++++Virgo III reviews???++++++

Myth, I am not owner of Virgo but I do have a good
idea especially on the Virgo II I audition this for
2 weeks, And Listen to the Virgo 111 For me I like
the 111 its more open,bass is tighter but open,Actually
I almost bought one, Go to a virgo dealer its work
checking, they also disappear like the younger brother.

I also wonder why the Virgo IIIs have not been reviewed in Stereophile. The Virgo IIs were Stereophile class A for a number of years until they were replaced by the IIIs. So they just drop off the list, I think Stereophile has a responsibility to review updated models within a reasonable time of their release. Oh wait I forgot Audio Physic doesn't advertise, any bets that the new Thiels 2.4s will be reviewed shortly....

Check your latest Stereophile magazine. It's already under class K in Stereophile recommended components so review is comming.

I am glad that someone brought up this issue. Hopefully,what Royy has indicated is correct. I always thought the "K" category in Stereophile was for deletions. Here is my spin on this thread. About 18 months ago, Mike Fremer reviewed the Avanti 3's in Sterophile. Generally, it was a very positive review, but he somewhat equivocated on the bass response, that is, he claimed some listeners might think it was lacking for an $11,000 speaker. At about the same time, Sensible Sound also reviewed the Avanti 3's and that reviewer loved them from top to bottom. What does this have to do with Virgo 3?? I think AP has somewhat "stuck out" with these two models. There seems to be more than a few Avanti 3's up for sale on this web, and little on any discussion about them or about the Virgo 3's.... I heard the Virgo 3 twice in anticipation that they were going to take Mr.Gerhardt's design to the next level and provide the 3's with more tangible bass and extended highs. And,hopefully make them less finicky than the 2's!! My first audition I was stoned colded disappointed. Though, the dealer had them in a cubicle space about about seven foot square with 4 ft between them; they sounded like two large AM radios!!! He claimed they were not broken in yet. I returned to the same shop about two months later. They were set up in a smallish room slightly larger than the cubicle. Yes, they sounded better, especially highs and bass, BUT they also sounded a bit hard on the top end. And where had that "magic" of Virgo 2 gone?!? I think the hardness may have been the clipping flea power of a Cary amp doing a lusty 50 RMS (Give me A break, this speaker needs Hi-test!!) They sounded better, but to me not worth the 5000+ the dealer wanted. Since joining Audiogon 4 years ago, I have seen a ton of praise for Virgo 2, but little to none for Virgo 3. Conclusion: Maybe the Virgo 3 is just not as good as hoped for; and I don't mean "popular" among a large segment of the buying public---though that can at times be a healthy indicator of a successful design. This is why I believe you don't see many reviews on the Virgo 3. It has not convinced either the public or professional reviewers at the Shows. As far as the comment about Thiel's, it seems ironic that a company that does as much advertizing is not more popular. I have seen many 2.3's up for resale even before the introduction of the 2.4's. I have heard 2.3's and was impressed,but probably not as taken as I was during my first audition of the Virgo 2's. Thiels should be more popular, but are not. I hope for Jim Thiel'sake, the 2.4 is a monster runaway bestseller as the Virgo 2 was for Gerhardt.

I have owned the Virgo IIs for a number of years and they match very well with my Aleph 2s, the sound is absolutely wonderfull. I auditioned the Virgo IIIs but was not overly impressed at least impressed enough about laying out an additional $3,000. The set up in the audition room was far from ideal and in my listening room might have sounded better. I was really hoping Stereophile would do a review to further spark my interest in the IIIs, but for now is not worth upgrading.

I auditioned the Virgo II's and III's at several different dealers, in large and small rooms, but all with superb (though different) electronics. Overall conclusion: I thought the II's were magic and the III's weren't.

I agree I just got a chance to audition the III's last weekend. I have had a pair of II's for about two years. The III's didn't really open up any new emotions like the first time I heard the II's

I'll chime in as an erstwhile "user" of a number of AP models (Virgo, Avanti, Medea, Kronus).
1st of all, I like AP and gladly recommend their products in the right context.

Virgo II: nice speakers, with good resolution and reasonable extension. A bit forward & bright -- but pleasingly so, "musical" if you will. Overall, I lived happily with them before upgrading and found them reasonable to drive well. I listened to the music & didn't musch bother about the rest.

Virgo III (broken in, sent by dealer for audition as a "friendly gesture"; I had the Kronus then). Results: Perplexing. I'm missing s/thing in Mr Gerhardt's intentions, as everyone else here has noted.

It took me nearly a week to set them up (I also had to move the Kronus out of the way) -- the tonal balance was only remotely reminiscent of the II, so the earlier placement wasn't good enough.
Tonal balance: it had moved upward and was MORE seamless & phase correct. The brightness/forward sound was gone, so this was (objectively) a closer reproduction of whatever signal the upstream system provided.
But where was the "magic"? Maybe the amp was insufficient???
I tried a number of amps to bring forth some emotional "magic". Finally I ended up driving them with my main amp (ss 250W class A, hi current, $15k; it should drive a small truck)
The results were very good BUT:
a) akin to a single-driver speaker with more upper end extension than, say, a Lowther. So, why not buy a single p-source with its crossoverless 100db sensitivity and dispense with the need for mega amplification????

b) the low end, while precise (I mean this) would not go very low. Don't get me wrong, what was there was seamlessly integrated with the rest... BUT in a large orchestral passage (or loud ELECTRIC base) I needed more db's in the lower end, SO,

c) I thought the result could be brought to stellar levels by adding active subs in stereo, say, AP's own... BUT

d) adding a bit to the Virgo + Lunas price, I could go for AP's big model -- or another full(er) range speaker... AND

e) why do we need overkill amplification??? If anything, hopefully the newer model could chirp with LESS driving power???

So, I don't get it. Unless it's an attempt to produce the ultimate monitor speaker for home use?

Well, I just don't get it. I've recently bought a pair of used Virgo IIIs and they are streets ahead of the II (though admittedly I haven't done a side-by-side comparison). The only conclusion I can come to is that perhaps they are suited to a different breed of amplifier than before.

For instance, everyone seems to hint at using muscley amplifiers. I'm not using anything so, ahem, vulgar. But then neither am I using tubes. I'm using a 23w solid state amp with a very high performance design - custom caps & transistors throughout, completely non-ferrous design, etc. Not your normal little power amp.

Anyway, with this system I am getting an incredibly magical sound. So, all I can think to add is that for those who have heard anything less than magic from these speakers - it must be a reflection on some lack of magic in the systems driving them.

John

I have heard the Virgo IIIs many times, and always have thought they had a coherancey issue--ie you can tell the separation of the drivers.

I love the new looks btw.