We welcome all feedback. If you'd like to make a comment on an article or ask any questions, please e-mail email@example.com. If your letter is selected for publication, your name will be printed but your e-mail address will NOT be.
To Jeff Fritz,
First of all, I would like to express my appreciation for your writing and insights into the audio world. I love reading your articles and find that I often learn something that helps me to more deeply enjoy my music. I would love to ask your advice about upgrading my Magico S1 speakers to either the Magico S3 or the Magico Q3. (I currently have a VTL S-200 amp, VTL TL5.5 preamp, a Luxman DA-06 DAC, Synergistic Research Tungsten interconnects and Organic speaker cables).
I want more bass in my system and have listened to both the Magico S3s and the Magico Q3s at my dealer. The limiting factor is that my room is 10’ x 12’ with a slightly vaulted ceiling. I absolutely loved, loved, loved the Magico Q3s playing with my same equipment at the dealer, but worry about the bass and size of the speaker overwhelming the room. I also loved the S3 -- simply amazing speakers, but they are not anywhere near the Q3 [in terms of performance]. If I had a larger room I would get the Q3, but I worry that even with acoustic treatments the Q3 will overwhelm the small space.
I trust your opinion and know that you are familiar with the S1, S3, and the Q3, and so thought my question worth asking. Which would you recommend?
Thank you so much for the kind words! They are very nice to hear.
In your case the easy answer is the Q3, and here's why: First, as you have heard, the Q3 is a superior loudspeaker in comparison to the S3. It has a better tweeter and full-on Magico Nano-Tec bass drivers; the S3 has a less-advanced tweeter and hybrid bass drivers that are not fully Magico creations. Of course, there is also the better cabinet, higher-grade crossover, and on and on . . . all in favor of the Q3. Bottom line: The Q3 is a clear step-up from the S3.
The other significant reason to go with the Q3 versus the S3 is the bass voicing of each model. The Q3 is actually more linear, whereas the S3 has a more pronounced bass signature. I believe this will actually benefit you in your room because the Q3 should load it more linearly. Ultimately the more linear bass and the more resolving loudspeaker should prove to yield longer-term satisfaction. So, short answer, get the Q3. . . . Jeff Fritz
To Jeff Fritz,
I have enjoyed your articles about speakers and I share your admiration for Magico speakers. I currently own the V3s and may be looking to upgrade. In a classic case of yesterday’s heroes being forgotten, prices on the “wood” Magicos have descended to downright affordable levels; particularly, the big M5s can be had for reasonable money in my opinion. Would you choose a new S3 or used Q3 over an M5, assuming I have the amplification to make each one work? I have to say that I have heard the Q3s and think they are great -- but I really like the treble balance of the V3s and I am a little skeptical of the beryllium tweeter in the Qs being unkind to LPs and surface noise. I definitely would like additional bass extension. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
I would go with a new set of S3s, and here’s why: First, a new set of speakers ensures you do not inherit any prior issues. You’ll get a mint, quality-controlled product -- in short, what you pay for. That peace of mind is important when spending large sums of money, in my opinion. Second, a new set of S3s will get you the latest technology from Magico, which includes a tweeter and midrange several generations ahead of what the M5 has to offer. Magico has certainly improved their speakers over the past few years. And third, the bass voicing of the S3 sounds right up your alley. Remember, it’s not the beryllium tweeter that determines tonal balance -- that thing is clean and virtually distortionless -- it is the balance of bass to the rest of the spectrum. The S3 will give you a slightly warm tonal balance, because of its increased bass relative the mids and highs. The Q3 will be dead neutral by comparison, which may not be your cup of tea.
So, all signs point to a new set of S3s. I think they’ll be a huge upgrade over your V3s. . . . Jeff Fritz
To Jeff Fritz,
You've endorsed the Boulder products, specifically the 1060 and 2060 amplifiers, in the past. I've not seen you comment on any of the current products, but I'm wondering if you know if there is any specification improvement from the older amps to the newer ones. I am trying to discern why the 2100 series might, or might not, sound better than what the company produced in past years. Thank you for your insight.
I have no experience with the newer Boulder 2100 Series components, so I forwarded your question to Rich Maez, Boulder's director of sales and marketing for North America and South America. Below is his response:
First and foremost, the components in the 2000 Series were at least 17 years old -- if you think about it, that's five generations of some other companies' products. Many, many things changed over the years, including better parts, better understanding of what we were doing, plus the refinement and introduction of changes to our core design ideas. Everything is now implemented with surface-mount technology, meaning that we have much better control of the layout of each board, including our new 99H2 gain stages that also feature other technical improvements. New grounding and planing has been implemented to reduce noise. In the preamp, the volume control is now balanced instead of operating as a summing point. Input switching circuits are quieter. The amp gain stages run at a higher voltage for improved signal-to-noise ratio and have better bias injection. Plus, all protection circuitry has been improved.
From a sonic standpoint, the overall neutrality or transparency of our stuff is the same, though maybe it's a little more so -- listening to the 2000 vs. 2100, the 2000 sounds a little on the dark side. Resolution and transient/dynamic speed are vastly improved with the new stuff. It's just faster and clearer. Soundstaging has spread out and images are better separated. Low-frequency response is surprisingly different. There's just as much power and weight in the bass response, but it's much tighter and faster than it was in the previous gen. Tightening things up hasn't made it cold or sterile, but it's much better at resolving low-frequency melody or, for lack of a better way to put it, it delineates a bunch of different bass notes better. It's cleaner in the lows, much better damped, so it not only separates the notes, but provides texture rather than just tone.
Hope that helps. . . . Jeff Fritz
To Jeff Fritz,
In August, I corresponded with you regarding the Coda 15.5 class-A amplifier and the Devialet [products]. You asked me to stay in touch when I had made my decision. However, I have not yet made any decision since it has become a bit more difficult than I first thought.
I have now had time to listen more carefully to the Devialet 200 with the Magico S3 among other speakers. I agree with you in basically everything you wrote in your article about the Devialet. I have never heard a better amplifier, and if I purchased a Devialet I could live happily with it as my last amplifier. There is really no parameter of the Devialet that I can point to that could be improved. However, and here comes the part where your experience and input would be very interesting and of great value, after several long demos of the Devialet I also demoed another combination, just to compare with.
Firstly, we ran my Benchmark DAC2 HGC directly into the new Pass Labs X250.8 [amplifier] model. It sounded rather good, but it could not compare with the Devialet 200. But then something very interesting and a bit puzzling occurred. My dealer suggested that he should insert a Parasound Halo JC 2 preamplifier between my DAC and the Pass Labs X250.8. I had been very skeptical regarding what improvement a preamplifier could bring since the Benchmark DAC is extremely transparent, detailed, and well balanced, and also completely void of harsh treble (I do not use a preamplifier at home). However, after a few minutes when the JC 2 had been warmed up a little, something really special occurred. I heard exactly what you described in your review of the Coda 15.0: the golden magic of really good class-A amplification (the Pass Labs runs in class A up to about 16Wpc and the JC 2 is pure class A). The difference between this combination and running the Benchmark directly into the Pass Labs was, to say the least, huge. It was simply magic.
I have switched between this combination and the Devialet at two later demos and I have arrived at the same result both times. The Devialet is more transparent, detailed, and has better bass than the Benchmark/Parasound/Pass Labs combination, and it has a similar imaging ability. But, the Devialet does not produce (what I think is) the golden glow that you mention in your Coda 15.0 review to the same extent as the Pass Labs combination. This is especially apparent with female voices. There is also a fullness introduced with the Pass Labs combination that is very appealing. Hence, I am very torn in this decision, a traditional class-A/AB amplifier or the all-in-one solution of Devialet? In the end I think that my observations stem from the Pass Labs combination adding something to the output while the Devialet is absolutely transparent. I therefore would like to ask if you think that my conclusion about the Pass Labs combination adding something that is not there is valid? If so, I guess that I have to accept that maybe I have preferences for some types of "ear-pleasing" distortion.
Finally, I would like to say once again that your articles pointing to what is really important in the hi-fi industry are truly refreshing and thoroughly enlightening!
Welcome to being an audiophile in 2014. Your experiences are not at all surprising and, actually, refreshing for me to hear. Why? Because what you are hearing is so similar to what I have heard, that I could have just as easily been the author of your letter! In fact, in the end, there is very little that I can add to your conclusions. I believe that your assessment that the Devialet is dead neutral, while the separates combination you heard is pleasing in what it adds to the signal, is spot on. (I believe you prefer the Parasound's analog volume control to the digital volume control in the Benchmark.)
And your dilemma about which to choose and for what reasons is the same dilemma that I suspect many audiophiles will have all across the world, including me! But not only do you have to decide on the sound-quality issue -- what sound do you ultimately prefer? -- but the form-factor question: Do you want separates that you can play around with, or an all-in-one that is a set-it-and-forget-it solution that Devialet provides? That in and of itself could cause you lots of procrastination.
Which product(s) would I advise you to buy? I just can't say. I guess the best advice I can give to you is to go with your gut feeling on what will provide you the most long-term satisfaction. I'm certainly interested in your ultimate decision, mind you. It may help inform all of us when we face the same dilemma. . . . Jeff Fritz
To Garrett Hongo,
My name is Dave and I am down in Louisiana. I always enjoy your reviews. They are the most useful reviews I run across because you always tie it back to the music. After reading your review of the deHavilland KE Model 50As, I contacted Kara Chaffee [of deHavilland] and spent some time discussing the 50As vs. other amps I was familiar with and got comfortable that the deHavilland amps are very special. I've had my pair for almost a year and have enjoyed them immensely.
The reason I am contacting you is that I am considering adding a preamp to my system, which currently is set up with my MSB DAC handling preamp-switching and volume-control duties directly into my pair of deHavilland KE Model 50A amps. While the MSB DAC is specifically designed to be used in this direct setup, several knowledgeable audio experts have suggested that a preamp could improve the overall sound of the system. So I am investigating that and have an Aesthetix Calypso Signature line stage coming to me as a loaner to see what it does for the system's overall sound.
My purpose in writing to you relates to the other three preamps I am considering: Kara Chaffee's Mercury III, the VAC Renaissance Mk.3, and the Herron VTSP-3A. I know from your reviews that you have used the Mercury 3 for a good while and that you have used a number of pieces of Herron equipment in your system. In the 2010/11 time frame you also were very positive on your experiences with various VAC preamps and power amps. In fact, for a bit I thought the deHavilland equipment would be replaced with VAC equipment as your reference. But when I started looking at preamps, I went back [to 2013] to see what you listed as your reference system and the deHavilland Mercury 3 and KE Model 50As were listed, but no mention of the VAC amps. So I'm curious:
Are you still as positive on the VAC Renaissance preamp as when you reviewed it? Have you concluded that the deHavilland is simply overall more musical than the VAC? Do you have any thoughts on the Herron VTSP-3A?
Thanks for your time reading through this.
First of all, thank you for getting in touch and for the kind words about my reviews. I'm glad to hear that they speak to you, especially regarding my descriptions of the music as played back by the various equipment I've had in my system. It's the pleasure of the hobby for me and the real fun in getting to use different gear is to bring out different aspects of the music I love.
I don't know the Aesthetix Calypso line stage very well except for having heard it at the shows, where it's sounded fine with Aesthetix amps and Vandersteen, Nola, and other speakers I can't offhand recall.
I'm still a big fan of VAC preamps, however, and especially of the VAC Signature IIa, with or without phono. The same goes for Herron Audio gear. The Herron M1 monoblocks have been my solid-state reference amps and VTPH-2 phono my analog reference for years.
That said, I most prefer the deHavilland Mercury 3 with the dH KE Model 50A tubed monoblocks, as I believe in system synergy. The dH electronics are my main reference equipment.
I adore the VAC preamps with the VAC Phi 200 stereo amp and I'm very intrigued by the new VAC Master preamp. And, though this was before I had the Herron M1 monos, I've had the Herron VTSP-3A preamp in my system, where it performed admirably with the KE 50As. Again, I most preferred the dH Mercury 3 with the dH KE Model 50As, however. Had I owned the Herron M1s then, I might now also own the Herron VTSP-3A right now.
The dH Mercury 3 is a very special line stage to my ears. It handles high frequencies in a supremely refined and nuanced manner, registering the sound of violins and choral and operatic singers with a special touch that I have not found bettered. The midrange is also good, and the bass definition and punch are terrific, particularly with orchestral music. It does dynamic scaling very well.
I think there are line stages with more richness in the midrange -- the Lamm LL2.1 comes to mind (which I also own) -- and likely many, many others quicker on the uptake, especially with rock bass and drumming (perhaps the Herron VTSP-3A?), but I love the synergy, slam, and sophistication of the deHavilland Mercury 3 in combination with the deHavilland KE Model 50A monoblocks. Again, these are my reference electronics. Good luck in your decision! . . . Garrett Hongo
To Jeff Fritz,
Some time ago you were kind enough to respond to a letter that I wrote regarding my experience with the Devialet D-Premier, and I was wondering if you could provide your input on another experience that I had last week. I live in Colorado and decided to attend the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest this past weekend. It was such an exciting opportunity to get to hear and see products from companies like Lansche, Wilson Audio, Soulution, YG Acoustics, Ypsilon, Transrotor, Constellation Audio, and Raidho (among the many others)!
As a relative newcomer to the audio community, I've enjoyed how accessible information about these beautiful products is and have truly appreciated the services that are springing up as offshoots of the industry; the high-resolution download sites such as Society of Sound are some of my favorite ways to discover new music now. Unfortunately, as with any online community, the audio community has its fair share of trolls. Scrolling through the comments sections on The Absolute Sound's or Stereophile's websites is always a depressing experience and one of the reasons I like the SoundStage! websites is that there aren't comment threads attached to the articles. Whether it's the question of manufacturers "ripping off" the consumers, whether cables do or don't make a difference, whether analog is inherently better than digital, whether people can hear the difference between amplifiers or whether they're just rubes being sold an expensive placebo, we have to sift through the obnoxious opinions of people far too invested in indulging their own intellectual vanity to enjoy their stated hobby on any level in order to discuss products designed to enhance our lives!
It was my assumption that this attitude was largely confined to a vocal minority that hangs out online, and that it was not representative of the industry as a whole -- call me naive, I guess. Unfortunately I did not find that to be the case while walking around RMAF. Speaking with dealers, it seems like they all hate their customers. Speaking with reviewers, it seems like they all hate the reps. Speaking with consumers, it seems like they all have their list of manufacturers that are overpriced or overhyped, and these manufacturers are apparently conspiring to rob them blind. I understand that people become jaded with experience, but this is simply going too far.
So, recognizing that there is a problem within the industry, what steps can we take to reverse it? I like that you decided to put an end to TWBAS. I think that removing some of the elitism from the discussion of these products is an excellent way to start and that promoting a willingness to compare products across a variety of price points in order to establish value is a reasonable step as well.
One thing that I believe would be beneficial, and that you may be in a position to facilitate, would be a broader dialog with the manufacturers themselves. Let's get rid of this "good ol' boys" mentality and start talking a little more about what goes into manufacturing these products, the philosophy behind their design, and their ultimate purpose: the reproduction of beautiful music. A prime example would be the head of R&D for the SAM project at Devialet: his enthusiasm for his own product is infectious and speaking with him was the most enjoyable experience I had all day yesterday. I believe that a series of well-publicized and open conversations with individuals like him would really help to re-focus people on why we love these products.
Perhaps I'm off target, but I would appreciate your opinion on these sentiments.
Man, you're on point. And you've made some excellent points that I can add little to. I do think that in any hobby there will always be some banter, even bickering, regarding this brand versus that brand and so on. It is human nature. What we have to do as press is shed light on issues such as value and absolute performance. That has the potential to cut through the noise, and is my focus in my own writing.
Ultimately what will help this industry survive are guys like you who are thoughtful in their approach to the hobby and ultimately willing to expend considerable resources to have great music reproduction in the home. From the sound of your letter, you're not likely to simply follow along with the fads of the day, which would make you eventually burn out on the high end. My advice is to keep listening, keep learning, and keep talking to folks. I certainly invite you to keep in touch with me. I look forward to hearing your ruminations as your audio journey continues. . . . Jeff Fritz
To Jeff Fritz,
I trust you are doing well.
I must confess that I never run out of steam extolling the virtues of the Rockport Technologies Aviors. They are absolutely unflappable. In fact, some of my friends remarked that they had heard the best-ever rendition of "YYZ" from Rush recreated through my system at near-concert-level volume -- the stability of the soundstage and the integrity of the system at deafening levels is astounding and moving!
This is clearly one of my finest and wisest equipment purchases to date. By the way, I continue to closely follow your articles and I have the utmost respect for your opinion.
To Jeff Fritz,
I have settled on buying Magico speakers to replace my aging Wilson Audio Specialties Sophias, but I am torn as to which model. My room is small-to-mid-sized at 14' x 17', so I know I don’t want a speaker that overwhelms it. The issue is that I still want good bass extension, so a stand-mount model is out (so no Q1). I have heard that the Q3 is superior to the S3 in terms of resolution, but what about bass extension? Both speakers are rated down to 26Hz so I don’t know what to think. Since you seem to know a lot about the Magico products, your help would be much appreciated.
The Magico Q3 ($38,950/pr.) is almost double the price of the S3 ($22,600/pr.), so in that respect these products are not direct competitors. But in terms of size, driver complement, and bass extension, they are somewhat similar. As you have pointed out, the Q3 is the more resolving speaker not only due to its cabinet construction, but also its drivers -- the Q3 has all Nano-Tec drivers, whereas the S3 has Scan-Speak-derived hybrid bass drivers. The Q3 also has a better tweeter.
In terms of bass extension, if we take Magico's specifications at their word, then both speakers will have strong bass response to below 30Hz in-room. I suspect you will get very similar results in terms of bass depth and slam with either speaker. However, I think the bass-quality advantage would be firmly in the Q3's favor -- the better drivers and cabinet are just too much for the S3 to overcome in that regard. Ultimately, I believe either speaker -- the S3 or the Q3 -- will be a significant upgrade over what you currently have. The issue is really how far you want to go. . . . Jeff Fritz
To Jeff Fritz,
I read your comments in "What I'd Buy: Loudspeakers Over $15,000" with great interest. In the more-or-less $30k/pair point there seem to be some great options. Unfortunately, my hometown of Houston, Texas, has become something of a hi-fi desert, so auditioning is hard.
My room is 23' by 30' with a ceiling that starts at 9' and slopes up. It is my living room, and except for rugs/furniture, it won't have any sound deadening. I plan to use a Trinnov for a preamp/room-correction device.
What I am really trying to ask is do you have any suggestions on how to sort through the options remotely? I am specifically asking about the TAD Evolution One, KEF Blade, Magico S5, and Rockport Avior.
This is clearly one of those can't-lose propositions. In fact, from my perspective, you've made exactly the shortlist I would have made if shopping at that price point. You're right that the $30k/pr. mark is stacked with great loudspeakers. I would go as far as to say that it is one of the most competitive price points in all of high end. The companies you've mentioned have all found ways to instil a good portion of their more expensive offerings into their $30k/pr. products, creating speakers that not only compete fiercely against one another, but, surprisingly, with more expensive models within the same companies' lines.
Unfortunately, there is no way for me to know which speaker -- out of the models you've chosen -- that you might like best. If you won’t have the ability to travel and hear them, you'll have to rely on reviews and advice from friends and perhaps a good dealer. One thing you could do is call a dealer(s) that carries two or more of the brands and ask them for their opinion. You might get some insight that way. Otherwise, just read all you can and try to ascertain which brand your sonic priorities most align with. It would be hard for me to imagine that you would be unhappy with any of the models you've chosen. The four speakers you've written me about are all winners and each would be a fine centerpiece for a very ambitious audio system. . . . Jeff Fritz
To Hans Wetzel,
I enjoyed reading your glowing review of the Sonus Faber Olympica I speakers. I own the Olympica III model and use the Hegel Music Systems H300 integrated amplifier-DAC, which is a very good match since the Hegel puts out 430Wpc into 4 ohms. Although I’m enjoying my speakers, I find on occasion they become somewhat bright at the top. I read somewhere that the speaker hook-up is important and that if one is using a standard cable setup, connecting to the top two terminals is recommended by Sonus Faber. I can’t seem to verify this but wonder if you know the preferred method: either bottom terminals with jumpers to the top, or top terminals with jumpers running to the bottom? These are excellent speakers, but do require lots of current to get the best from them.
That's a terrific system, Chris. As a fellow owner of Hegel's H300, I know that the Norwegian amp is not only very accomplished, but also powerful enough to keep up with the great majority of speakers out there. I have to say that I did not experience any brightness in the treble when I paired the Hegel with the Sonus Faber Olympica Is. I did not find the soft-dome SF tweeter to exhibit much of the sparkle or crystalline quality that one would expect to find with a metal-based tweeter. What I can say, however, is that the Hegel is, in my experience, a pretty forward-sounding amplifier. It has this quite visceral and überclean sound that distinguishes it from most other amps that I have heard. I can definitely see how this could be interpreted as bright on occasion.
As for the wiring methods you mention, SF's manual for the Olympica III seems to suggest, via illustration, that a single run of cables should be attached to the bottom pair of binding posts, not the top, as you suggest. In either event, I can't see what difference it would make so long as the included "bridges" are in place connecting the two pairs of posts -- the signal will still ultimately be routed through both sets. The only other thing I can think of is that you might be using cables that do not have a neutral disposition. The Hegel, I suspect, is the cause for the perceived occasional brightness.
Regardless, enjoy the Olympica IIIs. They are seriously some of the most beautiful speakers I've ever seen in terms of their craftsmanship and design. Combined with their resolving but easygoing sound, and generous bass output, I imagine that you derive some serious enjoyment from your system! You can expect Doug Schneider's review of the Olympica III to be posted in the coming months on SoundStage! Hi-Fi. . . . Hans Wetzel
All contents available on this website are copyrighted by SoundStage!® and Schneider Publishing Inc., unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved.
This site was designed by Rocket Theme, Karen Fanas, and The SoundStage! Network.
To contact us, please e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org