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


The Audio Physic Virgo III's have been out for over a year, I have yet to see a review of them anywhere. All you Virgo III owners, lets hear it. The Virgo II's (which I own and love) are a great classic. ARe the III's an improvement?? Mark
mythtrip
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.