Legacy link:
This new site was launched in July 2010. Visit the older site to access previous articles by clicking above.

We welcome all feedback. If you'd like to make a comment on an article or ask any questions, please e-mail feedback@soundstageultra.com. If your letter is selected for publication, your name will be printed but your e-mail address will NOT be.

To Jeff Fritz,

I have usually been pretty much simpatico with your tastes and choices in equipment and music. And ah! . . . the Music Vault . . . that qualifies as high porn in my book. (If I ever show up by your territories do not let me in the Vault. I will barricade myself in it and never come out!)

I did, however, notice that maybe you are buying a bit too much in the fallacy of the in-house-designed-and-made drivers. I am not sure we should assume that because a driver is made in-house it is intrinsically better that one from Morel or Accuton or [brand] x. Those companies have probably more expertise, capital, means, and research than do Mr. "Legend Designer.” I was going to suggest a standardized battery of measurements, but then I thought about the standardized testing and the state of our educational system and then the first margarita hit, so forget opening that Pandora’s box.

One thing that I wonder is why no one has never approached the matter of blown [drive] units. I sent my old Magnepan 1.6 for a full refurbish three years ago after my pup attacked it to get the Stereophile CD dog out. I can get a replacement tweeter for my Duevel speaker, but I was out of luck with Talon (my brother-in-law bought those pieces of %$^T). The company was unable to provide a woofer for their first-generation speaker -- and they were supposed to be built in-house. I had a friend that had problems with other elite manufacturers that could not really support their products. So, it would be interesting to know if these rarified manufacturers are able to provide a replacement tweeter or whatever for all their models, going all the way back to their first model. Notice I said replacement. I did not say they will not fix the speaker with the latest upgrade to newer drivers, crossovers, etc., costing $$$$˛ and as you said succinctly: “There should be no shortcomings."

Well, the second Prickly Pear margarita is hitting hard so I will play a mix of Cash, Callas, Harris, Merchant, Zeppelin, etc., and pretend I am in the Music Vault! Cheers and happy listening.

Zdenek Zapletal
United States

Let me clarify why in-house-made drivers are important. Here’s the shocker: It has nothing to do with the drivers themselves. I agree with you that we should not assume that a driver made by a company that sells finished loudspeakers would necessarily be any better than those drivers that could be purchased from any number of specialist driver manufacturers, such as Accuton and Morel. The key, in my mind, is that the company can actually make their own drivers. This means there is sufficient engineering resources within the company to do the not-uncomplicated task of designing a loudspeaker drive unit from the ground up. This task is, arguably, more complex than building the finished product. If that engineering acumen is present in a firm, it leads me to surmise that the company can also design a finished speaker with a high level of expertise. If a company can’t make, for example, their own midrange drive unit, just how skilled are they in the finer points of finished-loudspeaker design?

The other consideration is getting exactly the driver that’s best for the job. Companies such as Accuton and Scan-Speak will make custom drive units and can modify existing types to suit the needs of many speaker makers. But when a company such as Magico, Vivid, KEF, Rockport, or TAD can make exactly the driver they need for the product they’re designing, they have a fundamental advantage of not having to rely on a third party to meet their very specific needs. Which may not happen anyway.

So, ultimately, whether the driver that, for instance, Vivid Audio makes for their Giya G1 is better than a comparably sized model from Scan-Speak, is irrelevant. The Vivid driver was designed precisely for that Giya loudspeaker, and that exact driver could not have been bought from, literally, any other company in the world.

I agree fully that companies need to be able to replace a drive unit when one fails. You’re spot-on with that one. . . . Jeff Fritz

To Jeff Fritz,

First off, I just wanted to let you know that I am a big fan of yours. I've been following your reviews for years, but this is my first correspondence to you.

I just read your "Opinion" article, "Superspeaker Analysis: My Current Take on the Top Brands," and was wondering why the 180 on Wilson Audio? The last few articles you had stated that that brand was a far cry from the current SOTA [state of the art]. Thanks in advance for your time and hopefully a response.

Stephen Wong

I haven't made a 180 per se. But I have come to realize that, truly, it's not all about the sound when buying gear. Of course, great sound quality is critical, but to discount factors such as after-sales support is shortsighted. Would I buy the best-sounding loudspeaker in the world if I knew there were no replacement parts and no one could repair it in the case of a component failure? No, I wouldn't. Although you don't buy a superspeaker strictly as a financial investment, there is no denying that an owner is quite invested in the product -- financially and otherwise. I just happen to think that Wilson Audio is one of the safer brands to buy from -- they have been around for a long time and have an excellent track record for supporting their products worldwide. I still prefer the sound of speakers from several other brands to that of any Wilson speaker I have heard, but can easily understand why one would buy a Wilson product considering all the factors that go into a buying decision of the superspeaker magnitude. . . . Jeff Fritz

To SoundStage! Ultra,

I would like to thank Peter Roth for his informative review of the Ayre MX-R Twenty mono amps. It was excellent. However, I would like to ask for Jeff Fritz's opinion of the Ayre MX-R Twenty monos on their own and when coupled with the KX-R Twenty. I ask this as Jeff has stated he felt the Soulution 711 was the best-sounding amp he has heard to date. As I am interested in the Ayre R-series components, I would like to know his thoughts as compared to Soulution (and Devialet). I am considering this kit to pair with my [Rockport Technologies] Altair 2 speakers.

As it is difficult for me to compare products against each other, providing this comparison information is invaluable. Thank you for the informative reading.

Thank you,
Frankie D. 
United States

I have not heard the MX-R Twenty amplifiers, so I cannot provide you with that information. I have lived with the KX-R Twenty and the original MX-Rs, however, and the Soulution and Devialet products, as you state. To begin with, I believe you can assemble a state-of-the-art stereo system around any of these three electronics brands. Each will provide a different sound: in short, the Ayres are defined by their midband purity and overall liquid sound; the Soulution products have tremendous resolution and unmatched control across the audioband; the Devialet amplifiers I have heard have a tomb-like silence and profound bass response. What does that mean for you?

The Rockport Technologies Altair 2 is a very high-resolution, full-range speaker. It is rated at 4 ohms, and has bass response down to 20Hz. You will therefore require a stout amplifier to get the best sound out of a pair of them. In short, I think you're looking in the right direction, because all three of the contenders you mention can drive that loudspeaker load and are quiet enough to allow the resolution potential of the Altair 2 to shine through. So you have a good list.

I realize that the descriptions I provided are generalizations, and are not likely to provide you with enough information to make a buying decision. There are other factors besides sound, of course, to consider as well: a Soulution 711-based system with the matching preamp plus source will cost north of $100,000. An Ayre R-series setup will be about half of that. A Devialet 400-based system will cost half again still. Big difference in prices. There are tremendous functional differences, too, especially with the Devialet products. These are not cut-and-dried, apples-to-apples comparisons.

You'll have to weigh all of these factors when making this decision. What I can say for sure is that, regardless of which way you go, you'll have an outstanding stereo system. . . . Jeff Fritz

To Jeff Fritz,

I observed the latest comments on Devialet with a big smile, having now a pair of Phantom speakers for some months. I guess the problem that arises with the concept of this active point-source speaker is based on the fact that this design approach challenges the classical business model of hi-fi manufacturers. This old-fashioned business model is focused on the status and image aspects resulting in "the bigger the better," meaning "the more expensive the better" or "only size matters."

This marketing concept allows for an endless path for upgrading/modifying a system, including any kind of tweaks. The cable hype is a good example here. Or the power regenerators and filters.

Looking now to Devialet's concept there is only one way for sound improvement: software updates! A similar concept was the laser turntable from Final, today produced by ELP Corp., Japan.

If this concept ever convinced the reviewers it would have ruined the manufacturers of turntables and tonearms/pick-ups. No distributor or dealer would be interested! Thus, barriers against market entrance have to be built! As you might already assume, I also own an ELP laser turntable.

But I also favor the idea of “chacun à son goût” and everybody should follow his hobby as he likes!


To Jeff Fritz,

I was taken aback with your comments that the new [Magico] S7 is much better than the Q5 ["Sampling High End 2015's Best Loudspeakers"]. I haven't listened to the S7, but I'm in the market, potentially, for a Q5 and have my eye on one.

I thought the Q was kind of superior to the S in general. I also like the relatively smaller dimensions of the Q5, but your comment is making me think twice.

Have you listened to the S7 and Q5 back to back?

Thanks for your help,

I think most listeners will prefer the S7, and here's why: first, the new tweeter. If the diamond-coated beryllium tweeter in the Q7 Mk II is any indication, the new dome profile and material advances incorporated in the S7 will provide a clear upgrade over the older Q5's tweeter. When I heard the S7s in Munich, there was an ease in the treble that, when coupled with the incredible resolution, was impossible not to love. Second, three 10" woofers. The S7 will no doubt play lower and louder in the bass than the Q5 (which has 9" drivers). As I said in my article, the S7 had bass that started and stopped on a dime. The Q5 does that, too, but the S7 can simply move more air. Then there's the new midrange material . . . and the greater sensitivity . . . and on and on.

All told, the S7 represents the latest thinking from Magico. When you consider the aforementioned material advances, as well as their latest crossover technology, in this case newer is definitely better. The Q5 was a great speaker five years ago, but in the world of Magico it's yesterday's news. And, no, I have not heard them back-to-back in the same system. . . . Jeff Fritz 

To Jeff Fritz,

I read your piece with interest about Devialet and Tidal in which you questioned whether they had lost their high-end way. Please allow me to share my perspective.

The jury is not only not out on the newest Devialet product, it hasn't even heard the evidence. (Actually a few have heard it, albeit at Devialet or at shows and were impressed, but they have not published formal reviews so far.) Even if the Phantom is merely a "lifestyle" product, if it allows Devialet to remain profitable and supplies R&D money for new hi-fi technology or expansion of the SAM program, then that's not a bad thing. All it has really to do is look and sound like at least a $4500 stereo. I have little doubt it does. "One day, everyone will own a Devialet" they say. Well, maybe they really do want it to be possible for anyone of at least moderate means to own one of their products and be pleased. Will the 200 become any less attractive if its maker also offers technologically advanced products that are not the highest of high fidelity? I would hope that people with their egos in check wouldn't feel that way. Has Devialet perhaps declined to provide reviews samples to audiophile journals in favor of publications with much larger readership? I could understand that strategy if they already know that their latest kit might not pass muster for whatever reason, valid or not, with some of the pickiest of the picky but would be an object of desire and admiration for a far larger part of the population. On the other hand, maybe the Phantom can play in much of the audiophile and lifestyle populations just fine. Time will tell, as you say. And I hope you get a review sample, soon.

Tidal faced a predicament. On the vast majority of stereos and ears, the distinction between 16/44.1 and 320kbps is neither detectable nor relevant. An arguably modest delta in sound quality is a hard thing to sell when it resonates with too few people to matter. Tidal needs millions or tens of millions of subscribers to ensure its future. If focusing on music-biz personalities makes the company viable while it continues to offer CD-quality streaming, then audiophiles will win, too. If Tidal focuses on audiophiles primarily, it will vanish and perhaps almost did.

The lesson here is that those at the top of the food chain still need the food chain.

Respectfully submitted,
Brad Potthoff
United States

To Erich Wetzel,

I’ve just enjoyed your excellent review of the Rogue Audio RP-5 preamp and I wonder if you could share your findings after having listened to both the Rogue and the Hegel Music Systems P20. I’m the happy owner of a Hegel H20 power amplifier that drives a pair of Amphion Xenons. I’m thinking of replacing my aged Musical Fidelity F25 preamp and I would sincerely appreciate your opinion concerning their advantages and disadvantages since we seem to share similar tastes in music. I really look forward to your reply.

George Gavalas

My view depends more on what you prefer rather than an absolute opinion that one of the two preamplifiers is better than the other. I found both the Rogue RP-5 and the Hegel P20 to be excellent preamplifiers. Both of them are quite musical. Both of them exhibit the typical sound subtleties associated with their circuit designs. Both of them feel well made and come from companies with very good reputations. Yet there are subtle differences.

The Rogue RP-5 is a great way to bring the subtle nuances of tubes into your system if that’s what you are looking to do. As I indicated in the review, the tube-type sound was more modest than my previous reference, the Audio Research LS15, but still there. Mostly, the Rogue gave a bit of warmth to my system’s sound, but that aspect of its performance was neither overwhelming nor detrimental to the overall presentation.

The Hegel P20 should pair well with your Hegel amplifier and provide the continuity of the “house sound” that you are already familiar with. If your musical taste leans towards electronic, you will be rewarded by the P20’s high neutrality, precision, and accuracy. You definitely won’t hear a tube-type sound from it.

I don’t believe that it would be fair to suggest that there would be a disadvantage in selecting either option here. To me, it is more about the subtle differences in the sound and which you might prefer. So definitely listen to both if you can arrange it.

If listening is not an option, and making the assumption that your proclivities in sound and tastes in music are similar to mine, as you mentioned, I would lean towards the Hegel for your system, simply because you already own the H20 amp. . . . Erich Wetzel

To Jeff Fritz,

Your review of the Soulution 711 amplifier was a great read. As fate would have it, I have an opportunity to audition the Soulution 711 and 725 preamp in the coming weeks and it will be with Raidho and Gauder Akustik speakers. I feel I'm answering my own question, but I am wondering what your thoughts would be on pairing the Soulution combo with Magico S7s! And, I know how you feel about the Soulution with the genre of music in your review, but how do feel about the 711 shaking the walls with some rock’n’roll?

Look forward to your thoughts, and thanks for all the great reads!

United States

Magico and Soulution have an especially good synergy. I can’t imagine why an S7/711/725-based system would not perform to an incredibly high level, perhaps even state of the art. The particular system you describe, assuming I could afford it, would definitely be something I would shoot for. I also believe the Magico S7, as driven by the Soulution 711/725 combination, could easily do rock music justice -- or any music for that matter. I have the 711 powering Magico Q7 Mk II speakers currently and this system has simply no practical limitations. The 711 is a true powerhouse, and the Magicos can take the power and will respond in kind with high output levels.

So, my opinion is to tell you to go for it. Although I’ve seen some crazy things in this hobby, I can’t conceive of a scenario where you would be disappointed. . . . Jeff Fritz

To Jeff Fritz,

I just read your Soulution 711 review, and while the review contents were superbly done, I have to comment on the fact that the photographs were amazing.

Bravo -- great job as always.

Best wishes,
Mark Schifter
United States

Thank you for the kind words. As much as I'd like to take responsibility for the photos, though, these were supplied by Soulution. I agree they are excellent. You would be surprised at how many companies do not have proper photos of their products. It happens all the time. . . . Jeff Fritz

To Jeff Fritz,

I trailed ’round the same sets of speakers [“Sampling High End 2015’s Best Loudspeakers”]: Tidal, Marten, [Magico] S7 [and] Q7 Mk II, etc., and wrote notes saying almost exactly the same as yours (as copied to the Magico site)!

Great ears hear alike . . .

I use S5, would like S7, but suspect that in the UK they will be too costly and too heavy to move around. Still, when do you get to review them?

Kind regards,
Martin Colloms
United Kingdom

Thanks so much for the note. I’m a big fan of yours. I think your early Krell reviews were what hooked me on becoming an audio writer. They were masterful.

I have Q7 Mk IIs in now for review. Super fun to say the least! So no S7s . . .

Thanks for your letter. . . . Jeff Fritz