RECENT UPDATES

REFERENCE COMPONENTS
November 2022

December 2022
January/February/March 2023
April/May/June 2023
July/August/September 2023
October/November/December 2023
January/February/March 2024

THE SUPREME RECORDINGS

MY AUDIO SYSTEM

REVIEWING THE 'REVIEWERS'

MISCELLANEOUS

NEW LINKS

USED COMPONENTS NOW ON SALE

INTERNAL LINKS

INTRODUCTION

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.

Top

REFERENCE COMPONENTS

NOVEMBER 2022

Ultimate Lenco/Kuzma 4Point Addenda

Addendum One - Which Component (Ultimate Lenco or Kuzma 4Point) Made the Larger Improvement?

This particular evaluation and choice is obviously a subjective exercise. I've already stated above, more than once, that it's impossible to accurately isolate the respective performances of these two components (though I tried my best to do so). Even worse, we must also then compare them to their respective predecessors. Still, I believe that my two reviews above would not be truly complete unless the readers know how I (and my associate) would answer this (academic and theoretical) question or, to put it in other words, "which component made the more noticeable improvement when compared to its predecessor"? Fortunately, my associate and I both chose the same component:

The Kuzma 4Point 14" tonearm provided the greater (or more noticeable) sonic improvement of the two components or, stated again in a different manner, the 4Point was superior to the Graham to a greater degree than the Ultimate Lenco was superior to the Reference III. However, this does not also mean that "tonearms are more important than turntables". That is a completely separate issue (and it's also "academic", since both components are obviously required in a phono system). Still, even if it is only an academic question, I'll take the bait:

Which is ultimately more important to the final sonic performance, the turntable or the tonearm?

The turntable. That is why I reviewed the Ultimate Lenco first. To repeat myself, from the short prologue of the two reviews above, "the turntable is traditionally considered the primary phono-source component", and I agree with that "traditional" theory. I believe, in the final analysis, that the turntable makes the larger and more fundamental difference in sonics, and is also more important in relative terms.

So, to address the next inevitable question: Does this mean that Linn (Sondek) was actually correct with their relentless and obsessive* (if not nauseating) 1970s marketing campaigns? Yes, Linn was right, but it's still difficult not to be cynical as to their true motives, especially when considering their insipid ("follow the tune!!") marketing history. Fortunately though, there is an excellent essay (though quite lengthy), by Peter Moncrieff, which is the best I've ever read explaining the reasons for the primacy of the turntable in phono systems (see link below).

*The 1970s marketing campaigns initiated what would eventually evolve into a manic veneration of the Linn Sondek turntable. This decade-long period is still (fortunately) the only instance when a part of "Audio" came close to establishing an actual cult directly dedicated to a single component.

Relevant Link:

Peter Moncrieff's Review of the Rockport Sirius III - The Critical Importance of Constant Speed and "Flow"

Addendum Two - A Simple DIY Phono-Cable/DIN Break-In Device

A Short History and Introduction

In the last century, decades ago now, I (and many other serious audiophiles) slowly discovered that most audio signal cables required hundreds of hours of actual play (or "break-in") to perform at their absolute best. As I owned an audio store during that period, I also had to seriously consider any possible implications and/or ramifications of this new and unexpected circumstance, for both the store and the customers.

The various cables I used in the store, for demonstration, were never a serious concern, since they were continually played and were almost always fully broken-in. As for the customers, I would routinely inform them that their new cables would sound better with play time, which most accepted, though a few of them felt it was an annoyance* (especially when considering the increasingly higher prices of most quality cables). I would advise the customers to break-in their new interconnects by simply connecting them to a CD player, on "Repeat", 24/7, with the amplifier turned off. The speaker cables would usually take somewhat longer, since the amplifier(s) had to be turned on and connected to either the speakers or, for some customers more technically adept, heavy-duty resistors.

*There were also some people back then, and even still some today, who refuse to acknowledge even the physical possibility of any form of "cable break-in". They feel it is either a "hoax" or "a mass illusion".

Unfortunately, I also eventually realized there would be a serious problem with fully breaking-in one specific type of cable (even with the dedicated "break-in devices", then slowly becoming available). Which cable am I referring to? The tonearm/phono wire/cable.

A Quick Primer - The weak and delicate signal from the 4 phono cartridge pins initiates its electrical journey by entering the 4 tiny female cartridge leads of the tonearm, and ultimately travels all the way to the RCA phono output males, which are then directly connected to the RCA phono input females of the phono stage. To further complicate matters, the tonearm could also have a DIN plug termination/break in the middle of the journey.

The problem all serious phono-oriented audiophiles confronted was simple and fundamental to explain, and understand: Yes, you can play the turntable/cartridge countless hours, with all different types of music, thus sending a signal through those wires and cables, but none of that will result in any practical and/or positive sonic effect. Why? The signal from the phono cartridge is usually much lower than 1 millivolt, and not the usual 1 volt+ from the CD player. That 1000 to 1 voltage ratio means that 200 CD hours of required play effectively converts to 200,000 hours of required phono play. In short, it is literally impossible to break-in the tonearm's internal wire, and its attached phono cable, by simply playing it, not even in an entire lifetime.

So, what did we do after this lamentable realization? To be frank, nothing, for many years. We simply accepted this as an inescapable compromise which all of us would just have to live with, consoling ourselves that at least some break-in was still occurring, even if it was subtle. However, sometime early this century, the catalyst now forgotten, I decided I would no longer accept this fate. I was resolved to find some method that would finally eliminate this problem, once and for all. Just below is the simple solution I came up with, and now I have decided it was time to share it with everyone.

A Simple Device

A picture of the device (I'm using the term "device" loosely), just below, is virtually self-explanatory. Four separate wires, around 6" to 9" or so in length, 2 hots and 2 grounds, are attached to two RCA females on one end (though the "other end" of these wires is more critical). The key to this device, and the most important step, is to next find a thin wire which will snugly fit into the female cartridge leads (the rest is routine). You simply first cut 4 thin and short (.5") wires, and then solder them to the 4 respective original thicker wires, making certain each thin wire extends around .25" from the original thicker wire (see picture). Colors, or another method, can be used to identify hot/ground. Anyone handy with a soldering iron can easily build this device, no technical skills are required. The parts are also cheap (two RCA Females and wire), and none of them have to be "audiophile" in quality.

To use the device, you first snugly connect the extended 4 thin wires to their 4 respective hot/ground cartridge leads* (being careful that the leads don't touch each other), which are easy to identify with their colors (red/green and white/blue). A cable is then used to connect a CD player to the device's RCA females, and the tonearm's output phono cable is connected to any load (even a phono stage, if turned off). You can also build your own simple termination load, as I have (see picture below). It is inexpensive to make and even provides greater flexibility during the break-in process.

The Ultimate Results - The line-level signal, from the CD player, first goes through its output cable, of any length, then through the special cable just built, then through the cartridge leads, then through the internal tonearm wire, then through the exterior tonearm cable, eventually terminating at the chosen load. That's all there is to it! Further, any budget carousel CD player is fine, which is also the most convenient option, though a single CD player will work as well. Just make certain the CD music is full-range, loud and/or intense.

*You can also use the 4 thin wires to break-in a tonearm cable, on its own, with a DIN input connection, which are all female. You simply connect the 4 thin wire to the respective DIN equivalents (identifying L/R hot/ground with a voltmeter at the RCA males).

Some Notes on the Two CDs:

The IsoTek CD has an assortment of non-musical and complex signals, specifically designed to burn-in components and systems. I've discussed it before, and I've used it with success for years. The "Earquake" CD comprises the most challenging acoustical music I'm aware of. All of the mostly short cuts are modern classical compositions, with large orchestras. The most demanding of them all is the final cut, Hekla, composed by Jon Leifs (Iceland). It was inspired by a volcanic eruption, "featuring a 22-person percussion section"!

DIY-Phono-Cable-Burn-In

Addendum Three - How do "Vintage" Tonearms Compare to Modern Tonearms?

Tonearms have evolved in build quality, versatility and performance over the last 60 years. In the 1960s and 1970s, the original SME models (the 3009 and 3012) were by far the most famous, popular and thus also the most imitated. They were mounted on numerous turntables, and some phono cartridges (Shure etc.) were even designed around them. However, everything changed once moving-coil cartridges finally became reliable and, maybe even more important, achieved unprecedented performance. It was not a surprise then that moving-coils eventually became universally popular. Accordingly, a new generation of tonearm designs were required to optimize the potential performance of these new (and usually heavier) pickups.

The most concentrated and noticeable progress of tonearms was made in the 1980s. Especially noteworthy were the Linn Ittok, SME V and IV, the (linear and air-bearing) Eminent Technology and several models from Fidelity Research. The fact that all of these models are still in demand today, four decades after their respective debuts, is incontrovertible evidence of their overall quality.

It's also true that further improvements have been made since then, mainly in the reduction of colorations, noise and resonances. This was the end result of the tonearm manufacturers using superior materials and, with improvements in machinery and computers, even finer engineering and machining standards. Still, in almost all instances, these various improvements, while important, have offered mainly refinements when compared to the still excellent 1980s designs, rather than any new true sonic "breakthroughs". (The Kuzma 4Point, reviewed above, is a rare exception to this long-term trend.) However, there has been one modern tonearm development, especially over the last couple of decades, which has proved to be more important than all the others...

The New Focus on "Dialing In"

The most important area of recent progress, by far, has been the ability of most modern tonearms to "dial-in" the most essential setup parameters (VTA, VTF and Azimuth). This highly significant development now allows the listener to finally hear and enjoy the full potential of their tonearm and cartridge (and, by default, their entire system). How important is tonearm/cartridge "setup"?

It is critical!

In fact, it's even highly likely that an (otherwise) inferior tonearm, if properly setup and optimized, will outperform a (potentially) superior tonearm, which is not setup optimally. Why has it taken tonearm manufacturers so many years to design and build tonearms with the capability of making micro-adjustments? The manufacturers didn't want to compromise the inherent sonic performance of the original tonearm design, when in the process of improving its respective versatility and/or adjustability, or it could end up being a net sonic "wash", or worse.

So, to summarize the general differences between older and "Vintage" tonearms when compared to those tonearms designed and built today: While there have been continual marginal improvements in the basic tonearm itself, there have been more important improvements in the capability of modern tonearms to optimize the performance of the phono cartridge, even though it is still (and always will be) a difficult and tedious process.

In contrast, older tonearms were virtually impossible to optimize to the same degree (especially those now considered to be "Vintage", including even the best of them). In fact, to veteran audiophiles, the older tonearms' lack of fine (and repeatable) adjustments were obvious and very frustrating in practice. How much so? To the point that pure "luck" was almost always a relevant factor in the final sonic results (I'm serious!). This was true even when the most meticulous audiophile made a serious attempt to attain the optimum settings. Fortunately, audiophiles no longer have this problem, or excuse, which is something to celebrate.

Addendum Four - Are there any Serious "Downsides" to "Super-Fidelity" at some point?

Introduction

Over many decades now, I've had countless thousands of personal discussions with serious audiophiles on many, and various, audio related topics. These conversations occurred in my former audio store, my home, my customers' homes and at audio shows. However, one very specific topic would come up on only very rare occasions, and further, like the topic of "Death", it almost always made everyone, more or less, uncomfortable. This specific topic, in the most broad and general terms, was whether a serious sonic improvement, recognized by everyone, also had any related negative consequences as well. Some part of the inherent discomfort was caused by the initiator of the topic automatically exposing themselves to the accusation of displaying "arrogance", and/or "hubris", for even introducing this particular subject in the first place.

From a personal perspective, I first remember discussing this topic, though it was only briefly, a few decades ago (the specifics and the names now long forgotten), and I've discussed it a few times since then, though again also briefly. However, I do remember the one consistent peculiarity with all of these brief discussions (besides the unease of the participants): They always occurred when we were experiencing some sort of a "sonic breakthrough", by which I mean the kind of performance improvement which can inspire a near state of ecstasy in some audiophiles (including myself). Such a rare experience may temporarily cause some audiophiles to lose their normal inhibitions, and thus bring up some of their usually hidden thoughts, like many people do after drinking too many glasses of wine. So, but what about now, in 2022?

Very recently, an associate brought this subject up while we were listening to the new Ultimate Lenco/Kuzma combination. He was inspired after listening to a familiar record, with average sonics, which now sounded much better than ever, but he also now observed other elements which gave him some unexpected reservations. His concerns were serious enough, at the time, that I wrote them down in my listening notes, and then forgot about them while we both moved on. However, on further reflection, lasting several months, I eventually came to the realization that this was a serious topic which I could no longer avoid and ignore, as I frankly had for many years. This issue, of (highly) flawed recordings being reproduced with outstanding fidelity, which is becoming more relevant every year, simply demanded attention on my part. Accordingly, I committed myself to finally, and seriously, address this subject, as an "Addendum", after the formal Ultimate Lenco and Kuzma reviews were finished.

Describing "Super-Fidelity" (Assuming that it even exists)

There is no recognized definition of "super-fidelity", for the simple reason that it must be (also by definition) a strictly subjective evaluation. I also concede that a good faith charge, of at least some degree of arrogance, will always be available to a skeptic and/or cynic. However, it's possible that some skeptics may go further, by claiming that either such a super system cannot exist in the first place or, even if it can exist, no one has the ability to honestly make such an evaluation. I strongly disagree with both of these latter premises. To be clear - I believe, and argue, that such "super systems" do exist and that some listeners do have the ability to make such a rare distinction, and with confidence. The Details - Such a listener requires a deep experience with a broad range of components, systems and recordings, along with the ability to impartially, yet still subjectively, recognize a "super level" of audio performance.

How would such a super level of performance be described, in general audio terms? Such a (super) audio system must have the capability to continually surprise, amaze and overwhelm even the most experienced and critical (and jaded) listeners, regardless of their audio priorities, and no matter what genre of music is played. Such a system, in practice, will be extremely rare and will have been created after many years, if not decades, of countless listening sessions, comparisons and experiments. Further, and in strict contrast from any "conventional audio wisdom", I also argue that any recognized "super system" will not have been created by the simple expedients of purchasing only "Class A+" components and/or only those components which are ultra-expensive, and then just "hoping for the best results" (which would be the audio equivalent of hoping to win the lottery).

The Real Audio Issue, and its Implications

All serious audiophiles eventually observe some specific sonic problems in all recordings (and even the performances as well sometimes). This is true even when they are audio novices, and/or even with systems which are considered just "good". These sonic problems, which are, of course, consistent with an imperfect world and thus unavoidable, are usually ignored by most listeners at this stage. However, better systems, especially those at the level of "excellent", "great" or "super", expose even more specific (and previously hidden) sonic problems and, even worse, reproduce them, with such clarity, that they are now conspicuous, which then means that it's no longer possible for them to be ignored.

So all this then brings us back to the main issue: From a starting point in which an audio system is only just "adequate" in performance, all the way to the point where it can be accurately described as "super": Is there an actual point, including a position in between, in which a specific level of fidelity, exposes a serious enough quantity of sonic downsides, to then judge, and characterize, the total net audio/musical experience as negative? If so, this would have to mean the respective audiophile would then immediately stop their efforts to improve the system at that exact point and, to be consistent, may even go back in time* (and in fidelity)!

*This latter depiction is not just a theoretical scenario. While unusual, during my two decades operating an audio store, I observed some audiophiles make the decision to go back to their "simpler systems", which were, unquestionably, less accurate, because they simply enjoyed them more. In fact, many audiophiles prefer less accurate systems when listening to recordings made prior to the early 1950s.

The Broader, and more Profound, Philosophical Perspective and Issue

We thus arrive at the true bottom line question, which all serious audiophiles must eventually answer, only to themselves, and to no one else, because there is no universal answer: Do you want an audio system, which is so truly faithful to the source, that basically everything on the recording is revealed and exposed, including all of those many faults and imperfections you may rather not want to know about? When seriously contemplating this specifically audio related question, it's almost inevitable that some even broader and more philosophical questions will also arise...

How much knowledge do you really want to know? Ultimately, philosophically, is it always preferable to "know everything" (aka omniscient), from the sublime all the way to the horrific? Further, can you even personally deal with knowing everything? Realistically, can you be like a proverbial "God" and still keep your sanity? Or, alternatively, does it all still come down to the long-held and common belief that "Ignorance is bliss" (Publilius Syrus/Thomas Gray), as it does with so many serious and complex subjects inherent in life on this planet? (Sadly, for an extreme illustration, PTSD mainly occurs with people whom are not physically injured.)

I believe that to answer this question honestly, you must first fully appreciate the scope of this question, so consider just a minimal set of subjects, all of which though are integral parts of human life and societies, but rarely examined in true depth by most people: The entire process of dying and the later unseen decay, and/or cremation, of the corpse; The unimaginable atrocities and realities of war, both modern and ancient; The complete process of the production of meat for human consumption (aka the slaughterhouse); and the full brutal realities of violent crimes and prison life.

Further, on just a purely personal level, how much do most people really want to know about the most private and intimate details of the lives of their family and close friends, including their pasts? Even on a public level, investigating the actual private negotiations of most political agreements ("like making sausages") is distasteful for most people. Finally, I am convinced it's elementary to make a serious argument that a fundamental foundation of "modern society" is knowing as little as possible about the various subjects I've listed above, as well as many others, for obvious reasons.

Where I Stand on this Issue, For Now

As for myself, I've thought about this subject, on and off, for many years, though only in theory of course. I also believe that one's answer is strictly personal, thus making it "correct" for that individual alone. My own position has always been the same: I want to know everything, regardless of the results. To me, there can be no "negative" in audio, only knowledge and reality. Maybe this perspective will change one day in the future, but I am very far from that point.

Why am I so comfortable with my position? Simple. I'm an ultra-curious person. I am almost obsessed with knowing everything about something which I'm interested in. Alternatively, and to be consistent, I'm also almost phobic about ignorance. Finally, if something profound ever happens to me, which changes my current perspective, I will let everyone know. However, if it ever does, I will be the most surprised of us all. After all, it is not some accident that the quote below is on this website's Home Page...

"The unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates

And, for good measure... “Humankind cannot bear too much reality”. - T.S. Eliot

One Specific Example (among countless others to choose from)

A reader requested that I provide one specific recording as an example, arguing it may illuminate the issues discussed above. I agreed with the reader and, after a short search based on some recent listening sessions, I chose the "classic rock" recording Crosby/Stills/Nash/Young "Deja Vu" LP (Mobile Fidelity MFSL 1-088), which is generally considered to be neither an "audiophile" nor a mediocre (or worse) recording.

I chose "Deja Vu" because its sonic positives, and its sonic negatives, are usually both obvious, and relatively close to equalling each other out, with every system improvement. Further, the various cuts almost all have different arrangements and, consequently, also sound very different from each other. Accordingly, each individual track requires somewhat different system strengths to maximize its inherent sonics. So, in practice, with a performance upgrade, a simple solo voice and guitar cut ("4+20") will sound noticeably better, while a track with a complex electronic crescendo ("Country Girl") will also have its audible distortion even more exposed then before (though still not nearly enough for me to regret making the upgrade!).
The Bottom Line - I believe that most serious audiophiles will agree with this perspective.

Addendum Five - A "Black Background" is Only an Intermediate Step!

Introduction

During my occasional visits to those audio related websites, with discussions/threads on various topics dominated by the readers, I have regularly noticed a common, if not ubiquitous, shared experience*, which is always enthusiastically described as very "positive" by the posters. Upon reflection, and with many related experiences of my own, I felt all these specific observations deserved a serious comment, so thus came to be this specific Addendum.

*This is in stark contrast to the earlier topic of Addendum Four (see above), which is rarely, if ever, discussed.

The "positive common shared experience" I'm specifically referring to is any improvement in the system which directly results in achieving a "black (or blacker) background". The cause of the improvement is usually a successful change of traditional components, but sometimes it's a superior cable and/or some other accessory directly related to the A/C power delivery. Another common (if not universal) element of these posts is the audiophile's joy while sharing their belief that this specific audio "problem" has now been essentially and finally mitigated, short, of course, of an even "blacker background". It is this "joy" and, more importantly, the common and foundational belief/theory which it is based on, that this addendum is meant to address.

I, of course, have also experienced a "black background" countless times, over many decades, with all types of systems, my own and many others. However, over the last two decades or so, and based on a growing number of direct observations, I've also gradually come to the realization that, in most instances, a black background is not the final audio and musical destination which it's commonly assumed to be, but simply a critically important intermediate step/stage, with the final, and most satisfying, step (achievement) yet to be realized. And, while I wish it weren't so, to best explain my "black background theory" requires, unavoidably, utilizing a considerable amount of subjective audio terms, but I'll still attempt to be as focused and specific as possible even in this unusual and trying circumstance.

Reproducing the Soundstage Background - A Three-Step Process

It is my theory, based on countless experiences, that optimizing the reproduction of the "background" of most modern recordings (mostly stereo, 1950s to present), from mediocre to outstanding, takes a course of three slowly evolving steps or stages, mostly difficult to describe, mainly because the lines between most of them are almost always somewhat nebulous. The achievement of a black background, in broad or general terms, is the second of the three steps.

Further, while we are currently focusing on the background alone, the final results, like all musical reproduction, are seriously dependent on the combination of the quality of the recording and the quality of the audio system. Accordingly, there may be some success with an outstanding recording reproduced on an average audio system, while only the finest audio systems will have the capability to reproduce any subtle musical information still residing in even mediocre recordings (assuming it even exists in the first place). Below are the three steps (or stages):

1. Creation - This first step is the original creation/reproduction (from absolutely nothing) of a nebulous and formless mass of random noise (or "something") in the background. By definition, the very audible existence of any "background" in the recording means that the 1st (and easiest) step of the three has now been accomplished. Unfortunately, the second step, which is the central focus of this addendum, is much more difficult to achieve or fully accomplish!

Accomplishing Step 1 also means that the respective audio system is at least "decent" in quality, though admittedly with all of the finer reproduction yet to be achieved. It is also important to note that, at this early level and stage of reproduction, the respective audio system should be only comprised of the "best for the money" components. If, instead, the system's components are already relatively expensive at this point, that would be definitive evidence that there is an unfortunate, and serious, discrepancy between its cost and performance, which should be immediately addressed.

2. Transformation - This is, without question, both the most common and important step. It is also the most encompassing and, obviously, the most commonly discussed (as mentioned above). This stage encompasses the slow and steady transformation of the random noise (Step 1) into a better defined sense of space, while also simultaneously accompanied by a steady reduction of the same random noise to (hopefully) utter darkness. The entire process almost sounds contradictory, but it isn't, as countless audiophiles can attest to, using their personal experiences as best evidence.

While Step 1 has an almost binary definition and/or experience (existence or non-existence), in stark contrast, the 2nd Stage is almost a countless, and endless, series of minor audible transformations, with each one of them reducing the amusical artifacts which adversely effect the reproduction of the recording. Unfortunately, even though each individual transformation and/or reduction, no matter how small, is obviously an audio and musical event to celebrate, it is also true that, for many (if not most) dedicated audiophiles, even after many years of serious effort and monetary investment, accomplishing the final (and most difficult) third step is still yet to be realized.

3. Re-Birth - This is, without question, the most difficult step/stage to accomplish and, accordingly, the rarest to actually experience. This is because even a single audio mistake or misjudgment may sabotage the entire project. It may be described as the re-birth of the (previously lost) musical and spatial information, originating from utter darkness, while the surrounding space is usually increasingly enlarged and better defined. As I admitted above, the process is very difficult to describe, but I'll try...

As the background becomes increasingly dark, and the exposed space better defined in Step 2, it also slowly becomes an integral/seamless part of the forefront. This is the end of Step 2. Then, in the subtle transition to Step 3, musical decays and small sounds first appear and then slowly become increasingly easier to hear. Eventually, if present, actual instruments, including voices and even related sounds, become increasingly illuminated, audible and even musically meaningful to the whole. To be clear, "meaningful", in this context, means that if this same musical information suddenly became absent again, it now would be missed by the listener, and the recorded musical event accordingly compromised.

Further Thoughts - As with Step 2, and unlike Step 1, Step 3 is also a continuous process. While this is definitely not inevitable, over time and at best, Step 2 may slowly transform or evolve into Step 3, first by sense alone, then by direct hearing. Unfortunately, there is also no guarantee that any particular recording has actual and relevant musical and spatial information within the background. However, it is our experience that most modern recordings, analogue or digital, do have enough important background information (even without instruments or voices) to make the serious effort to reproduce it. (Example - John Klemmer - Touch - Mobile Fidelity MFSL 1-006)

Conclusion

If all this discussion about the 3 Steps appears to be extremely imprecise and subjective, that's because it is. However, I have personally experienced these 3 Steps, as have my guests, and on many occasions. So, appropriately, I felt this required a serious report on my part, and at this time.

Top

**********************************************************

READERS LETTERS

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 (such as the November 2021 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.

**********************************************************

Nothing This Month.

Top

DECEMBER 2022

Quick Updates

2022 was a highly unusual year in my home. Two house-related crisis, inside and outside, precipitated a major renovation project (previously delayed by the pandemic), which has completely dominated my home life since August 2022. Accordingly, my original 2022 listening schedule was setback for months. Fortunately, as this is written, in early January 2023, the project is now nearly complete. This means that I will soon have my home back all to myself, which will then allow me to once again schedule and conduct all of the interesting experiments that I've been so looking forward to over the past year.

However, despite all the chaos surrounding me, I've still been at least somewhat productive. With the outstanding performance of the Ultimate Lenco/Kuzma as a catalyst, I began meditating about five audio related "issues", which I felt were important enough, on their own, to create an Addenda. As of early February 2023, all five topics have been written and posted. They can be found in the November 2022 Recent File. I now intend to move on to the components discussed just below, scheduling the earliest posts beginning in late February.

ZYX UNIverse Premium & III - I have now finished a second "shootout" of these two cartridges, the two finest I've ever heard. This time the two cartridges were compared to each other using the Ultimate Lenco/Kuzma combination, and with the Coincident Pure Reference Extreme II/"Doubles" speakers which, in total, is a much more revealing system. The results, which were different from the 1st comparison, will be posted sometime in the first quarter of 2023.

"The Truth" T5x Line Stage - This model, which had arrived damaged earlier in 2022, has now been repaired and sent back to me. It is working this time, though a critical evaluation will have to be delayed until the end of January 2023, due to prior commitments.

"Ultimate Lenco" by Jean Nantais - I will be purchasing an AC regulator, probably sometime in the first quarter of 2023, which has been designed to optimize the speed stability of the Ultimate Lenco (and any other turntable which uses a similar drive system). The device also eliminates the basic speed variances caused by changing AC voltages, commonly experienced during the day and evening.

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

This important article will be reposted & updated annually...

Building a Great Audio System

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.

The Fundamental Structures of a Great Audio System

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.

2. A Moving-Coil (or Strain-gauge or Optical?) cartridge

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 Digital source should use the highest quality (OEM) Esoteric Transport that is affordable

Explanation- Every outstanding digital player we have heard has used an Esoteric transport. Until computer audio is finally mature, an actual digital disc player is still the best and safest approach, which means an Esoteric transport should be part of the equation. There are usually many used Esoteric players for sale at large discounts. They are also incredibly well built and reliable, which is another important factor. Esoteric (OEM) transports are also used in non-Esoteric players as well. The DAC, after it inevitably becomes obsolete, can always be updated.

4. The Electronics should be Separates, and using Tubes, with the one possible exception of the bass amplifiers

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

5. 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.

Bonus Suggestions:

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.

3. Audiophiles should experiment with high-quality Super Tweeters

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.

The Refinements of a Great Audio System

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.

1. All Signal and Power Cables- As short as possible

2. Capacitors - Teflon in the direct signal path and all film (metallized) in the high voltage power supply

3. Exact speaker set-up and Room treatments

4. Acoustical Isolation of both the Sources and the Electronics

5. AC filtering and even AC regeneration if necessary

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

Relevant and Related Articles and Essays

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:

"Reference" Lenco L 75 Idler-Drive Turntable (#1 "Structure")

DIGITAL SOURCES (#3 Structure)

Coincident Frankenstein 300B SET Amplifier (#4 & #5 Structures)

Coincident Pure Reference Extreme Speakers (#5 SET-Friendly & Bi-Amping Structures)

Dedicated SET Amplifier Capacitor Modification (#1 Bonus Suggestions)

LINE STAGES (Active or Passive? #2 Bonus Suggestions)

Acapella Ion TW 1S Super Tweeter (#3 Bonus Suggestions)

Ultra Sonic Record Cleaning (#6 Refinement)

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

Top

A related article to the above, that will also be reposted & updated annually...

The Single Most Important Audiophile Choice

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:

Purchase a High-Efficiency, SET-Friendly & Bi-Ampable Speaker

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 25 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...

The Fundamental Scientific Advantage of High-Efficiency Speakers

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.

A Simple Conclusion

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.

Top

**********************************************************

READERS LETTERS

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 (such as the December 2021 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.

**********************************************************

Ultra-Sonic Record Cleaning Formula

A reader sent me some information concerning the cleaning agents which are commonly used with many ultra-sonic record cleaning machines. Here's his letter, with some minor editing and my bold:

"(A) possible correction. I saw the cleaning formula for the ultrasonic cleaner*. I am quite familiar with the ingredients in the cleaning solution, but I think Hepastat 250 should actually be Hepastat 256. I don't think that there is a Hepastat 250.

Also with regards to Hepastat 256, if that is actually the correct material. People should use thick nitrile gloves and safety goggles when mixing the concentrated material. It isn't just acutely toxic orally; it is also acutely toxic dermally, which means it can absorb through the skin. There is some ethylenediame materials that make it readily absorb into proteins. I worked with some diazo compounds that have a somewhat similar structure. You have to be careful with handling when they are concentrated."

*The reader is referring to the cleaning formulas discussed in the dedicated Ultra Sonic Record Cleaning File.

Top

JANUARY/FEBRUARY/MARCH 2023

A Second Comparison and a Re-evaluation...

The ZYX UNIverse Premium & III Phono Cartridges

I first compared these two phono cartridges directly to each other in Summer 2020. Those comparisons were a necessary and critically important part of the UNIverse III review. I was completely alone at the time, with none of my usual associates to assist me (because of the Pandemic). I accordingly took extraordinary measures to make certain that the comparisons were fair (see below for the details). I also made a serious promise and commitment at the very end of the lengthy UNIverse III review. To quote myself...

"When the new Lenco/Kuzma turntable/tonearm combination is finally set-up..., I will directly compare the Premium and the III to each other once again, even if it's only for confirmation, though there could always be some surprises...There will also be an added bonus, in that the entire system will be more revealing (I expect an improved phono source and speakers)."

This current review is the fulfillment of my Summer 2020 promise and commitment.

Introduction and History

The UNIverse III was introduced in 2017, replacing the II (my long time "Reference" from 2012). The III also retains the plastic body of both the UNIverse I and II. In a significant contrast, the (now discontinued) UNIverse Premium cartridge has a metal body/frame.

I received the ZYX UNIverse III in January 2020, but I wasn't able to install it in my system until March. The delay was caused by the longer than expected break-in, and the subsequent evaluation, of the UNIverse Premium, which I had received in the fall 2019. After a long break-in, waiting for the III's performance to finally "plateau", I decided it was time to directly compare the III to the Premium. This was now in July 2020. To be fair to both cartridges, I also created a protocol at the time which may have been unprecedented.
To again quote myself...

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

To make certain the comparisons between the III and the Premium were both fair and comprehensive, I not only duplicated the same reference records for audition (which is obviously required and routine), I further duplicated their exact order of play. I then undertook what I now believe was the ultimate (and maybe even unprecedented) process required for fairness. It was a procedure which I had never used before, even with all of my prior decades of making direct comparisons...

On the final evening of auditioning the III, I noted the exact time I began playing the last three records, to the minute. I later duplicated those specific times when I eventually played the same final three records with the Premium. I followed this new routine to make certain that the time of the evening would have no (or minimal) influence on the outcome. Why did I go to such lengths? I felt this extra step was necessary, at least in my case, because my system consistently sounds increasingly better from between 11 PM to 1 AM.

For the purpose of full disclosure, here are the last 3 reference records, and their respective start times, that I auditioned, originally on July 28 with the III, and later duplicated on August 2 with the Premium:

Kodaly/Hary Janos/Kertesz/Decca/Speakers Corner Reissue; 11:45 PM

Villancicos/Paniagua/Harmony Mundi/Original Pressing; 12:00 AM

Mobile Fidelity/Pictures Exhibition/Firebird Suite/Muti; 12:30 AM

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

So, what were the ultimate results of all these comparisons? To quote myself yet again...

"...(To)...answer the most important, and inevitable, question: Of the two best (UNIverse) cartridges I've heard, the Premium and the III, which would I prefer to live with, if I could only choose one of them?

The ZYX UNIverse Premium. Here are the reasons for this choice, which are both purely subjective and relatively objective:

Consistent with my observations, the Premium is superior to the III in a larger number of sonic categories,... Just as important, the Premium's sonic advantages are larger in degree, and thus more obvious and noticeable than those of the III."

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

The full review, which is considerably more comprehensive, can be read using the link below ("Reference Phono Cartridges"). However, this is a new comparative review, using a different (and superior) turntable and tonearm, and also superior speakers ("Doubled-Up" Coincident PRE II), so we must now try our best to ignore the past results of 2020 and instead focus on the present 2022/23 system. In fact, in a surprising and completely unexpected development, one of the two cartridges isn't even the same...

A Shocking Experience

In November 2021, just after we (Jean Nantais and I) had performed the initial adjustments to optimize the Ultimate Lenco/Kuzma combination, we experienced an event that shocked me twice:
1. That this event actually occurred in the first place and
2. When we later observed the related, and highly unexpected, sonic results.
This admittedly cryptic event can only be explained, and understood, by going through all of the details, even if some of them are frankly tedious, so here they are...

Immediately after confirming the positive sonic results of removing the Kuzma 4Point's Vertical Damping Trough (see Kuzma review), I decided to further tighten the two brass cartridge bolts, which, of course, secured the UNIverse Premium to the Kuzma tonearm. I've made similar cartridge bolt tightening adjustments literally thousands of times in the last 5 decades, though this time something was a little different; I thought I also heard a slight sound while doing so (in my ultra-quiet room), which I ignored at the time.

Later that day, Nantais (who had been out on an errand) showed up. We soon began discussing our next series of potential system adjustments, as we both stood close to the turntable. While explaining a specific adjustment to Nantais, which required me to get up close to the Premium, I noticed something that literally shocked me, to the point that I was virtually speechless. Nantais immediately noticed my strong reaction and, after asking me what was the matter, I asked him to look closely at the Premium. He did and noticed nothing, at first. I told him to look closer and this time he noticed what had shocked me, and now him; the Premium's surrounding metal protective body had cracked!

At the time, I was inconsolable and close to tears. Something like this had never happened to me in 50+ years of phono cartridge set-ups. My mind then immediately began racing: How would this "catastrophe" affect the evaluation and review of the Lenco/Kuzma? And, maybe even worse, what would I tell the owner of the Premium, my close personal friend and associate, who had generously loaned it to me? Meanwhile, Nantais had quickly gotten over his initial shock and was already quite calm. He advised me that we should still attempt to play the Premium that evening and see what actually happens. Well, I followed Nantais' advice, and the results of that listening session ended up being a second shock, for me.

So, what happened that evening? The Premium not only still played, it was even better!! (My contemporaneous notes that evening: "Sounds magnificent tonight!! All types of music.") While I was experiencing both relief and even ecstasy, Nantais was much more stoic. In fact, he was not even that surprised at the positive results. Meanwhile, I must admit that I didn't immediately understand the technical reasons for this shocking (to me) turn of events (though I should have).

In contrast, Nantais felt the reason for the positive sonic results was actually quite simple; The UNIverse Premium had been "transformed" when its metal outer body cracked open. Nantais explained that the Premium was now, in effect, "a naked phono cartridge". Upon reflection, Nantais' explanation made logical sense to me, especially since I had had considerable experience with various "naked phono cartridges", back in the 1990s, when they were popular for a short period of time. However, unlike Nantais, I hadn't used a "naked" cartridge for over 20 years.

Important Explanation - A "Naked cartridge" is simply an ordinary phono cartridge without its normal outer protective body, which is ordinarily removed by the cartridge manufacturer (though I witnessed some courageous and extreme audiophiles make the modification themselves). Further, there was no question, with everything else being equal, that a naked cartridge would outperform its full-bodied equivalent, but with the serious downside of being highly vulnerable to (if not inevitable) "accidental" damage. In fact, Nantais had some recent experiences himself with naked cartridges, all negative, when the customers broke them and then wanted the repairs at no cost to them. Accordingly, and understandably, Nantais wanted nothing to do with naked cartridges at this point in his audio business career.

The next day I made two phone calls. The first was to Mehran, of Sorasound, who imports the ZYX product line. He was surprised when I informed him what happened to the Premium. He told me nothing like this had ever happened before. However, Mehran was not surprised that the Premium sounded better after it cracked, because he also realized that it was now a naked cartridge. Mehran then informed me that he (and ZYX) were fully aware that naked versions of the ZYX line would sound better, but they all agreed they would not sell naked cartridges, under any conditions, due to their extreme vulnerability and the resulting inevitable disputes, after they broke, as to who was then responsible for the cost of the repair. He did inform me that the Premium could be repaired, but it wouldn't sound as good, which led to the second phone call.

My second phone call, which I dreaded making, was to my associate/friend who owned the Premium. Surprisingly, he wasn't that upset, even at first, and when I told him that his cartridge now sounded better, he became really excited. He told me the sonic improvement made some sense, since the metal body was similar to a "bell", and when it broke, the "circuit shorted", which thus ended any inherent "ringing". Later on, he informed me that he felt lucky, and that the entire Premium incident was the "surprise of a lifetime".

Further, upon reflection as a reviewer, I realized there was another lucky element to be grateful for; There was no other simultaneous system change at the same time as the Premium incident, which would have obscured both the audible effects of the Premium "modification" and the other change.

Finally, and most importantly, I highly advise not attempting to duplicate what happened to the Premium, though I realize how an enthusiastic audiophile may be tempted to take the chance. I believe this incident was a fluke occurrence, which I'm reporting now for various reasons, and not something to ever emulate. From my perspective, the risk of serious and irreversible damage to the Premium is just too great. Below is a picture of the "cracked" Premium, which should infinitely better illustrate what actually occurred than any of my descriptions above.

P1020186

This brings us, finally, to the direct comparisons between the UNIverse Premium and the III, though we must always keep in mind that this particular Premium is no longer stock.

The Results of the Second Direct Comparison

The UNIverse III was installed in my (Ultimate Lenco/Kuzma) system on March 27, 2022. It sounded superb from the very first LP. I assume this was because the III had already been fully broken-in almost 2 years earlier (Summer 2020). However, I was still able to elicit some further sonic improvements with two minor set-up changes during the first evening's listening session: The VTA was lowered around 1 complete "notch" on the Kuzma (compared to the Premium), and I also slightly increased the VTF to 2.2 grams (the Premium's VTF was 2.176 grams). (A week later, I lowered the VTA another 1/2 of a "notch" and I haven't changed it since then.)

My first sonic impression was that the III was incredibly clean and immediate, which was basically exactly the same as my first (and final) impression in 2020. The III's tracking of complex (orchestral) passages was outstanding. The III also had natural body, a large image and was delicate, all at the same time. I played a variety of music and labels that first evening, including Decca; Harmonia Mundi; DGG and the "Cowboy Junkies" (which I hadn't played for years). To state that everything was "impressive" would be an understatement, because it was much more than that.

Eventually, after a little more than a week of listening, I realized that I had to admit something to myself which I did not expect. Unlike what had happened in 2020, this time I did not miss the Premium. Further, and even more important, I even had to acknowledge that the more I listened to the III, the more I preferred it to both the original "stock" Premium and even the current (accidentally improved) "naked" version. In short, the relative sonic and performance hierarchy of the two cartridges had now switched.

The Bottom Line - Both cartridges still had sonic advantages over each other, as was the case in 2020. However, the UNIverse III now had a greater combination of strengths than the Premium. The III now had a similar amount of decays and harmonics. It also had superior outer and inner detail, while it retained its previous sonic advantages in immediacy; "aliveness"; precision; purity; intelligibility; separation and lack of homogenization; overall deep bass; and uninhibited dynamic expansion.

Further, I felt the III was even slightly more natural on the best recordings, though the Premium sounded better on leaner recordings. In the deep bass, the III had extra control, better enabling you to hear the instrument still vibrating after the note. The III also had a slightly wider and more convincing "sense of space", equal image focus to the Premium, and was also able to reproduce larger differences between cuts, which is a critical test of accuracy. My dozen or so "Reference Records", which are both highly challenging and highly diverse, never sounded as good.

There was also a group of related LPs, while not part of my "Reference Records", which still deserve special mention: Harmonia Mundi - Carmina Burana #3/4/5. These three records were all shockingly "alive" and immediate, like an excellent direct-to-disc. Further, these three records also had an amazing degree of "real body", maybe as realistic and natural as I've ever heard, and with minimal "fat". In fact, it was the unprecedented solidity and tautness I observed that really impressed me.

Accordingly, the reproduction of "body" on these 3 Harmonia Mundi records forced me to re-evaluate my earlier thoughts and observations on this specific subject of "natural body". Just below are the subjective numbers I previously used to help clarify the amount of "body" I observed from the 1st UNIverse Premium/III "Shootout", performed in Summer 2020:

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

UNIverse Premium - "Natural Body" Frequency Range 8/10 + Resonances 1/10 = 9/10*
UNIverse III - "Natural Body" Frequency Range 7.6/10 + Resonances .9/10 = 8.5/10*

Explanation - The III has noticeably less natural body than the Premium, though, in my opinion, it is not large enough to be described as "dramatic". This is why the III's total body is reduced by .5/10; from 9/10 down to 8.5/10. Further, the III also has a slightly lower amount of "Resonances" than the Premium; It goes from 1/10 down to .9/10.

...I believe the primary reason why the III has less body than the Premium is because its frequency response is slightly attenuated in the body/bass frequency range (8/10 - 7.6/10 = .4/10). The III's further reduction of added resonances (1/10 - .9/10 = .1/10), even though it's relatively subtle overall (and a sonic positive as well), makes this body/bass attenuation slightly more noticeable (.4/10 + .1/10 = .5/10).

*10/10, or the reproduction of a "perfect body", and with no resonances, is not possible with current technology.

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

So, what has changed in 2022/23, with both cartridges now installed in the Ultimate Lenco/Kuzma 4Point combination? There have been small changes in both absolute and relative performance, along with their related numbers:

UNIverse Premium - "Body" Frequency Range 8.1/10 + Resonances .9/10 = 9/10
UNIverse III - "Body" Frequency Range 7.9/10 + Resonances .8/10 = 8.7/10

Both the Premium and III have changed, and for the better, though the III has changed to a slightly greater degree. The Premium's "Frequency Range" has increased just a touch (+.1), and its "Resonances" have also been slightly reduced by -.1 (so it's a sonic net "wash"), all obviously caused by the superior performance of the Kuzma tonearm. These specific numbers mean that while the overall "quantity" of body has not changed since 2020, the "quality" of the Premium's reproduction of body has improved since 2020, because there is now less "fat" ("Resonances").

Meanwhile, the III not only has the same exact improvement of a .1 reduction in "Resonances" (which reduces "fat"), it also has a further improvement in its "Frequency Range", a .3 net increase (from 7.6 to 7.9). Accordingly, what started in 2020 as a net .5 overall body gap (9 - 8.5) is now a net .3 (9 - 8.7) gap. This means that the III not only has a greater overall quantity of body, when compared to 2020, the quality of the III's 2023 body has now also been improved. So, what does all of this mean in actual listening?

The III has noticeably closed the performance gap between it and the Premium in the reproduction of "body". In fact, I now prefer the III's body on the finest recordings. However, both are still slightly leaner than "Perfect". Caveat - Don't take any of the (crude) numbers I've used above, strictly for illustration, as some sort of "absolute". To be clear - I've deliberately exaggerated the amount and degree of their sonic imperfections, in both the "Frequency Range" and the "Resonances", in an attempt to better clarify the relative differences between them.

Conclusion and Advice

If I wasn't clear enough above, I want to be clear now: As of 2022/23, with my current audio system, I prefer the UNIverse III to the UNIverse Premium (and any other phono cartridge I've ever heard). The III is now my top "Reference". The details are posted above, but I still feel I have the further responsibility to clarify my reasons for reversing myself almost two years after the 1st "Shootout" and direct comparison:

Unlike in 2020, the III is now superior to the Premium in a larger number of sonic categories, as per the descriptions above. Also, in another reversal, the III's sonic advantages are now slightly greater in degree, and thus more obvious and noticeable, than those remaining advantages of the Premium. If I were to, once again, use numbers for greater clarification, there is another (partial) reversal to the 2020 results; The III may still have a 2 to 3% advantage over the Premium in its strengths, while the Premium may now have "only" a 1 to 2% advantage over the III in its strengths. In short, the III's sonic advantages are now greater in both their number and their degree, though I must also emphasize that the III's current 2023 sonic advantage is smaller than the Premium's former 2020 sonic advantage.

Further, what do I believe happened, technically, to cause this highly unusual reversal in performance? That's Simple: The only obvious and logical explanation is that, of the two cartridges, the III had the greater overall amount of noticeable sonic improvements when it was installed in the Ultimate Lenco/Kuzma combination. This then is the "relatively objective" reason for my personal choice of the III. As for the "purely subjective" perspective...

There isn't any "tough and cruel" performance choice at this time. Yes, naturalness (or "completeness"), the Premium's greatest strength, is still ultimately more important to me than immediacy, the III's greatest strength. However, the Premium, unlike in 2020, no longer has its own unique "magic", which the III lacks. There is still a performance gap in "completeness" (in favor of the Premium), but it is now too subtle to overcome all of the III's other unique sonic advantages and unprecedented strengths. (Note - My associate, who owns the Premium, still slightly prefers the Premium to the III.)

The Bottom Line - Unlike Summer 2020, both the Premium and the III now have basically the same amount of "magic" in my audio system. Accordingly, what I would normally consider "secondary" (though still highly important) audio parameters had to ultimately decide the final outcome of the second "shootout", which they did, and they were in favor of the III.

Advice

Despite my personal reversal, due to the changes in my own system, my advice, to serious audiophiles, remains basically the same as what I provided in the 2020 review (which I strongly suggest reading if you are seriously considering purchasing either of these phono cartridges). Both cartridges still have sonic advantages over the other, yet they may actually sound more alike now than before. Their basic "characters" remain the same as I earlier described in the 2020 shootout, though the relative degrees and gaps of their respective sonic performance have now changed somewhat.

The UNIverse III has a greater degree of ultimate sonic potential than the Premium, which is my highest personal priority. However, the Premium may still provide a better fit for some serious audio systems, and also for those serious listeners with somewhat different sonic priorities than mine (such as my own associate).

Relevant Links:

Sorasound - ZYX (New Generation) UNIverse Cartridges

REFERENCE PHONO CARTRIDGES FILE

My Audio System

Top

**********************************************************

READERS LETTERS

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 (such as the January/February/March 2022 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.

**********************************************************

Sempersonus Rim-Drive Turntable

A reader sent me some information and links about an interesting new Rim-drive turntable, manufactured in Portugal, which I had never heard about. Here are the links:

Sempersonus (An interesting new rim-drive turntable from Portugal) NEW 4/23

Audiogon Sempersonus Review (An excellent and thorough review of the Sempersonus idler-drive turntable) NEW 4/23

Top

APRIL/MAY/JUNE

Some Sad News...

Tom Tutay, of Transition Audio Design, died on July 16, 2023. Tom dedicated the majority of his life to audio and he will be seriously missed by the audiophile community. His many technical contributions, to the advancement of audio, will remain posted indefinitely on this website. I was privileged to know Tom.

Top

JULY/AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2023

Most Recent Updates

"The Truth" T5 Line Stage - I received a T5 in June 2022. Unfortunately, it was not working properly and was sent back to the manufacturer for repair. The T-5 was apparently damaged in shipping and has now been repaired. Also, this version of the T-5 has no selector switch, which means it has only 1 input (and 2 outputs). Based on my previous "Truth" designations, and to be consistent, this particular T-5 is then actually a T-5x.

This Website's Unique Perspective

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, 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 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, 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 information that 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 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 goal so difficult to achieve? Simple: There is no room for any error; one single mistake, anywhere in the long audio chain, means failure.

Example 1: It's wonderful to have deep bass and extended highs in an audio system, as I 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 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 problems with the signal path, in the speakers and in the electronics, and this 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.

Top

**********************************************************

READERS LETTERS

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.

**********************************************************

S.E.T. FRIENDLY SPEAKERS LIST (CONTINUALLY UPDATED)

Until I find a list which is more definitive, and objective, here 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;

AcuHorn rosso superiore175

Affirm (formerly Maxxhorn) Lumination & Immersion

Apogee Acoustics Definitive Ribbon Speaker (very expensive)

Aspara Acoustics HL1 Horn Speaker

Audio Note ANE SEC Signature

Avantgarde Duo and Trio (All Versions)

BD-Design Oris and Orphean Models

Bottlehead Straight 8s (Discontinued)

Brentworth Sound Lab

Cain & Cain BEN ES (and other models)

Cardersound Madison (Single-Drive Back Loaded Horns)

Coherent Speakers Model 15 (and other models)

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

Classic Audio Loudspeakers (All Models)

Decware (Various Models)

(DIY Hi-Fi Supply) Crescendo Ribbon Horn Speaker System

Fab Audio Model 1 (Toronto, Canada)

FAL Supreme-C90 EXW or EXII

Goodmans of England 5 or 612s

Hawthorne Solo and Duet

Horn Shoppe (Two Models)

Horning Hybrids (Various models)

Hoyt-Bedford Speakers

Klipschorn and La Scala (All Versions)

Living Voice OBX-R2 & IBX-R4 (UK)

Musical Affairs Grand Crescendo

Omega Speaker Systems

Pi Speakers (Various Models)

ProAc Response Two*

Prometheus II

Reference 3A MM de Capo i

RL Acoustique Lamhorn 1.8 (Montreal, Canada)

Sonist Concerto 2

Sunlight Engineering 308

Supravox Open Baffle

Teresonic (Various Models)

Tonian Acoustics (Various Models)

Vaughn Zinfandel

WLM (Various Models)

Zingali Horns

Zu Defintion

*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.

Further...

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:

AER
Cube Audio
Fostex
Lii
Lowther
Markaudio
Reps
SEAS
Voxativs

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.

Top

OCTOBER/NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2023

Update/Explanation of 2023

I have received several letters concerning this website's lack of posts and articles since Spring 2023. Thanks for the concern. I would first like everyone to know that everything is OK and I am in good health. I also still have no updates at this time. So, what happened during all those months?

I had planned several audio projects for 2023, and one of them was very exciting, serious and complicated in nature. Unfortunately, all of these projects were eventually delayed because of an illness of a friend, who I felt had to be present for the various experiments. To make matters worse, there was then poor weather later in the year (even worse than normal for Florida).

Fortunately, all of these projects, with one exception, have been rescheduled for the first 4/5 months of 2024. I have also decided to not provide any more details, concerning these projects, on my website for now, due to some unavoidable uncertainties. I don't like to break any of my promises.

Top

JANUARY/FEBRUARY/MARCH 2024

A Major Announcement...

A New Speaker Reference!

After a 16 year reign (2008 to 2024), with the same basic design and model, which is the longest of my entire audio lifetime, I now have a new top Speaker Reference! My previous Reference, the Coincident Pure Reference (Extreme MK. II), was only able to stay at the top, for such an extraordinary 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 original Pure Reference design, and its evolution for over a decade.)

Further, I have decided it is unnecessary, and potentially distracting, for me to report any more than these basic details at this time. I believe that this is the best course of action for me, especially since the new reference speaker's testing, and final evaluation, are still in process. However, I promise that all of the important and serious events, experiments and details will be completely revealed within the review.

I can report this for now...
This is a new direction in speakers for me. I took the Pure Reference Extreme (the basic design) as far as possible. This recent Speaker "Project" (a word that is fully justified by reality) was 16 months in planning, with three people heavily involved (including the manufacturer), plus some local assistants. Further, the three of us worked intensely, and continuously, for 1 entire week, 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 with a number of technical and logistical issues (in my home) whenever it was required, listened to the results of the experiments, and came to my own conclusions.

The review of this new speaker reference will be posted in sections, beginning in late April or early May 2024. At that time, it will be posted in the (future) April/May/June 2024 "Recent File" Updates. The review will be quite lengthy and exhaustive, as befitting such a serious component/system change, but it will not be as lengthy as the original Pure Reference Essay/Review, which I seriously advise should be read first, for important and necessary context and perspective (see below for link).

Accordingly, 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...

The Coincident Pure Reference Extreme Mk. II Speakers are now For Sale - There are two pairs available.

The Coincident 211PP Dragon Mk. II Amplifiers are also now For Sale.

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

All of the above components are in excellent working condition.

Relevant Link:

Coincident Pure Reference Extreme Speakers

NOW ADDED TO CLASS A (UPPER) LINE STAGES

The Truth T-5x

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 Differences between "The Truth" T4 and T5 models:

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).

Overview of all recent (2016 to present) "The Truth" models:

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.

The T-5x's Sonic Performance

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.

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

Conclusion & Perspective

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 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. It's a win/win! I get both 6 db of gain, which I require on some occasions, plus superior sonics. When I get 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.

REFERENCE LINE STAGES

FEBRUARY 2019 TO PRESENT

Class A (Upper)

"THE TRUTH" T5, T4 & T3

Class A (Lower)

COINCIDENT STATEMENT*
EMIA VOLUME CONTROL
"THE TRUTH" T1

Class B

PASS LABS ALEPH L

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

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

Relevant Links:

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

Ed Schilling's email address: thehornshoppe@gmail.com

Reference Line Stages

Top

**********************************************************

READERS LETTERS

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.

**********************************************************

Emotiva CMX2 AC Line Filter

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.

Recommended: Plug in TT and Solid State Amps

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.

Perhaps: Tube Amps and Preamps

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.

Question Mark: Computers and Monitors

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.

Strongly Discouraged: Plugging two CMX2s into the same double wall outlet

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."

Relevant Link:

Emotiva CMX2+ AC Line Filter

Top

More to Come!

My New Speaker Reference!

Top

THE SUPREME RECORDINGS

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.

Nothing at this time.

MY AUDIO SYSTEM

A New Speaker Reference in 2024! (Final Evaluation and review is currently in process.)

Top

REVIEWING THE 'REVIEWERS'

Nothing new at this time.

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 important reading and should not be missed: CHARLES HANSEN'S FINAL POSTS ON AUDIO ASYLUM.

Top

MISCELLANEOUS

Nothing at this time.

Top

NEW LINKS

DECEMBER 2022

Future Audiophile (A new audio website with reviews, news and reports) NEW 12/22

JULY 2023

Aries Cerat ("State-Of-The-Art" horn speakers, electronics, DAC etc.) NEW 07/23

MARCH 2024

Emotiva (Electronics, Filters, Processers, Speakers etc.) NEW 03/24

Top

USED COMPONENTS AND ACCESSORIES NOW ON SALE

Coincident Pure Reference Extreme MK. II Speakers

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 have two pairs for sale. The two pairs were stacked on top of each other (see the picture below).

Coincident-PRE-II-Doubles

Explanation: The first pair (2018), both the monitors and the subwoofers, can be seen on the bottom (Monitors SN: #2932/2933). The second pair (2021), both the monitors and subwoofers, were placed on the top of the first pair. See the black front subwoofer (Monitors SN: #3560/3561).

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 one pair of the PRE II is $ 18,950. The buyer can choose either pair.

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 the subwoofers. I am keeping the stands, though I may sell the spikes.

Shipping (320+ lbs) of the PRE II is extra. The PRE II is located in Florida (34986).

Relevant Links:

My Comprehensive Review of the Coincident Pure Reference Extreme Speakers

Manufacturer's Website for Coincident Speaker PRE MK. II Further Information

Coincident 211PP Dragon MK. II Mono Amplifiers

The Dragon amplifiers are in very good condition (see picture). They were purchased in 2015, but they have had unusually low hours of operation since then. This is because I only listen to the subwoofers (which are amplified by the Dragons) around 20% of the time when the audio system is operating. These Dragon amplifiers also no longer have the standard Psvane 211 output tubes.

Instead, these Dragon amplifiers come with Premium tubes;

GE NOS 211 (VT-4-C) x 2 matched pairs,
Shuguang "Black Treasure" 300B-Z x 2,
Zenith 6GL7 x 2 +
2 Raytheon 6GL7 NOS back-ups
, and...
They even include Herbie's Tube Dampers for all 8 tubes, which cost around another $ 175.

Coincident's Direct Selling Price is $ 11,000 for one pair. My asking Price is $ 6,950. Shipping is extra. Weight is around 170 lbs.

Relevant Link:

My Review of the Coincident 211PP Dragon MK. II Amplifiers

P1020268

COINCIDENT SPEAKER CABLES - 6 PAIRS AVAILABLE

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

Statement II - S/B - 4' - $ 850

Statement I - S/S - 35" - $ 575
Statement I - B/S - 22" - $ 450

Extreme - B/B - 2' - $ 125
Extreme - B/B - 44" - $ 175

CST - B/B - 4' - $ 150

Note: B = Banana, S = Spade, IN ORDER OF SIGNAL DIRECTION.

Relevant Link:

My Review of the Coincident Statement II Speaker Cables

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

P1020285

Picture Two - Statement I (Bottom) & Statement II (Top)

P1020117

Picture Three - Close-Up of Above (II, Top, is Thinner)
Note: My Statement II cables lack the proper "II" labels. The "II" labels weren't yet printed when the cables were shipped.

P1020119

Top

INTERNAL LINKS

Reference Components

The Supreme Recordings

My Audio System

My Audio Philosophy

Audio Critique

Purchasing Used Classical Records

Modifications

Reviewing the Reviewers

Used Components for Sale

Tubes for Sale

External Links

Top

If you have a question, or want audio advice and/or consultation:

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.

"Ask Arthur"
Official PayPal Seal

To contact me for any other reason:

Arthur Salvatore

COPYRIGHT 2024 ARTHUR SALVATORE