Audio Physic's "New" Virgo---Better?? How So??

I notice a few folks mentioned the use of a sub with the Virgos. I used a REL Strata II with mine and was very disappointed - it just added some bloom to the bottom end. I guess a more expensive REL may work better, but I found the Virgos offered enough bottem end by themselves.

Other equipment is SF Line 3, Blue Circle BC2 monos, YBA CD1a, SPM ICs and FIM Gold Speaker Cable.

I spent the evening comparing my Virgo III's to the my Kloss table radio. Being a true point source, crossover free design the Kloss was able to throw a very beguiling sound propelling a coherent sound throughout the room. I love that little thing.

In all seriousness and as a past owner of the Virgo II's I can say that the new model far surpasses the old in every regard. The speaker has only been available for about a month. I have heard them in a couple of dealer showrooms one of which was running the above mentioned MF cd player with Classe amps, the room was large and incredibly overdamped and the speakers clearly not broken in. In that situation I was impressed with the transparent midrange and wnderfully extended highs.

At home in my system in a "real" room and broken they sound nothing short of fabulous. The bass is slightly depper than the previous model but with infinately more detail and excellent pitch accuracy. Now I'll be honest I am not a rock listener and I would point those who are to pro-audio PA systems with kilowatt subs. For me with Jazz and Classical and other acoustic music I find the bass response to very honest in represnting the tone and scale of these instruments.

These are very special speakers with astounding detail and soundstaging, but they do not suffer infereior source components nor do they warm things over and boom up the midbass like the II's did.

I would wholeheartedly disagree with above statements that they are extremely thin on the bottom(compared to what, and in what size room? and with what recording) there are many factors which contribute to percieved bass response the most important being the listeners perception valid or not of reality. I also strongly disagree that the II's with a matching mediocre sub like AP's or even one of the great REL's would best the new II's in every regard. In fact the only improvement would be in the deep bass and due to the REL alone.
The search for High=end speakers need not be frustrating, listen for yourself the Virgo III's are untouchable at the price.

I want to thank all who responed. This search for new hi-end speakers(especially related to the Virgo's)has gotten so frustrating I am seriously considering selling the remainder of my system and buying a Kloss table radio. Best regards to all!!! Jimbo

What? The Virgo and the new Virgo III are to close in performance to justify upgrading? I Narrad sure that he/she was comparing the old to the new? The difference is not close what so ever. Top to bottom, the new Virgo III is much better. Also, regarding sub recommendations, both AP subs are sub standard compared to a good Rel sub such as the Virgos with a Stadium III.

My recommendation would be to buy a pair of used Virgo IIs
and a used Audio Physic subwoofer (Terra or Luna). This combination will cost less or no more than a new pair of Virgo IIIs and completely outperform them. I agree the Avanti IIIs are fabulous. Simply more than I can afford to
pay. I use Jadis tube gear which is a match made in heaven
for Virgos. They love tube gear. But they will reveal the limitations of cheap hardware.

Wendell

I have to agree that the Virgo III is definitely better than the original Virgo. I think there is a lot to be said for the new ring radiator tweeter they use now. In addition, I found the mids to be very smooth and detailed.

All the reports of being really transparent speakers is true. My wife and I felt so comfortable listening to them that at one point when I was listening to Radiohead's Amnesiac CD I actually forgot I was in the audio store. I only "woke up" when the salesman came back into the room.

I really got into these speakers - they are very likeable IF you have the source components to back them. I've read several posts from people who didn't like them. In a few instances, I didn't feel (my opinion) the source gear was correctly matched for the speakers. You need to be careful on what you run them with, but if you do you'll be in for quite a treat.

However, I also found the bottom end to be very thin. I heard them in an acoustically treated room, and didn't feel their frequency responce matched what I heard. I don't feel it was a source or amplification issue either. I heard them on the Classe CAM-350 monoblocks, Classe CP-47.5 preamp, and the Musical Fidelity Nu-vista 3D CD player (cables were all Tara Labs.)

They would be a perfect match with a really good subwoofer such as a REL or even an Audio Physic. I found the combination to be very good, and definitely do yourself a favor and audition them. The worst that could happen is you decide not to buy them.

After all that, I ended up not buying the Virgo III's because of the lack of LF response, and I didn't want to deal a subwoofer (which would have been a perfect match in my opinion.) In the end, I actually decided to spend the extra bucks, and buy the Avanti III's instead which have plenty of low frequency response to throw around plus a fuller midrange (however all that comes at a very substantial price difference compared to the Virgo's.)

I'd like to add one additional comment about the Audio Physic speakers. They require at least 1-2 weeks worth of constant playing to fully break-in. I actually thought I made a mistake when I bought the Avanti's as they didn't sound as wonderful as the Virgo's did out of the box. However once they broke-in, they're absolutely wonderful speakers that I have no plans of ever parting with for many years to come.

Now if I could just make-up my mind so easily on new pre-amp and amp, life would be good...

Good luck.

Be patient with them. It took me 4 days off non-stop running them to start hearing their glories. Superior to the MK II so far...

I auditioned the new Virgo 3 in my system which consists of BATVK75SE, BAT50SE, Electrocompaniet ECM-1 mk2. Listening to them for almost three days I found them very,very thin in the bottom end. No matter where I placed them in the room, the problem was the same. They did a very nice disappearing act, which they are known for. Good soundstage with plenty of depth. To me, they do not sound like a full range speaker, could probably use a sub woofer,but for $5500.00 there are plenty of other speakers to listen to.I think a used pair of Verity Audio Fidelios are a far superior speaker in every aspect and I have seen them on the used market for about the same price as the new Virgo 3. It all comes down to your system and your ears, not reviews by anyone. There are alot of people who in the past have loved this speaker and continue to do so.Good luck!

I've owned Virgos for a very long time. The III does goes
deeper and may be a bit more dynamic. They are too close to justify upgrading for me. Instead, I bought a used Audio Physic Terry subwoofer. The combination is far superior than the new Virgo's alone.

Wendell

In various demos, I have found the new Virgos to be inferior to the old ones. And I base this on the one criteria by which the Virgos have (historically, at least) earned their reputation: imaging and soundstaging. In repeated demo sessions, I've found the sound to be disconcertedly "locked" to the two speakers, rather than floating freely between them.

So. In went upgraded drivers and corssovers. But out went the magic, at least to my ears.