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

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