only academic in nature...Could the now former technological problems with horns and idler-drives have been overcome much earlier, say, for example, by using late 20th century technology? In my opinion, yes. I believe that much, if not most, of the outstanding sonic performance levels we enjoy in 2024, with these respective components, could have been experienced decades ago, though not all of it, since there are still important advancements in machining and materials etc., which were not available and/or not economical until recently.)

Finally, there are two concluding similarities between the Staccato Max and Reference Lenco, and both of them are critically relevant and important:

1. For only the 6th time in my entire audio life, and for the 1st time since 2010 (The Reference Lenco, now 14 years ago), an audio component (The Sadurni Acoustics Staccato System Max) has achieved a Level 7 Audible Improvement. Rather than paraphrasing myself, I feel it is best to simply copy my current description of a Level 7 Improvement, which is included in "My Audio Philosophy".

Level 7- The sonic improvement is "transformational"; meaning not only would it be completely impossible to live without it, but the improvement actually alters an audiophile's thinking, direction and perspective on both their particular system and "Audio" in general. This is the rarest level of improvement, only experienced a few times in an audiophile's life. It is the unending desire, and quest, to repeat this intense experience which makes a person an Audiophile. "The stuff that dreams are made of."

*For those interested. Just below are, to the best of my memory, the only Level 7 Improvements I've experienced in my entire audio lifetime:

1. Spring 1968 - Dynaco PAS-3/Stereo 70 - Tube Amplification
2. 1971 - Quad ESL-57 - Electrostatic Speakers
3. 1979 - Denon/Supex? - Moving-Coil Cartridges
4. 1996 - Golden Tube Audio 300B Mono - Single-Ended-Triode (SET) Amplification
5. 2010 - Reference Lenco by Jean Nantais - Idler-Drive Turntables
6. 2024 - Sadurni Acoustics Staccato Max - Horn-Based Speaker System

2. As seen above, a Level 7 change is a genuine performance quantum-jump and system transformation. However, again like the Reference Lenco back in 2010, there will always inevitably be, sooner or later, further sonic improvements (Relevant Examples - Reference Lenco II, III & Ultimate), though no later sonic advancement, in my experience, will ever have the same profound personal impact as the first (Level 7) encounter with the original/breakthrough concept and model. I believe the future of the Sadurni Staccato Max will probably be similar to the original Reference Lenco, with various and unpredictable upgrades over time.

In effect, the Sadurni Staccato Horn System (Max) is the basic structure, or "bones", of a truly great component, while the remainder of its "body" will inevitably "evolve" over time. With the Sadurni Staccato Max, a listener will now find themselves located somewhere in the audio "Himalayas", but as for an audio equivalent of "Mt. Everest", it does not, and may never, actually exist, though the most serious audiophiles will never give up searching for it.

I believe a truly great audio component is more than simply the measurement, evaluation and sum of its individual sonic achievements. Furthermore, if there is not a truly personal effect on the music listener, than the entire component change, large or small, is a strictly academic exercise in nature, such as counting more stars in a galaxy when using a superior telescope. Accordingly, I am disclosing all of the personal changes in my audio/music life since the arrival of the Staccato Max, and especially since it has been optimized and later broken-in.

Beginning in April 2024, I have purchased more musical software (mainly Classical Music CD box sets), by far, than during any other period in my entire life. This is not a simple coincidence. Much more important, I now listen to music with a degree and level of involuntary intensity I've never before experienced. Expressed in a more direct manner, I am more "moved" by the music, of all genres, than ever before. And, to complete this thought, while also using a common audiophile expression which I usually avoid; Because of the Staccato Max, I am now more "involved" with the music.

The reasons for this transformation and enthusiasm is that, with the Staccato Max now in my system, the music is much more compelling, complex, expressive and even hypnotic at times, thus much more difficult to simply ignore and/or routinely place in the background, even when you are in another room. In fact, I now find myself going from my office to my listening room on a common basis whenever the Staccato Max is playing, while this was always a rare event in the past. My best description of this phenomenon is something I already posted above, when describing "Dynamics" in the "Performance" section;

(The Sadurni Staccato Max has a) "degree of sheer intensity, at all volume levels, that I have never previously experienced, which, most importantly, makes it difficult for the listener not to become involved with the music, no matter what the genre".

The Final Bottom Line - The Sadurni Horn System Staccato Max is an astonishing, unparalleled and once-in-a-generation component. Accordingly, if a reader still believes that all of the above is just another routine, and perfunctory, "the best I've ever heard review", and nothing more than that, than I've failed to convey the full magnitude, scope and perspective of what we have actually personally experienced with the Sadurni Acoustics Staccato Max.

According to the most recent information found on Sadurni Acoustic's website:

The Staccato Horn System MAX starts at $79,000. This is the specific model which I reviewed above and personally own.

There is now also a "Limited Edition" model for $117,000. Based on my conversations with both Jorge Sadurni and Irving Isenberg, I believe this newer model (which does not replace my model) will utilize (2) more advanced (and expensive) drivers for the upper frequencies, with resulting changes in the respective crossovers and the horn shapes and sizes. I have not heard this model, though there is an excellent chance that (my close friend) Irving may eventually purchase a pair for himself.

Important - All of the Staccato Horn System models include the Double Horn Loaded Subwoofers plus on-site installation by Sadurni personnel.

Sadurni Acoustics has also promised to provide further information concerning the Staccato's various options, which I will post at that time.

Readers with a good memory will recall that we (Jorge Sadurni, Irving Isenberg and I) experimented with the Ion super tweeters on Days 5 and 6 of the "Marathon Week" (see the full details above). At the time, "the Acapella tweeters would completely replace the existing Sadurni tweeters, and not just augment them...". The sonic results, at that time, with some editing...

"The Acapella Ion super tweeters provided performance improvements in the areas of purity, extension, space etc. However, both Irving and I estimated they were less than half of the sonic gains we experienced with the original PRE Doubles...The reason for this disappointing result was obvious: The Sadurni System had superior tweeters and midrange drivers, when compared to the PRE, so any further improvements would not be as noticeable...During our extended listening of the new tweeters, I eventually realized that I was less impressed with the Acapella's relative performance than either Jorge or Irving, but we all agreed that they still provided a nice improvement...(We later) removed the Acapella Super Tweeters, since they were only experimental, and reinstalled the stock ceramic tweeters (which) were still outstanding on their own."

After my two guests left, the Ion super tweeters were not utilized again for a period of 3 months (with the exception of a single day in March), since they were never relevant to the evaluation and review of the Staccato Max. By the end of this period, late May 2024, the Staccato Max had substantially broken-in, as detailed above, and this is also when my associate, Irving, visited me. As per Irving's request, I re-installed the Acapella Ion tweeters for the first time since his last visit in early March, and the two of us were both excited, and also expecting, to experience an even higher level of performance. However, our actual observations would surprise, if not shock, both of us.

I heard the super tweeters first of course, to make certain they were working, and adjusted properly, before Irving's visit. I immediately noticed some (mostly) minor improvements, though something bothered me as well, but I said nothing about this to Irving, because I felt it was important that he was not biased, in any manner, before his visit. During Irving's visit (May 30), we did extensive testing of the Acapella tweeters, though only with music we were highly familiar with. We again immediately heard the easily noticeable improvements, but we also had some reservations with the overall sonics, as I had myself the day earlier. Accordingly, we agreed to remove the Acapella super tweeters from the Sadurni speaker system and reinstall the Staccato's original/stock ceramic tweeters.

The Results - Both of us preferred the original ceramic tweeters!! The stock tweeters were, in an admitted understatement, noticeably more cohesive. The Staccato Max was, once again, the closest we had ever heard a speaker system sound like an ideal single driver ("like the Martin Logan CLS, but with all the body, harmonics and dynamic intensity it is missing"). So, what happened?!

Simple. The Staccato Max's "most unique sonic quality, and technical achievement, its singularity* across the entire frequency range", had disappeared with the installation/replacement of the Acapella Ion Super Tweeters, no matter what their positioning and/or settings. Yes, of course we observed the Acapella's extra extension, speed and air, but there was also an associated problem, because the replacement super tweeters never seamlessly blended in with the overall, Staccato Max, sound. In the end, I believe the Ion super tweeter's phase and timing differences (with the other drivers) were now large enough to compromise the speaker's overall cohesiveness.

However, there is still another related audio mystery; The exact same Ion super tweeters had worked very well with the Staccato Max during the "Marathon Week". So, what changed? The only possible explanation is that the Staccato Max's level of cohesiveness greatly improved during its break-in period (even achieving "singularity"). In effect, the Staccato Max's upper midrange and tweeter are now Nth degrees coherent, so even the slightest phase/timing change is a compromise you will notice, thus making it much more difficult to now switch drivers, regardless of their inherent quality.

So, we now had an unavoidable and binary choice; 1. Noticeably superior high-frequencies or 2. Singularity*, and both Irving and I selected "singularity" without any hesitation. Why? Because a system with "singularity", ultimately, has fewer listening distractions and thus draws more attention to the music and less attention to the audio system. This is why I made such a "big deal" about "Singularity" in the "Performance" section above. The Bottom Line: The Acapella Ion super tweeter now drew attention to itself, something we never experienced before in 7 years and with 3 (highly revealing) speaker systems (as well as the Staccato Max before its break-in).

Further, I would like to indulge myself with an analogy* which I feel is apropos when explaining this unexpected development: Consider a basketball game between an NBA Championship team (at their playoff best) versus that year's NBA "All-Stars" (with no practice together). Could anyone credibly argue that the All-Stars would win that imaginary game? The All-Stars obviously couldn't seriously compete with the NBA Championship team until they had an appropriate amount of practice as a "team". More directly, and staying in our audio world; designing a speaker system by expediently choosing "the finest available" woofer, midrange and tweeter, is absolutely no guarantee of achieving the highest level of audio performance. In fact, such an achievement, if and when using those three hypothetical "finest drivers", would be a literal fluke, with odds similar to winning a lottery.

Finally, this particular experience was humbling in a manner. Frankly, I didn't think this "Acapella Failure" was technically possible, until it actually happened, but the Sadurni Staccato/Acapella saga is not over. To be clear, I'm not giving up on utilizing the Acapella Ion Super Tweeters with the Staccato Max. The Details - I now plan to use the Ion super tweeters again with the Staccato Max, but this time with a crossover point at around 20 Khz (instead of 5 Khz). I believe there is still an excellent chance that I can achieve extra extension, air and space (with absolutely no compromise to the system's current "singularity"), by augmenting the stock ceramic tweeter, instead of simply replacing it. I will report back when this experiment is conducted, though it is not yet scheduled as this is written.

*Bonus Analogy - Consider building a pair of high-quality binoculars (which are simply two low-powered telescopes, side by side, designed specifically to work with both eyes). Our theoretical pair of binoculars could attempt to utilize the top two finest (low-powered) telescopes in the world. However, if this also means that these same binoculars are then unable to be optimally aligned (collimated) to a single optical point (singularity), the actual visual results will be unsatisfactory, if not disastorous.

1. The size of the Staccato Max, and especially its huge Upper Bass Horn, can be scaled by using the LPs and the Coincident Frankenstein SET amplifiers.
2. The Staccato Max is placed on the same energy absorbing "sand box" I previously used with the Coincident Dragon amplifier (no longer required).
3. Despite my best efforts, the above picture does not do justice to the absolutely stunning finish of the Staccato Max.
4. The Ultimate Lenco/Kuzma 4-Point and the (highly modified) Jadis JP-80, plus the heavy-duty structural shelving, can all be clearly seen, plus much of the sound absorbent material now in use.
5. The right channel "tapped horn" subwoofer can also be clearly seen, with the drivers facing to the "outside" of the system. Polk speaker cables (6 in parallel) can also be seen.

1. The Polk speaker cables, bi-wired and as short as possible, can be clearly seen connected at the rear of the Frankenstein SET amplifier, including the Upper Bass Horn's small crossover box's direct connection.
2. The "tuning" and power controls of the Staccato Max's left channel "tapped horn" subwoofer can be seen in its rear, though it is "off" in the picture. The subwoofer is turned "on" automatically when it senses a signal.
3. The Frankenstein's line stage signal cable can be seen crudely separated from the Coincident power cable.

Since my last serious updates in the fall of 2024, I, and my associates, have observed further sonic improvements in the performance of the Sadurni System Max (mostly break-in, plus minor subwoofer adjustments). Accordingly, I was not able to experiment with any other components during this period, since the exact source of the ultimate results could be confusing. However, the sound quality of my system, in early 2025, appears to have finally plateaued, thus now allowing me to plan several exciting audio projects for the remainder the year. At this time, I can only provide the minimum details concerning these various projects, since they are all in their preliminary stages, and I don't like to break any of my promises.

1. Sadurni Staccato Max "Upscale" Models - I've been informed that Sadurni Acoustics has successfully experimented with some new (upscale) speaker driver combinations, which I will be able to audition, in my own system, sometime in March/April 2025. (Yes, they will cost more.)

2. Analogue Source Upgrades - My Reference idler-drive turntable, MC phono cartridge and even the SUT (after 20 years!) may all be upgraded sometime later this year, starting in the Spring with the Ultimate Lenco (after the 2025 Sadurni project, my first priority, is finished).

3. Digital Source/Software - I plan to do a complete re-evaluation of Digital Sources sometime before the end of the year 2025, with an emphasis on sonic comparisons with the best of Analogue Sources/Software. I may also create my first CD "Supreme Recordings" list as well.

From my long-term observations, the primary distinction between myself and all other audio journalists, writers and reviewers, past or present, is the strong and unprecedented emphasis I have placed on the reproduction of (very) soft and subtle sounds. There are many other differences between myself and the others, which is normal and to be expected, but none of them are as pronounced, evident and important. In fact, I even coined a new expression for the concept of accurately (and completely) reproducing "soft sounds", after I realized that the default generic term, popular with most audiophiles ("noise-floor"), was both ill-defined and misleading: Here's the relevant article and direct link: THE "SOUND-FLOOR"-THE ULTIMATE KEY

Music requires soft sounds to be complete and, just as important, an audio system, if it is to be honestly judged as "outstanding", must have the ability to play at (very) soft volume levels, without "dying", and still sound real and alive. My 50+ years of experience with tube electronics, along with the countless positive results I've had modifying these same electronics, enlightened me to the critical importance of this highly neglected sonic virtue. However, the various experiences I've had with literally thousands of fellow audiophiles are the real foundation for my conviction concerning this issue. It has been my consistent observation, for many decades now, that the more sensitive and experienced the listener, the more they will appreciate hearing all the subtleties of soft sounds. This is the indisputable confirmation that provides the confidence for my conviction.

I also highly value (or highly prioritize) the organization of sounds because, at its most fundamental definition, all music is simply organized sound. I share this value of organization with (too) few contemporary audio journalists. Both are equally necessary, because soft sound information is mainly useless unless it is properly organized and, like-wise, there isn't as much value to proper organization when much of the musical information, which is supposed to be organized, is missing. Three components, the Morrison speaker, the Golden Tube SET amplifier, and the Reference Lenco, specifically and jointly, taught me the importance of this value.

However, I also realize that most audio writers, and audio enthusiasts in general, have very different sonic priorities than mine. The most common sonic priorities, by far, are "the basics" as I define them; the ability of an audio system to play loud, deep and high.

In actuality, when you think about it, it's relatively easy to create an audio system that has the ability to play loud, sound "big" and also go both deep and high. You simply have to use a large assortment of speaker drivers, utilize both large speaker cabinets and woofers, and have a large amplifier output stage, either transistor or tube. Unfortunately, it's much more difficult, and expensive, to accomplish the next logical step: Have that same type of audio system also play consistently clean and smooth. Those important upgrades require improved drivers and passive crossover parts, deader cabinets and better power supplies. In recent times, two of the most well-known audio reviewers, (the now late) Harry Pearson and Michael Fremer, had/have a strong preference for systems with those strengths (which also cost a fortune), but I don't share their highest sonic priorities.

In contrast, it's my long-time experience that the most difficult audio challenge, and accomplishment, is for an audio system to accurately play both softly and organized simultaneously, which takes real thought, numerous experiments, research, along with really high quality (and expensive) parts. This is why the vast majority of audio designers simply ignore and/or avoid the attempt to reach, let alone to master, this particular goal. Why is this ultimate goal so difficult to achieve? Simple: There is no room for any error; one single mistake, anywhere in the long audio chain, means inevitable failure.

Example 1: It's wonderful to have deep bass and extended highs in an audio system, as I both have and enjoy them myself, but not only are these frequency extremes virtually useless unless they are time coordinated to everything else, specifically the midrange, they actually become an audible distraction if they are out of place and bring attention to themselves as "alien" to the remaining complete sound.

Example 2: Most audio systems, regardless of cost, have to play louder than life to capture all of the details and excitement in the original recording, and they subsequently "die" when the music volume is soft. This is because they are missing sonic information due the complexity and other problems with the signal path, in the speakers and in the electronics, and the resulting missing information is never completely recaptured when playing loud, though it may be less obscured. Meanwhile, a superior system can play at realistic volume levels and still not sound dead when the music inevitably becomes soft in volume.

In my experience, the most evolved audio systems in theory, which are also the rarest in actuality, can play at an even lower volume than the musicians normally play in real life and still sound alive. This is the goal I have achieved over several decades and which other serious audiophiles can also replicate, though everything in the system has to be just right, with not even one weak link, for this reality to occur.

My article, "Building a Great Audio System", is the best advice I can provide, at this time, to reach this goal in any system, and it does NOT require huge monetary expenditures. Instead, if the various structures are followed, the sonic results will also inevitably follow, in general, even if they don't quite equal what the (theoretical) very best can do at any one time.

Almost as important as the above, a truly outstanding audio system requires the ability to reproduce instantaneous and uncompressed dynamic shifts, which can induce involuntary "goose bumps" and the complete attention and involvement of the listener. Finally, this same outstanding system requires a consistent neutrality. Thus there is no unnatural emphasis, or de-emphasis, of a specific frequency and/or a frequency range ("consistent" because it doesn't alter with either the frequency and/or volume levels). These final priorities of "uncompressed sound" and "level sound" basically completes the fundamental sonic picture.

So for now, this may be considered as my personal, four leg "Sonic Stool" - Complete sound, Organized sound, Uncompressed sound and Level sound*.

*However, I strongly believe that "Audio" is far too complex a subject for any simple equation, no matter how thoughtful, precise and true, to ever fully encompass and define it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is a summary of the cumulative observations and recommendations included within this website explained as concisely as possible. Below is the best advice I can provide as this is written and it will be updated if and when necessary. This summary will be relevant if the ultimate goal of the reader is to maximize the natural, accurate and complete musical communication that is possible with modern audio components. It is designed to work with the largest variety of musical software available to us today, and particularly if it is acoustical in nature.

I obviously realize that there are other serious alternatives, and with easily noticeable sonic advantages to my approach. However, in my experience, they all have a larger number of serious sonic compromises with a greater variety of music. Further, none of the recommendations I make below have to cost a huge amount of money, and all the steps can be made over a period of time.

1. The Analogue source(s) should be an Idler-Drive turntable (and/or a Reel-To-Reel Tape Deck)

Explanation- Idler-drives have a fundamental sonic advantage over belt-drive turntables; speed stability, which is grossly under appreciated by most audiophiles. Idlers' inherent sonic disadvantage, noise transference, has now been reduced to insignificance by using modern plinths, bearings and improved motor isolation. In short, idler-drives have overcome their original problem economically, while belt-drives have not and (apparently) can not. (Direct-drives are still an unanswered question.) Reel-to-reel tapes have even greater sonic potential, but they're a serious hassle to use for most audiophiles and good software is also extremely limited.

Explanation- Moving-coils have several technical advantages due to their low-mass and low inductance combined with higher overall energy output, making them worth the extra expense under most circumstances. Strain-gauge and/or Optical cartridges may have even greater technical advantages, but I haven't heard a modern version of one of them in a controlled environment.

3. The Electronics should be Separates, with only Tube amplification in the midrange. The choice of bass amplifiers will ultimately depend on their compatibility with the woofers.

Explanation- Tube electronics still have noticeable and important sonic advantages over even the finest transistor models, which is especially noticeable in the midrange frequencies. Separate components offer both the greatest potential performance and flexibility, including mono amplifiers.

4. The Speakers must be HIGH-EFFICIENCY AND BOTH Bi-ampable AND SET-Friendly

Explanation- All the finest systems I've ever heard were bi-amplified (with subwoofers). This is not a coincidence. When the amplifier driving the midrange and tweeters is not effected by the (sub)woofers (which would have their own dedicated amps), there are important (if not fundamental) sonic advantages that any audiophile can hear. Even if the bi-ampable speaker can not be bi-amped when first purchased (for whatever reason), that option is still available in the future.

SET amplifiers have important and fundamental sonic advantages in the midrange and highs over any other amplifier design in my experience, especially with acoustical music. They have the lowest sound-floor and also are the best "organized" (and music is simply "organized sound"). Even if a SET amplifier is not used at first, the SET-friendly speaker will provide that option in the future.

1. The SET amplifier, in a bi-amplified system, must use NO FeedBack, allowing it to become "Dedicated" with a simple capacitor modification

Explanation- Some audiophiles may consider this as more of a refinement, but I don't feel that way. The cumulative sonic improvements, discussed in the article linked to below, are easily observed and much too important to ignore.

2. Audiophiles should experiment with a Passive transformer, or a LDR, line stage/volume pot BEFORE utilizing a serious active line stage

Explanation- Most systems require an active line stage for optimum performance, but a passive line stage, or volume pot, can be used if the source has the required energy to directly drive the amplifier(s). If successful, there will be both improved performance and money saved, so an experiment is always in order. See the Link below.

Explanation- Most systems require a good super tweeter for optimum performance. Proper set-up and implementation are critical for success, so time, effort and patience are required. See the Link below

4. Dedicated Digital Systems should always have the signal remain in the "Digital Domain" for as long as possible

Explanation- Digital's most noticeable sonic weaknesses occur during the unavoidable conversions: A/D + D/A. Thus the most rational strategy is to reduce these conversions to the bare minimum; only one A/D and one D/A if possible, by remaining strictly in the digital domain from the first conversion (software) until the second and final conversion. This strategy also minimizes the length of the analogue chain as well, which is another sonic benefit.

Individually, most of these refinements will be subtle in effect, but collectively they will almost always be significant in their effect. They are usually the difference between the "Excellent" and the truly "Great" Systems.

6. All records should be cleaned first with an Ultra Sonic Record Cleaning Machine

These are the articles and essays which describe and explain, sometime in great detail, the respective experiences and reasons why I specifically chose each of the "Structures" and "Bonus Suggestions" mentioned above:

This is a related article to the above, which will also be reposted & updated annually...

I decided to both expand upon, and yet still further simplify, my earlier article, seen above, titled: Building a Great Audio System. This time I will argue that there is a single most important choice an audiophile can make when creating a great audio system or, at the least, creating the finest audio system for the least amount of money invested. That critical choice is unambiguously simple:

There are several practical reasons why this is the best choice a serious audiophile can ever make, as well as actual science to support it. First we'll focus on the practical reasons, which almost all involve maximizing the flexibility and the unlimited options resulting from this initial choice:

1. This choice provides the flexibility to choose any amplifier you prefer and can afford; low power/high power, tube/transistor, feedback/non-feedback, SET/non-SET or Class A or A/B or D. All these amplifier types are compatible with this choice of speaker. The amplifier choice thus becomes strictly one of audio quality, not quantity, which eliminates the frustrating compromises that other audiophiles must accept and live with.

2. With a high-efficiency speaker, other formerly impractical options now become possible. The system may no longer require the extra gain of an active line stage, which means a passive line stage, or a hybrid model like "The Truth", is now an option. Low output (analogue or digital) sources, which may sound "dead" with normal/average efficiency speakers, are now also options.

3. Bi-amping the speaker is also an option; now, later or never, with the added benefit that the speaker can utilize any combination of amplifiers, based on your own musical preferences and budget. Remember- Bi-amping is a "Structure of a Great Audio System".

4. Lower power, everything else being equal, also means lower cost, so there is even a monetary advantage to this important choice. (Passive line stages are also less expensive than equivalent active line stages, obviously.)

I have now lived with high-efficiency speakers for over 30 years and I have never looked back. It is the most positively consequential choice I have ever made in my audio life. Countless other audiophiles have done the same, both before and after me, and it is unusual to learn of anyone who later reversed themselves. There are good reasons why these audiophiles remain "faithful": The advantages when using high-efficiency speakers are far too important in sonics, component flexibility and savings, to ever give up. Then there's the Science. It's all about Energy...

I am NOT a scientist, though I do have a basic understanding of the science underlaying audio. Many other audiophiles can make the same claim as I, while others know far more about (audio) science than I ever will, but what I am about to theorize is something anyone can understand. My theory is based on an indisputable reality. Further, I believe it is rational, logical and thus irrefutable. Once again, it is founded on a simple truth and fact: High-Efficiency speakers require less energy to perform at the same level as "normal" efficiency speakers. Further, serious Audio is just about recreating, as closely as possible, the original energy, of the original performance, in your listening room.

High-Efficiency (HF) is the most important and critical advantage in audio. Why? HF speakers require less energy from outside sources to achieve the same level of performance. The energy from those "outside sources" is always imperfect and compromised. Accordingly, the less energy from "outside sources" included in the total energy created by the system, the less compromised the sound will be. And, to be clear, "outside sources" specifically mean electronic phono stages, DACs, active line stages and power amplifiers.

All of these electronic components are imperfect and "enemies" of music, though all of them are also unfortunately necessary for the reproduction of music using modern technology. In short, the less energy (or "influence") required from "outside sources" (electronic components), the higher the quality of total energy created by the system, everything else being equal. It's the classic "quantity versus quality" compromise and quandary.

To make my point as clear as I can, I need to use a highly unlikely scenario: Imagine a speaker with an unbelievable high-efficiency specification; let's say 130 dB/1 watt and, further, an ultra-low current requirement (while ignoring noise and other issues). Such a theoretical speaker could be driven by the preamplifier alone (or even the source*)! This scenario would actually eliminate power amplification all together. This is just a fantasy for now, but I'm arguing that even minor steps taken in this direction will have positive results.

*The ultimate scenario would be the phono cartridge directly driving the speakers, with the no electronics in between them. Only an attenuator would separate the two components. Anything else is a (necessary for now) compromise.

The less energy an audio system uses from "outside sources", the better the chance that particular system has to be natural and faithful to the original musical source. So, the goal for serious audiophiles is simple: Reduce the energy required from your compromised outside power sources (AC), to the greatest degree possible. High-Efficiency speakers, more so than any alternative audio choice, achieve that goal.

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

Coincident (Total) Victory II & Pure Reference Extreme (and most of their other models)

*Recommended by a reader and Gordon Rankin (Wavelength Audio), a veteran expert SET designer, despite its 86 dB sensitivity.

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

Important- I would like to know if any of the above models can be bi-amped. This is critical, because I am convinced, based on decades of experience, that speakers with the capability of being bi-amped have far superior potential, assuming everything else is equal.

**For example, another website placed the Merlin speakers on their list, which, despite all their desirable qualities, still did not work well with low-powered SET amplifiers. I know this with certainty, because I tried them, more than once. The sensitivity was just too low. Merlin, themselves, used the excellent CAT amplifiers, which are pentode based and push-pull, at their audio show demonstrations. Merlin was a company that any serious audiophile should trust to know how to optimize their own speaker designs.

A long-time reader, and past contributor, sent me some further relevant information on this important subject, which I felt should be shared:

"I do have a suggestion for your SET friendly speaker list. Some of those listed are cabinet makers using other drivers (Lamhorn, Cain, Ben, Decware, Vaughn, Cardersound etc.) They are only SET friendly because they use SET friendly drivers."

To be complete, you should include a list of these drivers which are used by quite a few cabinet makers, a partial list:

As with the SET-Friendly speakers above, I would appreciate finding out about any other SET-Friendly driver, that readers have actually heard for themselves, to add to this list.

A reader sent me his positive impressions with a MC SUT which initially became available many decades ago. I heard it myself, a few times actually, along time ago (almost 4 decades now) and, to the best of my memory, I found it pretty good and non-irritating, though not the sonic equal of either the Cotter or the Koetsu, which were my two favorites at the time. Still, with the modern and higher resolution equipment available in this century, maybe a performance reassessment of the Denon is now in order. Below is the reader's letter, with some minor editing:

"...Today I got in a very interesting step up transformer. It's a Denon au 340. It uses Tamura transformers, one per channel. Upon putting it in the system today, and letting it play for an hour or so, I was completely shocked by the sound. I have a Cotter/Verion and Mike's (Quicksilver) latest transformer. I've had the Cinemags and the likes through here and none except the Cotter has ever impressed me. This au 340 is shockingly good for the money. You can pick one up on eBay for around $400.00... Many listeners would be very happy with this transformer and it puts a quality unit at a price point that most can afford. I thought you'd like to know."

"I forgot to mention that the Denon 320 mc step up is not very good. The 340 is unique in that it has classic Tamura transformers in it. They have wide bandwidth for a transformer. However, to show its best, the push button switches must be removed and the Tamuras should be directly wired to the RCA input and output jacks. Not quite the equal of the Cotter in stock form, but transparent and better at the frequency extremes for far less output of money."

Some Interesting Projects Planned (see above), but Nothing Scheduled Yet!

These are the most recent LPs to join The Supreme Recordings. They are too new to place in one of the two upper categories, and there usually aren't any detailed descriptions ready either at this time.

*Excellent recording, with a large soundstage and it also has both a wide frequency and dynamic range. It's similar to the other Henze DGG recordings, though not equal to the finest from DGG. Note - DGG's best (LP) engineering was mainly with the less well-known modern composers.

Important Note - My most recent column was devoted to a late critic of this website, Charles Hansen of Ayre Acoustics, who disclosed his true thoughts and feelings about Stereophile, John Atkinson and the audio press only one month before his death. This is very important reading and should not be missed: CHARLES HANSEN'S FINAL POSTS ON AUDIO ASYLUM.

The Coincident Pure Reference Extreme MK. II (PRE II) Speakers are in excellent condition and have never been abused in any manner. The Pure Reference series, from Coincident, was my personal reference speaker from 2008 to 2024. The MK. II is the latest version of the speaker. I had two pairs of the PRE II, which were stacked on top of each other (see the picture below).

Explanation: The still available PRE II pair (2018), both the monitors and the subwoofers, can be seen on the bottom (Monitors SN: #2932/2933).

The MK. II model is rarely for sale on the used market. This is not surprising, because of its outstanding overall performance, value, practicality and sensitivity (see the link below for my PRE review). In the rare event a PRE II is being sold used, it's almost always because of some life-changing or domestic issue, and not because of any audiophile dissatisfaction with its sonic performance.

The manufacturer's direct selling price for one PRE II pair, as seen on their website, is $ 30,000. My asking price for the PRE II is $ 14,975, a 50% discount.

Important Note - I will also seriously consider a trade for an "Outstanding" SACD/CD player.

Caveat - The Coincident Pure Reference Extreme II speaker system, which includes two subwoofers and two monitors, does NOT include either the stands for the monitors or the spikes for subwoofer.

Shipping (340+ lbs) of the PRE II is extra. The PRE II is located in Florida (34986).

Below are the Three pairs of Coincident Speaker Cables still available for sale, including the models, lengths, prices and terminations.

Picture One - Statement II (Bottom), Statement I X 2 (Just Above), Extreme X 2 (Just Above), CST (Top)

Important Notice- As of October 1, 2012, there is a minimum fee of $ 10 for me to answer a simple enquiry, which means any question that I can answer quickly without research. Anything else will cost more and I will accordingly provide quotes for approval. PayPal is being used for its convenience, universality and security. If interested, click on "Ask Arthur".

There are two exemptions to the payment fees. 1. Those readers who have provided an important service (usually information that was posted) to this website over the years. 2. Those situations where I feel that I overlooked something important and/or was obscure in my post, and thus some necessary clarification is required on my part. That will always be gratis. I don't believe in being unfair or petty, especially to my own readers.

Telephone Conversations- If a reader feels it is necessary to actually talk to me directly, this can be arranged if I also feel it is appropriate. There will be a minimum fee of $ 50. Ask for the details before paying the fee.

Finally, a veteran reader wrote that I "should also have a link for (generic) donations to keep the website going". I replied that the Donation button can also be used by appreciative readers for that purpose. Needless to say, any unsolicited donation from a generous reader receives my sincerest thanks and gratitude.