2012 California Audio Show

[tube fan]

First impressions:

Tubes and turntables everywhere! Yes, digital and ss suck (and have sucked from the very beginning). Now the high end seems to accept this manifest fact.

Worst sound: again the MBL room ran away with the award for the worst sound: 1,000 watt ss amps, inefficient speakers, and digital sources. Pure crap!

Electrocompaniet room: using analogue tape as a source, their system was impressive: detailed and effortless. The system was not cheap, except for the tape deck (under $1,000).

Music Lovers (Wilson room): Better than last year, but not my cup of tea. I got them to play a 45 vinyl record of the stupendous "Adagio d'Albinoni" record (Gary Karr on double-bass and Harmon Lewis on organ), and the sound fell short of what I hear via either my Fulton J or Dunlavy SCIV speakers. The organ sound was wimpy. The double bass lacked impact, and the organ did NOT fill the room. No goosebumps here! In contrast, the same record via the Teresonic $15,000 speaker was amazing at the 2010 CAS.

Magico: When they were playing vinyl, the room was full, and everything sounded great (except for the reticent bass which seems to be a constant in all Magico speakers).

Music Lovers (Vivid room): I preferred this room to the more expensive Music Lovers room. Still not cheap, but I was very impressed by several vinyl tracks (from Dead can Dance and Chet Baker). A relaxed, dynamic sound.

Kef room: Very good, but not great. Sound lacked dynamics on my Chet vinyl.

Audio Space: OK, RGA was right, and I was wrong about this company. Using a $4,000 integrated 300b amp (the Reference 3.1) and their version of the LS-3/5A speaker (with sub-woofer), the sound was simply amazing: clear, detailed, dynamic (!), and tonally correct. For those of limited means, these are a must listen.

Zu Audio: I liked nothing about this room: harsh, brash, and lacking in micro-dynamics. Not as bad as the MLB room, so there is that.

Focal room: Very impressive sound via their $32,500 Scala Utopia speaker and analogue tapes. Effortless, clear, and tonally accurate. Perhaps the bass could have been tighter (but, yes, here I am being very picky). Not only have turntables made a comeback, but so too have analogue tape decks!!!

Audio Note: Finally they brought a tt! However, the vinyl I got them to play (a cut from the "Chet" record), was very good, but not great. A trumpet, heard live, has tremendous impact. Here, Chet's trumpet was too restrained. Ditto for Pepper Adams's baritone sax. A sax, recorded properly, and played back through a top notch system, has fantastic punch and body. This record sounded better via the Teresonic, Acapella, and Magico speakers (and, yes, via either my Fulton Js or my Dunlavy SCIVs).

Tad: A complete failure. I expected to be impressed, but the sound was average at best! Perhaps the system was not set up properly.

Sonist/deHavilland: Now that's what I'm talking about!!! Effortless, detailed, dynamic (both micro and macro), tonally accurate, and just plain BEAUTIFUL!!! Yes, via analogue tapes, using the wonderful Kara Chaffee model 222 vacuum tube magnetic tape playback preamp and the Mercury preamp and the KE-50A amp, the sound just melted my heart! A system that combined both accuracy and musicality!

[RGA]

So far we agree on some and disagree on some.

Audio Note - We largely agree - This is the least good I have heard them sound - at least the most inconsistent that I have heard them sound. Mario plays an eclectic assortment of stuff and I find there to be some bass boom on certain recordings. I feel it is because they're doing a half-measure position. They can't get the speaker in the corner - nowhere close to a corner for that matter - 3-4 feet away. What they should do is simply pull them out and place them as regular free standing speakers - but he has them up against the side walls hoping to retain that reflection but it's not sounding like it should. But they also have not been delivered their stands as promised and for some time had to have them on the floor. yikes. Hope Sunday can get better. I went 5 to 6pm on Saturday and he played Louis Armstrong LP 59 recording on Realistic (cheap lp) and it was stunning and he played Super Trio drum music which was utterly terrific - but it's still not what it should be in terms of scale.

Electrocompaniet's room with Nordic Voice speakers and the tape was excellent - one of the best rooms so far. Agree - also liked their second room with the Broadman speakers (formerly Bosendorfer speakers) - they know something about cabinets.

Also agree with turntables - in every room where vinyl and CD was played the turntables have roundly and utterly trumped the CD/SACD or computer playback/DSD - not even remotely close. That actually surprised me somewhat because it's usually not such a drubbing. I brought a very well recorded German test disc of the highest resolution - I played some cuts in the Kef blade room. Next went on jazz LP (I believe it was you in fact - as it was Chet - (if you were wearing a hat). Anyway the LP destroyed my super audio recording which is about as good as CD gets.

Granted this was the second biggest Clearaudio Table with $30k+ pricing.

Wilson - doesn't sound cohesive - it plays loud big deal - not a fan of them at the last show. Big loud but all over for me.

Magico's big room is good. But the price!

Magico's smaller speaker $26,500 - umm no. Sorry but My J kicks's it's ass all day everyday on any music on any facet of sound. $5k. absurd. That goes for every other standmount that size at this show for over $10k. Whaaat?

Vivid was ok - I will try them again. Marks was right - they have an accurate quality but doesn't lose the musicality - I need another go to be sure.

Sony - turntable was a lot better than CD but a big fail here - they sounded terrific on Pass Labs and EMM labs at CES but one of the worst rooms - the Luxman stuff has everything sounding crammed between the speaker and no image height - blah.

Sonist Dehavilhand and tape gave me a big headache - somewhat screechy treble. Nowhere near as good as CES - but I was tired when I went in and didn't like the music being played which was old fogy music - I'm not old - play something someone under 60 was alive to hear.

Zu Audio sounded poor - what they played was new and interesting but badly recorded on a not very good Technics 1200 player. No dynamics and shouty. ZU is miles better in HK on CD - so that tells you something.

Tannoy Prestige - quite hard sounding - again like AN needs a corner and they don't have a corner - they too should be one of the best at this show and are not.

YG Acoustics - hated them before - Really enjoyed them here. Very impressive sound - start stop bass action is truly amazing and not bright - I played my stuff - and Jackson Browne's Pretender (acoustic vol 1) comes out very clean with just enough emotion - a little on the sterile side - a good tube amp could fix that up. Lot of potential here. This is a system I would normally hate - but so far it's in my top 4.

Focal Room - also in my top 4 so far. Tape is amazing - Bob Hodas room treatments work - quietest room at the show - set up brilliantly - focal has always been roundly unimpressive to me. But the treatments and the fact that girl running the room who is a mastering engineer at Reference recordings brought her system and raised the speakers ten inches has now lifted the tweeter to ear height. It goes against recommended positioning of the manufacturer - she knows more than them it would seem. Sounds way better - less bass but cleaner and more accurate and musical - thanks again to tape.

Best room so far for me and it's not close is Acoustic Zen and Triode. I wish they had vinyl or tape because their CD is limiting - and despite that the body warmth and impressive phase is all day listenable - had the same Jackson track here and it brought a tear - everyone was floored by the piano reproduction to wow's - so darn good and at $16k for the speakers (expensive) but far less expensive than most speakers here and it has an almost faultless sound.

Maybe my biggest disagreement is on MBL - they're in the top 4 for me. It took my ear to adjust and only in one seat did they truly shine but I had a few wow moments.

[tube fan]

The Acoustic Zen room used only digital, and to my ears, the sound suffered from that: too bright, lacking in micro dynamic shadings, and harsh. Loud? Yes. Clear? Yes. Musical NO!

[tube fan]

Even on day three, the Magico boys still had the channels reversed!!! What can you expect for $500,000!!! Surely blind tests could reveal the correct channels! Note, no one told them that they had the channels reversed! At last year's show, fully 30% of the rooms had the channels reversed on day one.

[tube fan]

Final ratings:

Sonist, just like last year. The system had everything I want: effortless, detailed, and MUSICAL sound.

Vivid: Even better than last year: clearer, with more detail, and great tonality.

Focal: Using the Tape Project's analogue tapes as their source, they produced a big sound with everything but a tight bass. Every Focal speaker I have heard has a too loose bass response, at least, for my ears.

Magico: fantastic sound, despite having the channels reversed.

Audio /Vision room with the Kef version of the 3/5. About $1,300 for the speakers. Using Unison Research amplification and analogue sources.

[RGA]

Last day of the show I auditioned the Sonist room again and it was a massive step up although soundstage and imaging were off - vocal came from both the right and left side (likely due to the off positioning) and the voice is supposed to come from the left side - it was all over the place. Still everything else about them I liked and I recommended them a few times to people looking for sanely priced gear.

Another star room for me was Von Gaylord - Tremendous emotion and lush depth without boom. I wish I heard them earlier in the show but they had Diana Krall playing which is an automatic leave the room for me (as is pretentious music like Patricia Barber) It's unlistenable after awhile.

I do agree in part on Acoustic Zen - would like them to use a turntable - but for me I have the ability to project what a turntable would do. Ditto MBL. Some of the rooms with both CD and turntable or tape the turntable was about 200% better. Now add that 200% better to some of these rooms without the turntable and "imagine" what they could do.

Acoustic Zen and Von Gaylord used relatively inexpensive CD and managed to better the overall sound in more expensive rooms with turntables and with tape. Adding a turntable would be even a bigger spread better.

I heard a lot of rooms sound worse here than usual and I am not totally sure why that was. Some rooms sounded better but not as many.

[tube fan]

Last day of the show I auditioned the Sonist room again and it was a massive step up although soundstage and imaging were off - vocal came from both the right and left side (likely due to the off positioning) and the voice is supposed to come from the left side - it was all over the place. Still everything else about them I liked and I recommended them a few times to people looking for sanely priced gear.

Another star room for me was Von Gaylord - Tremendous emotion and lush depth without boom. I wish I heard them earlier in the show but they had Diana Krall playing which is an automatic leave the room for me (as is pretentious music like Patricia Barber) It's unlistenable after awhile.

I do agree in part on Acoustic Zen - would like them to use a turntable - but for me I have the ability to project what a turntable would do. Ditto MBL. Some of the rooms with both CD and turntable or tape the turntable was about 200% better. Now add that 200% better to some of these rooms without the turntable and "imagine" what they could do.

Acoustic Zen and Von Gaylord used relatively inexpensive CD and managed to better the overall sound in more expensive rooms with turntables and with tape. Adding a turntable would be even a bigger spread better.

I heard a lot of rooms sound worse here than usual and I am not totally sure why that was. Some rooms sounded better but not as many.

Yes, you are probably correct in your pumping up the rating of digital based systems. Acoustic Zen could well have been special with a good analogue source. They were using an SET amp, if I remember correctly. I just have a hard time liking any digital system. The only time I was actually impressed with a digital sourced system was at the 2010 CAS: An AN E speaker pared with the fantastic Jinro integrated amp (unfortunately, about $30,000). Audio Space and Unison Research are making affordable SET amps. At the 2010 CAS, Audio Note had a room that allowed them to come close to ideal placement, but I suspect that the Jinro contributed much to the musical sound. The Sonist room was better last year when using a deHavilland SET amp. This year they were using a 40 watt triode amp. I was stunned at the sound of the KEF 50 with the Unison Research SET amp. Both my Chet and Billie Holiday vinyl records sounded better in the Audio/Vision Kef 50 room than they did via the $500,000 Magico system. Look out for both the Kef 50 and Unison Research. Both are affordable and great sounding.

[RGA]

The problem with the Sonist was that I have a recording where male voice is supposed to come from the left channel - it was coming out both channels and it created a pseudo center fill - something wasn't right - they're position was off center but it wasn't what was on the disc. For the money they're great but I am less convinced across a much wider range of music that they're beating the better rooms.

On that note however I wasn't thrilled with the prices of stuff. Even Vivid which I liked didn't carry big emotional impact - at $40,000 for the speakers - Von Gaylord speakers and Acoustic Zen on the same CD carried more emotional weight on Jackson Browne's "Pretender" piano piece acoustic Vol 1 album and these speakers were $13k and $16k using tube amps and digital.

The Vivid room had the turntable trump card - but the Von Gaylord and Acoustic Zen room had the SET amp trump card.

Vivids win on large scale large volume music - on small scale - singer/instrument which is a significant portion of what I listen to the Vivids would need a lot of help for me to rave about them. Then again all those rooms were crap with the fake side walls.

[tube fan]

The problem with the Sonist was that I have a recording where male voice is supposed to come from the left channel - it was coming out both channels and it created a pseudo center fill - something wasn't right - they're position was off center but it wasn't what was on the disc. For the money they're great but I am less convinced across a much wider range of music that they're beating the better rooms.

On that note however I wasn't thrilled with the prices of stuff. Even Vivid which I liked didn't carry big emotional impact - at $40,000 for the speakers - Von Gaylord speakers and Acoustic Zen on the same CD carried more emotional weight on Jackson Browne's "Pretender" piano piece acoustic Vol 1 album and these speakers were $13k and $16k using tube amps and digital.

The Vivid room had the turntable trump card - but the Von Gaylord and Acoustic Zen room had the SET amp trump card.

Vivids win on large scale large volume music - on small scale - singer/instrument which is a significant portion of what I listen to the Vivids would need a lot of help for me to rave about them. Then again all those rooms were crap with the fake side walls.

My Billie Holiday vinyl cut and the "Chet" one sounded the best in the Vivid room, and that's NOT large scale large volume music by any means. BTW, I have NEVER been impressed by a recording of a full symphony going all-out. Even in the Sonist and Focal rooms, at this year's show, when they played tapes of symphonic music, the sound was compressed and bright (compared to what you hear live in concert). At home I listen to pop, house, and trance at live levels, but accuracy is not that crucial to the enjoyment of those kinds of music.

Playing pop music loud, the Acoustic Zen WAS impressive, and, yes, those SET amps probably contributed much to that sound. 40 watts of SET amplification is enough to drive any sensibly designed speakers (no, NOT the MBLs).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I hate that I missed this show, but I won't next year if it's around.

I am somewhat disappoint in the lack of diversity of observations and comments. These comments sound like the same person talking to themselves. Surely not all of the digital and SS setups sounded bad, and not all of the tube, tape and vinyl demo's where perfect.

[tube fan]

I hate that I missed this show, but I won't next year if it's around.

I am somewhat disappoint in the lack of diversity of observations and comments. These comments sound like the same person talking to themselves. Surely not all of the digital and SS setups sounded bad, and not all of the tube, tape and vinyl demo's where perfect.

Yes, ALL the digital and ss sucked!!! DUH!!! Fortunately turntables and analogue tape decks were everywhere as were tubes. 15 years ago, all you heard at audio shows was crapy digital and ss. Now, analogue and tubes are just KILLING ss and digital!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yes, ALL the digital and ss sucked!!! DUH!!! Fortunately turntables and analogue tape decks were everywhere as were tubes. 15 years ago, all you heard at audio shows was crapy digital and ss. Now, analogue and tubes are just KILLING ss and digital!

Tube fan, your biases are well known, and I guess I was stupid for expecting a more ojbective perspective from you.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Yes, ALL the digital and ss sucked!!! DUH!!! Fortunately turntables and analogue tape decks were everywhere as were tubes. 15 years ago, all you heard at audio shows was crapy digital and ss. Now, analogue and tubes are just KILLING ss and digital!

Just kinda curious, is there anymore room for tubes were your head is up?

[RGA]

I hate that I missed this show, but I won't next year if it's around.

I am somewhat disappoint in the lack of diversity of observations and comments. These comments sound like the same person talking to themselves. Surely not all of the digital and SS setups sounded bad, and not all of the tube, tape and vinyl demo's where perfect.

Sir T

The turntables and tape in the same room against their digital was a drubbing. Even Bob Hodas brought a tape that killed their other format - and his room was the best actual "room" in terms of treatments and one of the best for sound quality.

But that is not the same as saying digital rooms sounded bad. MBL and YG Acoustics were in my top 5 and both rooms ran nothing but digital. Other show reports have already chosen MBL best of show - they ran CD and computer based only.

And to be fair many of the turntable rooms were using $30K+ tables and much cheaper CD players.

But the all digital MBL room sounded better than the turntable based Wilson, Sony, Magico, Vivid, Kef, Tannoy rooms on the first floor. Vinyl dramatically improved those systems over their digital but it wasn't enough against MBL and their CD. If the MBL could improve 100% like some of those other rooms did with vinyl or tape then MBL would have to be considered as one of the best systems available - if not already.

[tube fan]

Sir T

The turntables and tape in the same room against their digital was a drubbing. Even Bob Hodas brought a tape that killed their other format - and his room was the best actual "room" in terms of treatments and one of the best for sound quality.

But that is not the same as saying digital rooms sounded bad. MBL and YG Acoustics were in my top 5 and both rooms ran nothing but digital. Other show reports have already chosen MBL best of show - they ran CD and computer based only.

And to be fair many of the turntable rooms were using $30K+ tables and much cheaper CD players.

But the all digital MBL room sounded better than the turntable based Wilson, Sony, Magico, Vivid, Kef, Tannoy rooms on the first floor. Vinyl dramatically improved those systems over their turntables - but it wasn't enough against MBL and their CD. If the MBL could improve 100% like some of those other rooms did with vinyl or tape then MBL would have to be considered as one of the best systems available - if not already.

If you think the MBL room sounded good (much less the best at the show!) using their 1,000 watt ss amp, inefficient speakers, and digital sources, then you should reevaluate your preference for low power tube amps, especially SET amps, and analogue sources. I suspect that you listen to a lot of pop and rock, and tonal beauty is not a major concern with much of that type of music. The MBLs were clear (on the attack of notes), and were being played LOUD, LOUD, yes, VERY LOUD. They did NOT capture either the accurate decay of notes, or, of course, the beauty that is at the heart of the type of music I love. BTW, the MBL sound is the exact opposite of the Audio Note sound which you purport to love. The EXACT OPPOSITE!!! BTW, I talked to several attendees at the show who agreed that the MBL room was, by far the worst. Of course, we all have different reality triggers, but I simply don't understand how your reality triggers are pulled by such dissimilar sounds as the MBL and Audio Note.

[tube fan]

Call me crazy, but I demand that any good audio system MUST reproduce the tonal beauty present in my favorite music.

[RGA]

I don't walk the halls playing one track and basing all my decisions upon how it does that one track. I listen to Ella, Miles, Peterson, Charles, Wes Montgomery, Metheny, an assortment of vocal, guitar, jazz.

It just so happens that that's not all I listen to. I listen to everything. How much of what results in my choices.

And I liked Tape at CAS but I doubt I can buy a tape for more than 2% of my collection.

[tube fan]

I don't walk the halls playing one track and basing all my decisions upon how it does that one track. I listen to Ella, Miles, Peterson, Charles, Wes Montgomery, Metheny, an assortment of vocal, guitar, jazz.

It just so happens that that's not all I listen to. I listen to everything. How much of what results in my choices.

And I liked Tape at CAS but I doubt I can buy a tape for more than 2% of my collection.

And yet, your favorite room was comprised of a horribly inefficient speaker, 1,000 watt ss amps, and digital sources. IMO, the sound was bright, strident, harsh, and, yes, LOUD. I REPEAT: you claim to love low power tube amps, efficient speakers, and analogue sound, and yet you liked the "music" in the MBL room! Talk about being inconsistent! I used ten vinyl records in my evaluation of the various rooms, not one cut. Plus, I listened for many hours to vinyl records others brought. Did I listen to digital? As little as possible!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Call me crazy, but I demand that any good audio system MUST reproduce the tonal beauty present in my favorite music.

So your perspective decides what constitutes tonal beauty. What about what is accurate? How do you get tonal beauty off of an inaccurate medium? Anyone who has ever cut a vinyl record will tell you that vinyl colors the sound of the original master tapes.

When I read what you post, I am convinced that Euphoric listening is more important than trueness to te source.

[YBArcam]

OP's point of view on ss and digital just seems way too overzealous and unbalanced. At least RGA, who may not be the biggest fan of those approaches, understands there are good examples of each and doesn't let bias totally cloud his POV.

I have gone from one ss/digital system to another with a big improvement in timbre and tone, where music just feels real and alive, with a nice sense of space around each part. While perhaps tubes and analog would do this better it's pretty much guaranteed that they'd also do some things worse. I want my system to be well rounded, to be able to play everything that I throw at it convincingly. And I'm proud to say that it can do this for a very modest sum of money relatively speaking. This change convinced me that I didn't have to spend more to get better sound, and it definitely shows that one ss amp and CD player doesn't sound like another (OP seems to think they all sound the same and it's the same way they sounded back in 1986).

I also happen to believe that, as long as a piece of equipment is well made, it can sound good. Just because you hear an amp or speakers sound poor doesn't mean that they would sound as bad in another system, in another room, and set up differently. Were the proper things done to maximize the performance of a system when you heard it? I think my Naim gear sounds incredible, however two of the three demos in which I've heard a Naim system sounded very poor! Kind of bright, seemingly lacking in the lower frequencies needed to give warmth and foundation to music. That's not how my system sounds at all.

All that said, I'm going to try a tube amp this fall/winter. And I actually just purchased a tube phono stage (the Synthesis Brio, with two 12ax7 tubes). Not a pricey unit at all, but I gather nicely designed and built (in Italy) and 12ax7 tubes are supposed to sound quite nice. So yes, I do spin vinyl and while I need to do a bit more on that front to get the setup up to snuff, I've never had a better sounding source than my CD5X.

[Poultrygeist]

I'm sold on the combination of both ss and triodes in my multi-amping approach to OB.

[RGA]

tube fan

With your love in with Fremer because he "knows the absolute sound and hi-fi and accuracy" and hate for Art because Art likes musical instead of accuracy then I can't figure why you didn't like MBL.

Fremer on MBL

"Why belabor the point? No box above the bottom octaves and a 360° radiating pattern should produce imaging and soundstaging superior to that of any boxed or planar speaker, and once the speakers had been placed properly, the 101E Mk.IIs did just that, reproducing with eerie verisimilitude recordings of large orchestras as well as of small ensembles in intimate settings, such as a superb-sounding reissue of Johnny Hartman's I Just Dropped By to Say Hello (LP, Impulse!/ORG 176). The sound was intimate and properly sized, and produced Hartman's baritone with a natural warmth free of congestion or bloat."

Renders ALL panels and direct radiators like your speakers as piles of crap.

"The speakers' presentation of physical instruments and musicians in space required no suspension of disbelief—the holographically three-dimensional picture was just there."

"With all of these recordings, the MBLs produced as believable a rendering of the sound of a solo piano as you're likely to hear from any speaker"

"The Reference 101E Mk.II is among the most revealing speakers you're likely to hear. It ruthlessly reveals the sonic characters of the equipment it's hooked up to, which means that that system, including the cables, must be assembled with great care. It's also tricky to set up, and requires both an optimally sized room and careful placement in that room. Although my entire system has changed in the eight years since the first version of the 101E Radialstrahler was here, I feel confident saying that the sound of the Mk.II is more refined and well behaved, and far more capable of speaking with a uniform, focused voice. The combination of MBL's 6010D preamp and the 9011 amplifiers that I reviewed last month driving the 101E Mk.IIs was among the most formidable-sounding audio systems ever assembled in my room." MBL Radialstrahler 101E Mk.II loudspeaker Page 2 | Stereophile.com

But no - the Kef LS50 sounds better? Be serious.

[tube fan]

tube fan

With your love in with Fremer because he "knows the absolute sound and hi-fi and accuracy" and hate for Art because Art likes musical instead of accuracy then I can't figure why you didn't like MBL.

Fremer on MBL

"Why belabor the point? No box above the bottom octaves and a 360° radiating pattern should produce imaging and soundstaging superior to that of any boxed or planar speaker, and once the speakers had been placed properly, the 101E Mk.IIs did just that, reproducing with eerie verisimilitude recordings of large orchestras as well as of small ensembles in intimate settings, such as a superb-sounding reissue of Johnny Hartman's I Just Dropped By to Say Hello (LP, Impulse!/ORG 176). The sound was intimate and properly sized, and produced Hartman's baritone with a natural warmth free of congestion or bloat."

Renders ALL panels and direct radiators like your speakers as piles of crap.

"The speakers' presentation of physical instruments and musicians in space required no suspension of disbelief—the holographically three-dimensional picture was just there."

"With all of these recordings, the MBLs produced as believable a rendering of the sound of a solo piano as you're likely to hear from any speaker"

"The Reference 101E Mk.II is among the most revealing speakers you're likely to hear. It ruthlessly reveals the sonic characters of the equipment it's hooked up to, which means that that system, including the cables, must be assembled with great care. It's also tricky to set up, and requires both an optimally sized room and careful placement in that room. Although my entire system has changed in the eight years since the first version of the 101E Radialstrahler was here, I feel confident saying that the sound of the Mk.II is more refined and well behaved, and far more capable of speaking with a uniform, focused voice. The combination of MBL's 6010D preamp and the 9011 amplifiers that I reviewed last month driving the 101E Mk.IIs was among the most formidable-sounding audio systems ever assembled in my room." MBL Radialstrahler 101E Mk.II loudspeaker Page 2 | Stereophile.com

But no - the Kef LS50 sounds better? Be serious.

I have said many times that MF is NOT one of my favorite writers, because of his love of high power ss amps and inefficient speakers. Plus, he rarely reviews anything that I could afford. Art Dudley, on the other hand, prefers analogue, low power tube amps, and speakers they can drive. I suspect, warts and all, I would vastly prefer Art's system to MF's. BTW, Stephen Mejias preferred his inexpensive system to the upwards of $500,000 one he heard at MF's, which included the MBL 101 E Mk II speaker: "I was very happily surprised. Whether it was because I was back in Jersey City, in my own room, surrounded by my own things, or because I was high on winter moonlight, I can't be certain--but as I sat there listening again to "Holes," I couldn't help but think that the experience wasn't merely as good as what I'd heard earlier that day at Mikey's--it was better." I have been to wine tastings where both the group and I preferred a $10 wine to ones costing up to thousands of dollars. Price is NOT an indication of quality.

[RGA]

Jack Roberts CAS coverage - I found his views interesting.

He also chose his 5 best rooms. We agreed on only one room (although this time I chose a best four because 4 rooms stood out for me and were a "step up" over the rest of the rooms.

If I had chosen a fifth room it would have been Bob Hodas' room which made Jack's top five.

Jack Roberts CAS3 Coverage, Part III: Music Lovers Audio, MBL, Audio Image Ltd., Blue Moon Audio, Audio High, Loggie Audio, Dared Audio - Event Reports - Dagogo

Me CAS3 Coverage, Part IV: MBL, Acoustic Zen/Triode, Zu Audio, Vivid/Aesthetix/Brinkman/Synergistic Research, Angel City Audio/Melody/Wywire, Lumenwhite speakers/Ayon, Soundscape/MartinLogan, Von Gaylord Audio - Event Reports - Dagogo

CAS3 Coverage, Part IV: MBL, Acoustic Zen/Triode, Zu Audio, Vivid/Aesthetix/Brinkman/Synergistic Research, Angel City Audio/Melody/Wywire, Lumenwhite speakers/Ayon, Soundscape/MartinLogan, Von Gaylord Audio - Event Reports - Dagogo

Jack's top 5 rooms CAS3 Coverage, Part V: Top five rooms - Event Reports - Dagogo

My last page is being edited TBA

[tube fan]

I cannot understand how the AN room made it into Jack's top 5. From my listening (went all three days) of the AN system, it was not in the top 15 rooms: boring and colored.