Please send all questions to email@example.com. All questions sent to this e-mail address will be replied to online. If you do not wish to share your e-mail with other readers, please do not send it. But if you have a question, chances are others are wondering the same thing. Therefore, you will be helping not only yourself, but other readers as well when your question gets answered here.
To Hans Wetzel,
I enjoyed your review of the KEF R100, and then reread your review of the KEF LS50. How would you compare the two speakers, their strengths and weaknesses? They are similar in drivers and construction, and also similar in price. Thank you.
True story, I didn't write either of the KEF reviews that you mention! Jeff Stockton wrote up the former for this site, and Doug Schneider the latter on our sister-site SoundStage! Hi-Fi. That said, I own a pair of LS50s, and previously owned a pair of R900s. I have not heard the R100s, unfortunately. There are a few points to note when comparing the two models, however.
The major difference is the cabinet. The additional dollars for the LS50 get you a more robust, more attractive (in my opinion) loudspeaker, one that has a curved polymer front baffle to mitigate diffraction, and a spongy, elliptical port on the rear to minimize resonance and "chuffing." Don't underestimate the effect that a cabinet can have on resultant sound -- there is a reason KEF's flagship Blade model looks the way it does. I can assure you that it wasn't designed to (just) look good, but, rather, to maximize the speaker's sonic performance. You might also have noted that the R100 and LS50 have slightly different frequency-response specs, as well as differing crossover points and efficiency ratings.
This is a bit of speculation on my part, but here are my reasons. The R100 is part of the R series, and like any major manufacturer, KEF takes great pains to make sure that each model sounds like its siblings. In other words, there will (or at least should) be a strong resemblance from something like the R100 on up to the R900, which I owned and loved for several years. If I had to describe the R900's sound in two words, it would be linear and balanced. It sounded coherent from top to bottom, with nothing accentuated or relaxed. As Jeff Stockton said of the R100, it just sounded kind of "right." When I purchased my LS50s, I heard a speaker that was very much cut from the same sonic cloth as the R900s, but was subtly different. I think KEF ever so slightly tailored the LS50's sound to have a slightly richer, more golden midrange, as well as a more prominent bottom end. I am always surprised when I play the LS50s at how much oomph they have down low. I am guessing here, but I would bet the R100 doesn't have quite the extension that the LS50 does, but may be a tad tighter in terms of its bass clarity. Personally, I think the LS50 is worth the extra money. I don't think anyone would argue with the assertion that it will be a hi-fi classic. How often can you say that? . . . Hans Wetzel
To Hans Wetzel,
Really enjoyed your review of the Paradigm Reference Prestige 95F speakers. How do you like the Luxman L-550AX [integrated amplifier]? I have an older Luxman L-503s, one of the last hand-built in Japan before the now-current 505 and 507 series. It is 65Wpc, but outperforms my Simaudio 4070se amp in every way. The bass is just shockingly good, and more flesh on all things -- more real. I use the Gershman Acoustics LVC devices under the unit. Highly recommended. My speakers are the Cambridge Audio Aero 6es sitting on IsoAcoustics stands, with a little weight on the top of the cabinets. This tames the boxes a great deal. I’m sorry I hadn't waited and got the Cambridge Audio Aeromax 6es, but they came out after. The midrange on these speakers is to die for, just ask Doug Schneider.
Lloyd, my review of the Luxman L-550AX will be posted on SoundStage! Hi-Fi on May 1. Check back then to read my full impression, but I can say that I was very impressed with the materials, build, and sound on offer. Class-A topology certainly has its benefits . . .
I know that Doug was quite impressed with the Cambridge Aeros that he reviewed. I haven’t had the pleasure to hear them yet, unfortunately, but I did just receive their flagship streamer, the Azur 851N, and early signs point to it being a super-flexible and -connective product. Seems like Cambridge is one of the few companies that has success in making their own speakers and electronics! . . . Hans Wetzel
To Hans Wetzel,
[I] really enjoyed your KEF R900 review -- thanks.
I am planning to purchase a Hegel integrated product -- not sure which one just yet. I was considering KEF’s LS50 or R500 [to partner with it]. Funny you mentioned that you listened to both of these for about ten minutes and that was enough. Was it just the bass and scale that didn’t do it for you versus the R900?
I would respect your opinion on the KEF LS50 versus the R500. I plan to audition what I can but stores are few near me.
When I first considered KEF’s R-series speakers, it was always going to be the R900. I wanted a floorstanding loudspeaker with bass that was as full-range as I could get. My brief listening session to the LS50 and R500 was simply to confirm what every other reviewer up to that point had said about KEF’s Uni-Q driver unit -- it was, and is, pretty spectacular.
Since I wrote that review, I wound up moving from the R900 to the Definitive Technology Mythos ST-L, which Roger Kanno reviewed last year. Rest assured, that move was purely lateral in nature, as I happened to prefer the DefTech’s powered bass section and svelte, Dark Knight-esque profile. At the same time, I bought a pair of LS50s that I will hopefully keep forever, so I’m staying in the family.
The LS50's Uni-Q is slightly different than the Uni-Q found in the R-series speakers (short of the R100 and R800ds), as it is a two-way bookshelf that is not supplemented by one or more woofers. As a result, it has a slightly different character, with just a touch of midrange bloom compared to the R500’s airier presentation. The bookshelf also benefits from a cabinet that isn’t just a folded box like the R500’s. If you're not dying for deep bass, and/or you have a smaller listening space, the LS50 is truly a steal at $1500/pair. But if you plan on pushing whatever you buy to high SPLs, the R500 is your best bet. Its three-way arrangement, combined with far more cabinet volume than the LS50, will make for the more dynamic loudspeaker.
As for the potential Hegel purchase, the H80 integrated amplifier-DAC is very good and will be a great match for either of the speakers you mention, but the H160 is the sweetheart of their range. Expect to see my review of it in the next month on SoundStage! Access. . . . Hans Wetzel
To Hans Wetzel,
Thanks for your write-up [of the Devialet 120]. I have the Devialet 200 driving KEF LS50s with a Sumiko subwoofer. Because of SAM I want to go full range.
It would not break my heart to be happy with the KEF R900 over KEF’s Reference 3. I’d also consider the Magico S1 and perhaps Focal.
You did not go into depth -- how much better did the R900 sound with SAM activated? Could you be happy with that combo or would you still be looking for better?
Thanks for any feedback.
There is a simple reason why I didn't mention SAM in my 120 review -- a profile was not available at the time for the R900! I have yet to hear SAM in action, but my views of the 120 itself remain the same -- it is the best piece of electronics I have ever heard. I’d imagine your LS50s positively sing.
That said, I can see you running into output limitations due to the fact that the little KEF is both a two-way loudspeaker and bookshelf type. And since SAM is volume dependent, with less overall bass output the louder the LS50 is pushed (to protect against over-excursion of the midbass section of the Uni-Q), you will really need a proper three-way, floorstanding speaker to maximize output and full-range bass response. As a result, the Magico S1, another two-way, is out of the equation. I love the way the S1 looks, and I know it sounds terrific, but like any two-way, it will have limits, even if it is a floorstander. Focal makes terrific loudspeakers, but since you did not mention a model, and seem to be a KEF fan, I will focus on the two options you mention from them.
So which KEF floorstander to buy: the R900 or the Reference 3? The R900 is one of the benchmarks at the $5000-per-pair price point. I owned a pair for over two years, and there are absolutely days I wish they were still around. R900s provide all of the treble and midrange clarity of your LS50s, plus bass that is far more taut and extended. The R900 is not quite full-range out of the box, but SAM should comfortably address that. The Reference 3 is a much more substantial loudspeaker: it has a more sophisticated Uni-Q driver, and it has a robust pair of 6.5" drivers that were designed specifically for the Reference range. The Reference-series cabinets also look to be noticeably more inert and dense (and, therefore, less resonant) than the R-series cabinets. It is safe to assume the Reference 3 is something like 90-95% of a "reference-level" loudspeaker for $13,000 per pair, while the R900 is maybe 80-85% for $5000 per pair.
If the cash isn't a huge concern, the Reference 3 is your answer. Paired with your Devialet 200, hand to heart, it is probably the system I would buy for myself if I didn’t have a huge conscience when it comes to the notion of value. But I do. And for that reason, if I were in your shoes, I would grab a pair of R900s, pocket the $8000 in price difference -- $8000! -- and be totally comfortable with the fact that I would have an incredible-sounding full-range system that punches way the hell above its weight. Good luck! . . . Hans Wetzel
To Philip Beaudette,
I actually howled out loud at reading the opening line from your Monitor Audio Silver 6 review: “Most people use their stereos to listen to music. Audiophiles use music to listen to their stereos.”
It is so true and I’ve been aware of it since the late ’80s. I have never heard it put so succinctly, however. Anyway, I just had to let you know how much of a kick I got from the opening line of your review. Pass along to your friend (whose line it is) that a guy in Memphis agrees.
Thanks for the e-mail -- I was happy when I saw it, and especially pleased that you enjoyed the opening line of the Monitor Audio review. And yes, as much as some audiophiles will hate to admit it, there is truth in that statement. . . . Philip Beaudette
To Hans Wetzel,
I hurt for you, man. I made a move 15 years ago that necessitated putting my large stereo in a smaller room, and it hasn't been quite the same.
It looks like you are on the way to installing a dedicated power line and a pair of standmounts. Or, you might try speakers that radiate sound differently and roll off at 40Hz or so, like smallish MartinLogan electrostatics. How about DSP room correction? Does the Hegel let you install such a thing between the preamp and amp sections? Fortunately, there are some great hi-fi dealers in your area who can help. Good luck!
All solid suggestions, Brad. Once I get settled and get a better handle of what my options are, I may wind up following through. Until then, I just need to get back in the saddle on the review front. Happy listening! . . . Hans Wetzel
To Hans Wetzel,
I had a chance to listen to the new-to-North America Wharfedale Diamond 220 bookshelf speaker at Audio Oasis in Toronto last week. This tiny wonder baffles my brain regarding how such a small, cheap ($400) speaker can sound so good. I would really appreciate a review by you to confirm what is still causing me to shake my head a week later.
I mentioned the new Diamond 200 line in my Best of CES 2015 editorial last month, precisely because I suspected it might offer really strong performance for the price. We will reach out to Wharfedale to see what we can arrange. Brave new audiophile world we are living in, Nigel. . . . Hans Wetzel
To Hans Wetzel,
I am setting up a secondary audio system for my home, but I am having a very hard time trying to determine which amplifier to use. The reason is that we don´t have too many dealers around here, so I need to purchase the product through the Internet, without being able to make an audition.
After extensive research I have come to two alternatives, but I cannot pick between them. One is to get a Hegel Music Systems H80 integrated amplifier-DAC, and use it with my Oppo BDP-103 player as a transport and my Lenovo computer. The other is to get the Rogue Audio Sphinx integrated amplifier, and pair it with the Oppo BDP-105, which also has S/PDIF, optical, and USB inputs, and then can act as a DAC. In both cases I would be using the new MartinLogan Motion 35XT bookshelf speakers, which I bought about three months ago.
Your review of the Sphinx really impressed me, especially when you made comparisons with your Hegel H300 [integrated amplifier-DAC]. In my main system I use an Audio Research VSi60 integrated amplifier; a Bel Canto DAC2.7, CD3t transport, and REFLink USB converter; and a pair of MartinLogan Ethos electrostatic speakers. All of them are connected [through] DH Labs cables. This is to say that I love tubes, so the Sphinx is a great alternative.
However, I am a little scared about the class-D amp. Recently I had a Bel Canto C5i and it sounded exactly like you described in your review: “I find that class-D has a characteristic sound: clear and quiet, but often sounding thin through the midrange, as if singers and instruments had gone on a diet. Bass seems to get lost in translation, with low frequencies noticeably abbreviated. Overall, class-D sounds a bit etched -- mechanical, artificial, and decidedly not immersive.” Also, I have no idea about the Rogue´s signal-to-noise ratio, and since I cannot hear the product I consider this an important reference.
On the other hand, I like the Hegel’s convenience (amp and DAC in one device), and I’ve heard excellent things about this Norwegian company. My hesitancy comes from the fact that I hate excessive brightness and fatiguing tweeters (that’s why I go with electrostatics and tubes), and I don’t know if this amp will have glare. Furthermore, I agree with you on the fact that an amp’s ability to get you involved with the music is more important than its accuracy or measured performance, and that’s another good argument for the Rogue.
So, given the fact that you have experience with both the H80 and the Sphinx, what would you do in my case? I know it is pretty hard to recommend things, since sound depends on so many variables: cables, speakers, and personal preferences. However, I would very much appreciate your opinion.
Please receive my best regards!
You have picked two great products, Luis, but I worry that neither is exactly what you are looking for. Since you are a proud tube fan, and owner of a lovely little Audio Research unit, I worry that both the Hegel and the Rogue might stray just a bit too far out of your comfort zone. You mention brightness and fatigue being a concern, and the Rogue definitely has a little of that class-D “zing” to it. Though it is going on two years since I reviewed the Sphinx, I do recall it sounding lively in the upper midrange, with a little bit of a sibilant edge, despite having lovely presence. The Hegel, on the other hand, will have a slightly forward, but incredibly clean and smooth presentation. I happen to like the kind of immediacy that the Hegel provides, as well as the Rogue's gorgeous midrange vibrance. As to whether you will, based on your preferences, it’s difficult to say. Of the two, the Rogue would be my suggestion. If you are open minded and could live with a little more zest in the mids, the Sphinx may well win your heart. . . . Hans Wetzel
To Hans Wetzel,
Thanks for the review of the NuPrime IDA-16. I would like to know more about the comparison with the Wyred 4 Sound in the conclusion. Is it a comparison with the W4S DAC-2, DAC-2 DSD, or DAC-2 DSDse? I´m thinking of buying the W4S DAC-2 DSDse, but it will be a little cheaper to buy the IDA-16, because I then can sell my Lyngdorf SDA 2175. It is so important for me how good the DAC in the IDA-16 is. Thank you very much.
Steen Boye Pedersen
Vince Hanada's review of the IDA-16 left me quite intrigued: DSD capable; 200Wpc (into 8 ohms); an attractive, slender profile . . . delicious. In looking back at what Vince wrote in the conclusion, I can only conclude that Vince was referring to the Wyred 4 Sound mINT, as it is the only current integrated amplifier-DAC in Wyred 4 Sound’s lineup.
As far as deciding between the DAC-2 DSDse and the IDA-16, it is worth noting that the former is a pure digital-to-analog converter, while the latter is an integrated amplifier-DAC. The IDA-16 does have an optical output, as well as pre outs, for what it’s worth. Having not heard either of the products in person, I can't tell you which is the better DAC, especially since each uses the same Sabre ESS9018 chipset.
On the flexibility front, choosing between the two is a no-brainer -- grab the NuPrime. You would save money, as you suggest, while also getting a complete one-box system that Vince thought very highly of. Considering I use NuForce’s (NuPrime’s progenitor) $549 DDA-100 integrated amplifier-DAC on a daily basis for my desktop system and continue to be impressed with its sound quality, I can only imagine what almost $2000 more will get you. If you're that unsure, it looks like you might be able to take a DAC-2 DSDse on trial from Wyred 4 Sound. Good luck! . . . Hans Wetzel
To Hans Wetzel,
I have the following components: Sudgen Masterclass PDT-4F Fusion CD player, Mark Levinson No.38 preamplifier, two Parasound Model 2250 power amplifiers (used as monoblocks), and Bowers & Wilkins 683 floorstanding speakers. As far as interconnects are concerned, I am using AudioQuest Diamond (both balanced and unbalanced). I am also using AudioQuest speaker cables. I have been looking for a Parasound 2250 review all in vain. Can anyone assist? How can I improve my system -- any ideas? Your assistance will be appreciated.
While I can't help you on the Parasound 2250 review front, I can assure you that you have a solid system there. Parasound's amps are excellent for the money, so I'm not sure you can do much better. The only standout suggestion I have right now is Benchmark Media's AHB2 power amplifier. While it doesn't look particularly inspiring, its sound is pretty spectacular. My review of it should be published in the next couple of months. Benchmark doesn't appear to be shipping to South Africa at the moment, but keep an eye out on their website.
Regarding your CD player, I'm not familiar with Sudgen's products, and I can't tell from their website too many details about your PDT-4F. That said, there are a multitude of CD player-DACs out there for $1500 USD or less that will allow you to continue to enjoy your CD collection, while also giving you the ability to transition to a computer-based solution in the future. Given the maturity of digital-to-analog conversion technology over the past five years, it may be something to seriously consider. Your Levinson preamp is a classic! I'm sure it's quite good, but like everything else, today's preamps -- even affordable ones -- are really impressive. Since I don't know your price parameters, or whether you want to replace one or all of your current pieces, it's difficult for me to say more. But a high-quality preamp-DAC might also fit the bill, which would allow you to continue using your Sudgen CD player as a transport. Personally, I would start with Parasound's Halo P 5 and go from there. Though it's not priced like a Levinson, being $1095, I think you'll be surprised by just how good it is.
Your Bowers & Wilkins speakers are likely quite good. I would not be in any rush to replace them. If you are itching to, however, consider brands such as KEF, Dynaudio, GoldenEar Technology, Monitor Audio, Paradigm, and PSB. You'll find each makes a full-size floorstanding model that likely betters the 683 in one way or another. Hope this helps! . . . Hans Wetzel
To Hans Wetzel,
I read your column about the Devialet Phantom with interest! How would you compare this product (Silver version) to the Bang & Olufsen BeoPlay A9?
In order to answer this faithfully, I should state two things at the outset. First, I have yet to physically hear the Phantom or Silver Phantom. And second, I haven't spent more than a few minutes listening to B&O gear over the course of my life.
That said, I definitely have a few comments. B&O has a reputation for distinctive luxury products, and while they've done some serious audio work over the years -- think of their pioneering ICEpower research -- I don't think anyone other than the average consumer would equate their products with cutting-edge hardware. I don't doubt that their products sound very good, but their marketing and design efforts seem to point to sonic considerations taking a definite back seat to aesthetic ones.
As far as the B&O A9 is concerned, it looks like an interesting loudspeaker at $2699. Dual tweeters and mids, a ported 8" woofer, built-in amplification, and wireless connectivity. Note, however, that the frequency response is listed at 33Hz to 25kHz, but without qualification, so 33Hz may well be -10dB, or worse. Moreover, the A9 appears to use several generic class-D amps, probably of the ICEpower variety. Finally, the A9 looks to be pretty sizable, at 35" high with a stand, and 28" in diameter.
For $2390 per pair, the Silver Phantom is a different proposition. Its design is, believe it or not, totally geared towards maximizing sound quality. In terms of acoustics, it's pretty much ideal, with a single apparent point source for treble, midrange, and bass drivers. Further, its amplifiers aren't the now-common class-D variety, but a proprietary and patented design based on the company's high-end amps. The French company's amps aren't just different, but to my ears, as well as to those of SoundStage!'s Doug Schneider and Jeff Fritz, better sounding than just about everything else on the market, irrespective of price. I've been told that the Devialet team set the target of equaling, or bettering, the performance of their $6495 Devialet 120 amplifier and a pair of $20,000+ loudspeakers. I've also been told that they met their performance-related targets. If this were any other company, I would have dismissed such a claim. But given what the company has been able to do since they debuted the D-Premier in 2010, and how much cleverness they appear to have built into the Phantom and Silver Phantom, I'm incredibly excited to find out how they sound.
So, on the one hand is a pretty cool wireless floorstanding speaker that probably sounds pretty good, and on the other is an even more flexible wireless loudspeaker that promises nearly state-of-the-art sound. Interestingly, I suspect Devialet is targeting roughly the same kind of consumer that the A9 is. I suspect that the Silver Phantom will be the better loudspeaker, and by a wide margin. We won't know until the Phantoms begin shipping in the coming months, though. I hope this helps. . . . Hans Wetzel