Written by: Jason Thorpe

Category: Letters

Created: 09 February 2014

To Jason Thorpe,

I enjoyed your review of the Verity Audio Amadis and am contemplating selling my Dynaudio Confidence C1 Mk. II speakers in order to buy a demo pair. Understanding that my minimonitors are only $8k/pr. versus a $32k/pr. speaker, will the Amadis blow away the Dyns in their operating range from 45Hz-20kHz? The C1s have been called world class within their realm of operation. I would be running the Veritys with the Conrad-Johnson GAT preamp and LP140 monoblock amps, along with a McCormack transport and SMc Audio Ultra DAC. All cabling is Magnan Signature. My Dyn dealer is trying to talk me into Wilson Sashas instead, but my C-J amps only put out 140W, which may not quite drive the Sashas. They would certainly drive the 93dB, 8-ohm Veritys nicely. Hoping the pairing will be spectacular!

Regards,
John

First off, I have no experience with the Dynaudios, so I can't address that area of your query.

However, Your C-J amps would most likely be an incredible match for the Amadis speakers. The Veritys just love tube power, and I think that the C-J amps' character would match in the best possible way with these speakers.

With regard to the Sashas as a possible competitor, you couldn't be looking at two more diametrically opposed sounds and camps. If you like the Amadis sound, you'd hate the Wilsons, and vice versa. Personally, I've never really heard a pair of Wilsons that I've liked. They seem to me to be very bright and spitty, and in all of my shows and auditions it seems like people are very busily talking themselves into liking the sound because they're Wilsons. But maybe that's just me.

At any rate, if I could afford my own pair of Amadis speakers, let me assure you that they would be in the top three of my retirement choices. They're speakers you won't get tired of. . . . Jason Thorpe

Written by: Ultra Reader

Category: Letters

Created: 29 January 2014

To Jeff Fritz, 

I read with much interest your excellent article on the Rockport Atria. I have a dedicated and well-treated listening room that measures 17.7' deep by 14.4' wide by 7.9' high, in which I listen to Focus Audio Master  2.5 (sporting an 11” woofer, but the bass is not very fast) speakers that have given me years of joy. However, they don’t go far enough in refinement and seem to limit the improvements I get in the rest of the system (Totaldac server and DAC directly connected to Lamm M1.2 Reference amplifiers, with everything cabled with Analysis Plus Golden Oval XLRs).

I listen to 95-percent classical music, from Mahler symphonies to Buxtehude cantatas to Bach violin solos or his organ trios.

I had a chance to listen to the Avior and found that speaker would be a considerable upgrade from my current one. But, given my taste and the treated room, I wonder if I should go for the Atria instead (I haven’t had the opportunity to audition them). 

I love the sound of the Avior, but to what degree am I going to miss out with the Atria, given my taste and treated room?

Michel

I've wondered the very same thing, especially since my review of the Atria. I spoke to Andy Payor about this subject and what he says may or may not surprise you. On the surface, the Atria seems simply like a smaller Avior in just about every respect. The Atria is a three-way design with a 1" beryllium tweeter and a 6" Rockport-designed midrange. The Avior has the same basic driver arrangement. The difference is that the Avior has a pair of 9" woofers and the Atria has a single 9" woofer. It stands to reason that the Avior would have deeper, more powerful bass than the Atria. Payor confirms this.

But I'm also told that the Avior is superior in other areas as well, and is just an overall better speaker from top to bottom. This is surprising given just a cursory look at the driver configuration. But the Avior has a much more substantial cabinet too, and I'm sure this plays a part in its claimed sonic superiority. So what does this mean for you? Given your mid-size room dimensions and the fact that your room is treated, I think the Atria would be more than enough to suit your needs. It is certainly high on refinement and will likely be a great upgrade in transparency for you. Would the Avior go even further in this regard? Perhaps. I think it would be a tight fit for your room, but if you are able to get reasonably smooth bass response, it would certainly be all the speaker I think you'd ever want or need. . . . Jeff Fritz

Written by: Ultra Reader

Category: Letters

Created: 24 January 2014

To Jeff Fritz,

I read your “What I’d Buy: Loudspeakers Over $15,000” with pleasure. As we are looking for a new set of speakers we would like to know where you would put the Magico Q5 on this list. Thanks in advance.

With kind regards,
Paul

The Magico Q5 ($65,000 USD/pr. in M-Cast finish) is currently the oldest loudspeaker design that the company makes, as it was introduced in 2010. I was super impressed by it when it was launched and it is still a formidable loudspeaker capable of very transparent sound even when compared with today's best designs. The main caveat with the Q5 is that you need a very powerful partnering power amplifier. I would want at least 500W into its 4-ohm load along with excellent drive capability in terms of minimum impedance. Given that prerequisite, I think the Q5 could easily be the heart of a state-of-the-art system.

The counter to that advice is that the newer Magico designs are less expensive and more approachable. The Q3, for example, is $38,950/pr. and is quite a bit more efficient, meaning it will require less amplifier power. I think that model would provide most of the refinement of the Q5 and bass that's almost as deep. The Q3, being a more recent design, also has a greater helping of Magico's current driver technology -- in this case, newer is better. Obviously, it is much less expensive too. Would that model satisfy you? I'm not sure. Only you can answer that question. I feel that if you are hooked on the sound of a Q-series speaker, one of the S-series speakers like the S5 will just not do it for you. If you want a Q, get a Q.

So, to sum up, the Q5 is still a great choice if your wallet and amplification are up to the challenge. But if you want to save some money and open up your amplification possibilities, then the Q3 would certainly make a fine choice. Either way you go, you really can't lose. . . . Jeff Fritz

Written by: Ultra Reader

Category: Letters

Created: 17 January 2014

To Jeff Fritz,

I would greatly appreciate a few quick words comparing the Magico Q7 to MartinLogan's CLX and/or Magnepan's 20.7, both of which I love for their large, textured, three-dimensional imaging and staging. I imagine you've heard these two, and any comments you have I'd love to hear. I am amazed and at the same time in awe of the attempts at defining the "best" speaker in the world, and my hat is off to you for declaring your choice.

Thanks,
Van

These speakers are about as different as you can get -- not the least of which is in price -- but I do understand the comparison because of some very specific things that these three loudspeakers do have in common. I'll keep my comments to the MartinLogan CLX since I've heard that speaker more times than the Magnepan 20.7.

First, the CLX sounds -- like most good electrostats, planars, and ribbons -- extremely fast and resolving. I think this has to do with the lightness of the diaphragm materials in the drivers themselves and the way these drivers couple to the air. I've heard this "quick" quality many times and it can lead to the type of imaging and soundstaging you have described. Some people call this "transparency," and though I would not completely agree with that descriptive -- because I think you must also have a neutral frequency response to be truly transparent, and I'm not sure these speakers always succeed with that -- I do know why that term is used with them.

The comparison with the Q7 is interesting because that speaker does have the subjectively quick nature of a speaker like the CLX. In that way the sound is very similar. Where the Q7 pulls away, however, is that it also has the traditional strengths of an exceptional dynamic-driver loudspeaker like low distortion, a neutral tonal balance, and weight and slam in a low end that extends extremely deep in the bass. In those senses, the Q7 marries the best of both worlds better than any other speaker in my experience. And that goes a long way in explaining why I think it is currently at the state of the art. . . . Jeff Fritz 

Written by: Ultra Reader

Category: Letters

Created: 15 January 2014

To Jeff Fritz,

I currently have Avalon speakers paired with a Paradigm Sub 1 for some bass support and home-theater use. After many years of ownership, I am considering replacing them. I recently heard the Rockport Atria, a natural and wonderful-sounding speaker that is a very tempting upgrade. Unfortunately, its single 9" woofer just does not generate enough bass to give the true impact and realism that I would expect from a speaker of this price. The Avior would likely be everything that I am looking for, but even the $21,500/pr. for the Atria is a lot of money for a hobby.

I recently purchased an Integra processor for home-theater use and spent some time playing with Audyssey. The shocking improvement it made left me in a quandary as to how to proceed. The change in sound is a large step up over the minor improvements I have heard from expensive DACs and electronics. Even though my room is well treated, room correction still makes a significant difference.

There has been quite a bit of press recently regarding the Legacy Aeris. They seem to take room correction to the next level. I am wondering what you think of these speakers and the concept of room correction within high-end audio. For someone who does not have a professionally engineered room, might the tradeoffs in a speaker like the Aeris outweigh similarly priced products such as the Rockport Atria that perform best in a near-perfect room? I would appreciate hearing your thoughts.

Thank you,
Jeff

While I agree that room correction has come a long way -- and I've tried a number of different commercially available products -- I've ultimately come back to listening without it. I know opinions vary on this subject -- heck, some of our own writers swear by it -- but it is just not for me at this point. There is always something "not right" about the sound. I'm going to keep searching though.

I have heard the Aeris at audio shows and quite liked what I heard. That's certainly not a definitive opinion on them, though, as I have not had a Legacy speaker in my current room. In fact, the only real in-my-own-room experience I've had with Legacy was a pair of Focus speakers about 20 years ago. There is a misconception regarding the Atria and the type of room it will play best in, though. The Rockport Atria is precisely the type of speaker you want if you do not have a perfect room. Andy Payor designs his speakers for smooth off-axis dispersion, meaning that the sound that reflects off your sidewalls will closely mimic what is arriving directly from the speakers. When the direct and reflected sounds combine at the listening position you will be left with an essentially neutral tonal balance. Contrast this with a speaker that has ragged off-axis dispersion and you end up with sound that is unpredictable at best, really low fidelity at worst.

If you are concerned over the bass output of the Atria, why not keep your Sub 1 and pair that with the Atria? I think that would make a terrific combination, especially for home theater. If it were me, I'd choose that option over the Aeris, though I know it appears that the Aeris offers a lot of bang for the buck and I understand only having so much to spend on this hobby. Could this be a question of quality over quantity? I simply don't know. Please do keep me informed on what you decide, and good luck. . . . Jeff Fritz

Written by: Ultra Reader

Category: Letters

Created: 02 January 2014

To Jeff Fritz,

I enjoy your site and particularly appreciate your willingness to express an opinion and to qualify it as your well-informed opinion, as opposed to some who express an opinion and expect their readers to accept it as absolute. I also appreciate your practical side, which brings me to my question. High-end audio is getting outrageously expensive. Even for the well-to-do consumer: speakers costing as much as small houses, systems as much as large houses. Add to that, every few years, on schedule in some cases, the designers have an epiphany of knowledge that brings about a radical change to their product, which brings it "to a whole new level," rendering their previous product obsolete.

For those of us who have lost interest in the ever-evolving (again, at times on a very regular schedule of every 4-5 years) "improvement" of audio equipment, what is a reasonable expected lifespan of high-end audio gear assuming that it has the appropriate care and feeding? Will a pair of Rockports or Magicos last a user 20-30 years? Can an Ayre amp still perform to its level after a similar amount of time? I use these brands only as examples; there are many other names I could put in here. When reading some reviews I will often read statements such as, "the last ***** you will ever buy." Then a few years later the upgrade comes out, which is "leagues better and raises the bar to a whole new level." Well, if I am happy now, and don't need a "whole new level," how long will my speakers last?

Thanks,
David

The best products of today will last you a very long time indeed. Let's take a look at speakers as an example. Most driver surrounds, including those made by Rockport and Magico, use rubber. In years past many drivers used foam for their surrounds and this would in fact decay over time. The rubber used today should outlast foam by a considerable margin. Same goes with the driver cones: the better drivers eschew paper in their construction for materials like carbon fiber. These high-tech cones will likely outlast you and me. I have no reservations about speakers like Rockports and Magicos and many others. I think they make for a fine long-term investment. Your estimate of 20-30 years is not farfetched.

As for electronics, it's the same situation. If we're talking about a proper design to begin with, a good amp, for instance, should last 20 years before it even needs service. You can take old Krells and Thresholds as examples: these amps of yore commonly need their main power-supply capacitors replaced after a couple of decades, but then oftentimes they are as good as new, perhaps for another 20 years or so. Compare that with any appliance or car and you can see that high-end gear is quite a good investment in terms of long-term use. The only other product I can think of that compares is a fine Swiss watch that's handed down to the next generation. Minor maintenance is required, but nothing too significant.

So to sum up, if longevity is a concern, I'd be confident that your investment in high-end audio gear is a safe one. One thing is likely: the upgrade bug will hit you long before the equipment wears out, as long as it is good equipment to begin with. . . . Jeff Fritz

Written by: S. Andrea Sundaram

Category: Letters

Created: 09 December 2013

To S. Andrea Sundaram,

I have read your article on digital vs. analog volume controls ("What’s Wrong with Digital Volume Controls?") and was wondering if you could you say something about hypersonic effect, or ultrasound-quantization noise that affects the digital system and how it affects digital and analog volume controls.

One of the reasons I never replaced my old 5.1-input analog receiver is its analog volume control, as it gives far better and smoother sound, especially at low volumes when compared to later models using a digital volume control. I have not managed to find any later-model multichannel receivers using analog volume controls. If you know of any, they would be interesting to know about, as that feature only seems to be found on two-channel amplifiers.

Thanks and best regards,
Robert

I see a few different questions here, and I'll try to answer each. The bandwidth of a digital volume control is limited to half of its sample rate -- e.g., a volume control that operates at 192kHz will not pass signals above 96kHz -- whereas the bandwidth of an analog volume control is practically infinite. That said, if your music is coming from a digital source (CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, or computer file), then it already has a strictly defined upper-frequency limit and a digital volume control operating at a sample rate as high or higher than the source will not restrict the music's frequency response. Almost all DACs have a low-pass filter on their outputs to remove the out-of-band noise that results from playing back a quantized signal; that filter is what allows them to reproduce smooth sine waves rather than stair steps. A carefully designed and built analog volume control will outperform a digital one, but the differences are generally quite small.

If the signal entering a home-theater receiver is digital, then there is little reason to eschew a digital volume control. If, on the other hand, you are connecting an analog signal, you would want to avoid additional A/D and D/A conversions by using a receiver's "source direct," or similarly named, mode. Though almost all home-theater receivers display the volume digitally, that doesn't mean that they're using digital volume controls; they are often digitally controlled analog circuits. The mass-market brands rarely state what technology they are using. Audiophile companies -- like NAD, Cambridge Audio, and Anthem -- on the other hand, are likely to list digital volume control as a feature. A knowledgeable dealer can also be of help. In the end, there are many factors affecting a component's sound, and your ears will be the best arbiters of quality. . . . S. Andrea Sundaram

Category: Letters

Created: 03 December 2013

To Jeff Fritz,

I see that you’ve had the Magico S1 listed in your system for the past year or so but I have not seen a review of this speaker by you. Your experience with Magico products, in addition to your sampling of some other exclusive brands not widely written about (such as Rockport Technologies and Kaiser), places you in a very unique position. Having said that, I would greatly appreciate any advice you could give me regarding the S1. How does it sound to you? My room is 16’ x 13’ and I plan to use the speakers with an Accuphase integrated amplifier and a music server based on a Windows laptop paired with a Bricasti DAC. I listen mainly to jazz and classical. Thank you for any advice you can give me.

Edward

The Magico S1 is a very unique loudspeaker and one that I find quite appealing. Although I am not formally reviewing it, I can tell you based on my time with it that I think it would work splendidly in your setup. Your room size and choice of electronics are just about ideal. As to how it sounds . . .

The S1 is one of the purest-sounding, most fatigue-free speakers I’ve ever had in my Music Vault listening room. Specifically, the S1 is super-easy to like because of its top-to-bottom coherence and full-bodied tonal balance, which, when combined, strike exactly the right sonic chord. First, its coherence: Unlike most three- and four-way loudspeakers, the S1’s two drivers produce a seamless sound that defies dissection. In that respect, I would think the S1 would be the ideal multi-driver speaker for someone who has found the charms of single-driver speakers, but wants to avoid the multitude of problems that those designs bring to the table (such as limitations at the frequency extremes and off-axis frequency-response anomalies, among others). The S1s truly disappear as sources of sound in my room when playing music and that makes me want to listen to them more.

Perhaps most important is the S1’s tonal balance. The S1 does not -- and I mean ever -- sound like a small two-way. You never hear thin or washed-out sound because the bass is extended low enough to provide a fulsome yet firm foundation that always satisfies. Couple that with a detailed top end and a crystal-clear midrange and you wind up with a speaker that combines all the pluses of a small minimonitor with a healthy dose of the gravitas of a three-way floorstander. The balance is just right. There are volume limitations with the S1 -- it will only play so loud -- and the bass won’t shake the foundations, but I can say that it is the most complete and listenable two-way I’ve ever had in my room. The Rolex-like build quality doesn’t hurt the experience either! . . . Jeff Fritz

Written by: Ultra Reader

Category: Letters

Created: 08 November 2013

To Jeff Fritz,

I have a basic question in reference to your review of Sonus Faber's Venere 3.0: I am a newcomer to audio systems and struggle with the specific (and unintelligible to me) "hi-fi language" that sales representatives seem to consistently use. It does not help me at all to make an informed decision.

I would like to invest (what to me represents) a significant amount of money in a first system. An avid music listener, I spend hours at home listening to all kinds of music (from hip-hop to electro over rock, funk, and jazz) at moderate volumes, on vinyl, CDs, and in digital-download formats. I also use a home-theater system for my movies (5.1 thus far: Sony STR-DN1040 receiver coupled with Q Acoustics Q7000i speakers). In the past, I have managed to listen to the Venere 2.5, which I loved. Would you have any idea how they compare to the 3.0? If not budget-constrained, which one would you go for? Also, would you know which amplifier would best pair with them (budget of up to approx. $2500 USD)? Would they work with the Sony receiver (as a start)? Finally, which cables have a good price/quality ratio fitting this system (and what, if any, would be the advantage of biamping them)?

Thank you very much in advance for any reply.

Kind regards,
Sébastian Trenner

I opted to purchase the Venere 3.0 review samples that I had in. I thought they were that good for the price and I have not regretted the decision. I would opt for them versus the 2.5s because, in my room, the added bass response was welcome. In a smaller room the 2.5s might be more than sufficient, but if your room can handle it, the 3.0s would provide deeper bass response and perhaps lower distortion due to the three-way configuration and that extra bass driver.

As to which electronics would pair best with them, I think the Sony receiver would be fine to start with. I know Sonus Faber designed the Venere series to work well with receiver-based systems. Having said that, I also think the speakers are resolving enough to warrant better electronics when possible. I would personally look at Cambridge Audio and NAD. One other option would be the new Hegel H80 integrated amplifier with built-in DAC, which retails for $2000. I bet that would be a terrific combination.

As for cables, don’t go crazy on them but do get good wires. Stick to your budget and don’t get too caught up in the hoopla. I know the budget-conscious lines from AudioQuest and Nordost are quite good. Have fun with your new system and, please, do let me know how it all works out. . . . Jeff Fritz

Written by: Ultra Reader

Category: Letters

Created: 28 October 2013

To Jeff Fritz,

I was hoping to get your opinion, your recommendation actually, regarding the Magico Q3 vs. the S5. I'm using Pass Labs gear: an XP-30 preamp, a pair of XA160.5 amps, and an XVR-1 crossover. My current speakers are a vintage pair of B&W Matrix 802 Series 3s with North Creek external crossovers, and a pair of JL Audio f112 subwoofers (hence the XVR-1). My room is 16’ x 30’ x 8’.

I'm coming to the end of an upgrade cycle (I was running an Aragon Aurum preamp and 4004 Mk.II amplifier with a Bryston crossover before) and I'm ready for new speakers. I've pretty much decided on Magico, and I'm wondering if you think I should go with the Q3s or S5s. I plan on keeping the crossover and sub setup, and I'm thinking that mating sealed-box speakers to sealed-box subs should be even more awesome than mating ported speakers with sealed-box subs. I listen to all kinds of music, from the usual audiophile stuff to rock, some classical, and jazz.

Any particular thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

Howard

In your case there is every reason to go with the Q3. As for sound quality, the Q3 is going to be the more transparent, more neutral loudspeaker, with greater resolving capability from the lowest bass to the highest treble. There are several reasons for this superiority: the Q-series products have less resonant cabinets, Magico’s Nano-Tec drivers for the woofers and mids, and more advanced beryllium tweeters. The sound of the Q3, which I had in my room, is outstanding in every regard, but there is one reason a listener might choose the S5: voicing in the bass. The S5 is richer and more fulsome in the lows and some might prefer that type of sound.

In your case, however, since you are running subwoofers (good ones I might add) with an external crossover, you have the ability to tune the bass in your room to precisely suit your tastes. Since that’s the case, I can’t see any reason -- other than cost, the Q3 is more expensive than the S5 -- to go with the S5. Lastly, the Q3 has a tasteful and elegant aesthetic that I find more visually attractive than the S5, though this is certainly in the eye of the beholder. Good luck with your choice and please let me know what you ultimately go with. . . . Jeff Fritz