RECENT AUDIO NOTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the March 2009 Readers Letters), are subsequently posted in their respective Reference Component Files: Amplifiers, Cartridges, Speakers etc. They can be found under "Readers Letters". If the reader's letter discussed more than one type of audio component, I will place that letter in the file of the component that was the most discussed.

This letter, from a veteran reader, provides further observations about the positive use of grid chokes etc. There's very minor editing and my bold:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the April 2009 Readers Letters), are subsequently posted in their respective Reference Component Files: Amplifiers, Cartridges, Speakers etc. They can be found under "Readers Letters". If the reader's letter discussed more than one type of audio component, I will place that letter in the file of the component that was the most discussed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the May 2009 Readers Letters), are subsequently posted in their respective Reference Component Files: Amplifiers, Cartridges, Speakers etc. They can be found under "Readers Letters". If the reader's letter discussed more than one type of audio component, I will place that letter in the file of the component that was the most discussed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the June 2009 Readers Letters), are subsequently posted in their respective Reference Component Files: Amplifiers, Cartridges, Speakers etc. They can be found under "Readers Letters". If the reader's letter discussed more than one type of audio component, I will place that letter in the file of the component that was the most discussed.

A veteran reader, and contributor to this website, just sent me his most recent observations. I have no experience with this tonearm, and very limited experience with an earlier model, the 505 (certainly not enough to give an informed and detailed opinion), but enough to know it was very idiosyncratic. Here's his letter, with some editing and my bold:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Independent of the above...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the July 2009 Readers Letters), are subsequently posted in their respective Reference Component Files: Amplifiers, Cartridges, Speakers etc. They can be found under "Readers Letters". If the reader's letter discussed more than one type of audio component, I will place that letter in the file of the component that was the most discussed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There has been a change of plans since my January update (see above). The comparison of the Lenco/Graham with the Kuzma Stabi/Air Line has been postponed. I'm still hoping it will take place in March or April, but it may be delayed until I have a chance to participate myself (which would be in the summer). Everything else is still on schedule (the Kuzma 4 vs. 2 motors was already reported on, and the Dynavector 1S/1T comparison should appear shortly).

I can report that some of the scheduled events have now taken place. The Lenco/Graham was compared to the (earlier) Lenco/E.T. and the Forsell (all with the same cartridge) in my associate's system. I don't have the critically important details at this time, but I did receive the "big picture", which is...

The Lenco/Graham was far superior to the Lenco/E.T., even after the latter's bearing was updated. The sonic improvement was significant enough that my associate is selling his Lenco/E.T. and purchasing the (latest) Lenco/Graham. The Lenco/Graham was also superior to the Forsell, but I wasn't able to learn the degree of superiority (my associate had serious time constraints). In any event, my associate will be here by the end of the month. I'll learn more then, and we'll make our own Forsell/Lenco comparison in my system.

My next report, based on the comparisons and experiences in my own system, with multiple listeners, will be posted in early March, but it may have to be delayed due to historically cold weather in Florida. I don't want to make an evaluation based on less than optimum conditions. Even worse, I may risk damaging my cartridge in sub 70F (or sub 20 Celsius) temperatures.

This new phono cartridge was evaluated over the last few months by a number of my associates, one of whom owns the Dynavector XV-1S. I have not heard it yet myself. The most literate and experienced of this group, who is also the owner of the XV-1S, wrote this short review. There's some minor editing and my bold:

"Let's begin by emphatically stating that the 1S is one of the finest mc cartridges in existence and that even the most demanding of audiophiles could easily adopt it as their reference. It is very well built (keeping in mind it is after all a cartridge) and will mate with just about any analog set up. It is costly at almost $5,000, but given the current hierarchy of state of the art in cartridges, this figure is considered reasonable. What makes the 1S so special is its overall balance. It is superb in all parameters of performance and exceptional in a few, namely harmonic completeness and tonal accuracy. How much better can it get?

Well, that brings us to the 1T. The 1T looks very similar in appearance to the 1S, but incorporates a slew of improvements structurally and electrically. (this will be left up to those interested to fully investigate). How does all this translate sonically? The answer is quite sizable. The sonic enhancement is evident in practically all areas. Take what is special about the 1S and turn it up a notch or two. The 1T refines all the already stellar attributes of the 1S. These do not represent a Bob Beamon long jump in the Olympics, but more like knocking a 1/100 of a second off of a 1500 Meter speed skate. For example, the delectable high frequency response of the 1S gains more air and silkiness through the 1T.

The bass takes on a slightly punchier, ballsier feel. (Sounds somewhat strange reading back those last two words.) The mids, especially female vocals and massed strings, sound more luminous and fully fleshed out. There does exist two categories of reproduction that does take a giant stride forward. The first is soundstaging. Not only does the image become vastly more open and expansive, the focus within the soundstage is eerily precise. The location of instruments on stage can be located with uncanny exactitude. Close one's eyes or listen in the dark, and the speakers (if the audio system is so capable) will disappear.

The second area of performance breakthrough involves capturing the weight of instruments. This is particularly true with double bass, cellos, organs, and drums, but still evident with lighter instruments such as guitar, horns and violins. The initial attack of the instruments possess greater intensity, and the full measure of their force has a heightened visceral sensation. This quality generates true excitement when listening to reproduced music, approaching the feeling one gets at a live concert.

To achieve optimum performance with the 1S and 1T, will not only require precise setup, cartridge loading will also noticeably affect their sound. It is recommended that the 1S be loaded at 200 ohms and the 1T, due to its higher internal impedance, see a 300 ohm load. Obviously, owners can experiment and settle on any setting they desire, but the recommended settings will maximize the cartridges performance, given the context of a high resolution, accurate audio system.

Both the 1S and 1T are at the pinnacle of the cartridge hierarchy. Living with the 1S will provide a highly enjoyable, rewarding vinyl listening experience that will leave little to be desired. However, the 1T (at almost $10K- outrageous pricing for any cartridge- but unfortunately that's what it costs to achieve this level of excellence) will sound that much better. It is not "night and day", nor does it represent "a difference of kind". The 1T is an easily discernible refinement and, if money is of no consequence, it is highly recommended as the cartridge of choice.

Is it worth its extravagant price? That question can be answered as follows: If an equal or superior cartridge is available at a lower price, then the response would clearly be no. Unfortunately, at present, I am unaware of any other cartridge, at any price, that is its equal."

Further- Almost all of the Readers Letters that are removed from this file, after the standard 6 Month posting (such as the August 2009 Readers Letters), are subsequently posted in their respective Reference Component Files: Amplifiers, Cartridges, Speakers etc. They can be found under "Readers Letters". If the reader's letter discussed more than one type of audio component, I will place that letter in the file of the component that was the most discussed.

One of my most veteran readers (and contributors) sent me this letter, which challened my assumptions about CD versus SACD audio reproduction. I'm not an "expert" on digital technology (as is this reader, who has asked to remain anonymous), so I am not even going to attempt a point by point rebuttal.

However, I still feel it is important to read my Personal Note below. I also have complete trust in my 4 associates' observations and judgment that SACD is far superior to CD, when both methods are implemented at the highest level (see Reference Digital Sources). Here is the reader's letter, with very minor editing and my bold:

I have enough rudimentary knowledge about digital sources to know that it is impossible, everything being equal, for a SACD to be sonically inferior to a CD. Digital audio comes down to sheer numbers to recreate the original analog (music) signal, which means it's completely illogical to state that more (SACD) 'data points' (the numbers) can be less accurate and complete than fewer (CD) 'data points'.

The problem is that SACD is NOT a digital system comparable to PCM (be it CD's 16 Bit/44.1KHz or modern higher resolutions). SACD uses DSD, which is basically a single bit delta sigma modulator (AD) direct output. The system therefore samples at 1 Bit with a sample frequency of 2.8224 MHz.

This means in strictly information theory principles SACD encodes 64 possible states for a 44.1KHz sample rate signal, compared to 65536 possible states encoded on CD for a 44.1KHz sample rate. This means SACD has actually many fewer real data points than CD. It seeks to overcome this by applying very agressive noise shaping, if this is successful is a matter of debate.

Of course, this whole debate is a little redundant, as all modern audio Analog to Digital converters use delta sigma modulation just as for SACD, though several run at 128 or 256 times the sample rate - so they can contain twice or four times the "data points" of SACD, which is however still much less real resolution than afforded IN PRINCIPLE by the CD format and a pitiful fraction of what modern high resolution formats offer.

Now if the playback system also includes delta sigma DAC's (which in essence again MUST BY PRINCIPLE downgrade any signal from CD to their inherent limitations) one may argue that simply feeding the Delta Sigma Modulator signal directly to the demodulator results in less degradation and hence has the potential to sound better. However, not all playback systems rely on Delta Sigma DAC's (though the majority since the late 90's have).

We may debate the relative sonic merits in length, however this is done elsewhere on an ongoing basis. What I would like to correct is the simple mistake of assuming that SACD contains actually more 'data points' than CD, which it does not do in principle, though a CD derived from a SACD style Delta Sigma Modulator will of course have at best the same information to work with and the process of conversion is usually lossy. Again, not all CDs are derived this way however, so some may contain much more real information than a SACD.

So, in short, SACD is one more of Sony's 'Perfect Sound Forever' marketing ploys, high resolution PCM is at least in principle much superior. In then end much more depends on the implementation (and recordings) though, than on the format."

"SACD is a disc of identical physical dimensions to a standard compact disc; the density of the disc is the same as a DVD... A stereo SACD recording can stream data at an uncompressed rate of 5.6 Mbps; four times the rate for Red Book CD stereo audio."

Dynamic range- CD- 96 dB SACD- 120 dB
Frequency range- CD- 20 Hz to 20 kHz SACD- 20 Hz to 50 kHz, and, most important to me...
Disc capacity- CD- 700 MB SACD- 7.95 GB

Bottom Line- As long as SACD requires and uses greater "disc capacity" per channel than does CD, I will not back down on my technical claim (quoted above).

This letter is from the above veteran reader, who challenged my assumptions about CD versus SACD audio reproduction. This is his most recent take on Entry-Level components, with my bold:

Much derision by Audiophools nonwithstanding, the Technics 1200/1210 Turntable (now marketed and sadly pidgeon holed as DJ Turntable) is a surprisingly well performaing design. If fitted with a suitable headshell (non-rigid) and a Denon DL-103R plus a nice patter mat and record weight this table is quite special and ahead of many of the inexpensive 'garage inductry' Tables of this age.

I recommend placing the table on a suitable suspension (I recommend four of the kind of inflatable doughnuts sold for people with Chalfonts to sit upon down at the local pharmacy topped by a large & heavy Ikea rubberwood Butcherblock cutting board - works for many unsuspended designs).

Two areas of significant improvement but of more advanced modifications are the power supply (Batteries are best, bypassing the on-board regulator and adding a serious heavy duty external supply with a few 100,000uF of capacitance helps too) and re-wiring the original arm (there is not a lot wrong with it otherwise, actually). Another easy win in sound quality states is to disable the stroboscope LED's.

Past that, several "Kit" houses nowadays sell kits at various levels of expense, some off assembled versions.

Audio Note UK (www.audionotekits.com - DIY line not identical to their finished products, often benefit from further parts upgrades but it gets expensive quickly)

Audio Professor (http://www.audiopro.co.jp/ - very nice Amplifier Kits, difficult to buy, Japanese only website, parts quality could be better)

Bottlehead (www.bottlehead.com - custom builds possible, transformers are Magnequest, other parts often quite generic)

Diyhifisupply (www.diyhifisupply.com - offers all products also assembled at very modest cost and has possibly the widest range from DAC's with tubed outputs over all sorts of premaplifiers and Amplifiers into some speaker stuff and uses very high grade components, mostly on level that would need heavy modifications of commercial gear to equal)

Elekit (http://www.elekit.co.jp/english/ - kits are a little basic as are the passive parts but cheap and fun)

Softone (http://www.icl.co.jp/audio/english/ - they offer semi-kits [motly parts] and some example designs - kit/part section is hidden in the Japanese side of things)

Sun Audio (http://www2.big.or.jp/~sunaudio/index_e.html - Kits are often a little basic, Transformers are custom made by Tamura but not as good as retail grade Tamura, well known but not as good as some of less well known Japanese Kits)

Sun Valley (http://www.kit-ya.jp/ - very interesting kits, like Audio Professor ostensibly Japan only)

Yamamoto (http://www2.117.ne.jp/~y-s/index-e.html - mostly assembled, has kit versions of some products, high quality components)"

This letter is from another veteran reader, which provides his most recent observations on Entry-Level components, and again with my bold:

"I’m writing... to communicate my work in optimizing an entry level system, something you suggest and which I took rather seriously. Please excuse the length of this note, but I promise it will only take a couple of minutes to read.

After using some high value 1980s solid state gear from NAD (NAD preamp + 2200 amp, both restored and slightly upgraded), and then moving to a tube line stage with an Odyssey amp, I am very happy with going in the opposite direction with a tube integrated mentioned briefly on your site. It is the Onix/Melody SP3 (in my case the SP8, which is identical except for output tube bias measurements).

I find it head and shoulders ahead of the other pieces, particularly in tonal completeness and low level playback, and especially with upgraded tubes I think it lives up to its stunning review in 6Moons. It has excellent synergy and no audible tube rush with a George Wright phono stage. Combined as used units the total cost of the integrated and phono stage was about $1,000. As you can see from the image I’m enjoying an MHZS 66F CD player (vintage Mullard 12AX7 tubes and a decent power cord) as the other source, which is also head and shoulders above the NAD player I previously had for very little extra outlay.

Speakers are a pair of vintage Dynaco A25 speakers that were acquired for free. While the drivers were in excellent shape I had to make new cabinets for them. I went ahead and upgraded the capacitor to Obbligato aluminum/copper and added a ‘supertweeter’ to function above 14KHz, used decent quality wire in the cabinets, and replaced the binding posts with goldplated lightweight copper ones. I think they provide significant improvements to a good sounding speaker, and they have great synergy with the modern tube amp. They also blend quite easily with a CA 2000 Mirage MS12 subwoofer.

The Thorens TD150 Mk II has been slightly modified through a series of things gleaned mostly from others--modest dampening of the chassis, moving the arm leads from the tin plated terminal strip under the table to Cardas female RCAs installed at the back of the case, splitting the arm and chassis leads and running them to two binding posts at the back of the case, installing an upgraded captive PC, a Herbie’s mat, custom machined arm counterweights, diy armboard (mahogany-acrylic-mahogany sandwich), and diy silver interconnects (the phono stage and CD player also have diy silver interconnects) with Eichmann copper plugs. Small expenditures, but a big performance jump. From time to time I still use my idler with a Magnepan Unitrac arm and enjoy it immensely.

Speaker cables are diy from a Jon Risch design and they caused me to sell off the AQ cables I had previously.

Phono cartridges. For a few years I enjoyed the Denon DL103, then had a ruby cantilever and line contact stylus installed by SoundSmith, then moved it into a diy wood body while using it with an SUT assembled of Cinemag transformers by a friend. While it is certainly an optimized DL103, I find myself gravitating to TOTL vintage MM and MI cartridges. There is a huge thread on Audiogon about these gems, and while they take some effort to find, I think it’s worth the effort.

This system provides me with tremendous musical enjoyment and seems a good fit with the small (11 X 14) parlor room in our historic house."

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

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

*I was too hard on this record in the past. It has a number of admirable qualities.

While I have been very satisfied with the performance of the Forsell Turntable and Tonearm since 1992, my main focus in 2010 is now on turntables (and tonearms)...

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

Finally, I also have a new record cleaning machine, the Clearaudio Double Smart Matrix. I will report on it sometime in winter or spring 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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