Magico M2

[Mike]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181207/cee61b0f6e37590e11537205b6d447be.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181207/1d00d5c383468e7c519c0d9618b906fb.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181207/941212e0bec43bda0ebf5cd995884e7a.jpg

MAGICO M2

State of the Art Loudspeaker, Floor standing, 3-way (Four Driver) Design

HAYWARD, CA (USA) – December 7, 2018 – Magico, the Leader in High-Performance Loudspeaker Design and Manufacture, is pleased to announce the M2 which expands the M-Series product lineup and features many ground-breaking engineering designs distilled from the M6 and M3.
Our materials science research in the properties and applications of carbon allows the M2 to feature a new monocoque enclosure. Similar in construction technique introduced in the M6, it is formed using multiple layers of carbon fiber adding up to a 3/8” thickness. Similar to the external shell of an F-35 fighter jet, this enclosure construction compared to machined or extruded aluminum parts increases the structural strength-to-weight ratio by a factor of 60, while reducing overall weight by 50% and yielding outer dimensions that are 30% smaller without compromising internal volume. The curved interior and exterior walls minimize internal standing waves and eliminate external diffractions.
The M2 incorporates a 28-mm Diamond coated Beryllium dome tweeter with optimized geometry. The Diamond coating on the Beryllium dome increases the stiffness without adding the extra weight of a pure Diamond dome and offers a near perfect stiffness to weight ratio that is unmatched in the industry. This revolutionary tweeter design provides extra-long excursion movement and uses a customized neodymium- based motor system that matches the sensitivity and power handling capabilities of the M2 while maintaining ultra-wide dispersion characteristics and ultra-low distortion measurements.
[emoji2398] 2018 Magico LLC Page 1 of 3

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181207/8c73c7eb06e025db24a2e9ae42690b84.jpg

Magico is the world’s first audio product manufacturer to utilize graphene in the development of a radically new and advanced loudspeaker cone design. Graphene has many extraordinary properties and is rated to be 100 times stronger than the strongest steel. The newly designed Magico six-inch midrange driver and seven- inch bass driver cones found in the M2 are both manufactured using Multi-Wall carbon XG Nanographene with a new ultra-stiff proprietary carbon weave which is 20% lighter and 300% stiffer than cone materials used in previous Magico product offerings. The midrange driver features an underhung neodymium-based motor system that uses two extra-large magnets which provide an ultra-stabilized magnetic field for the pure Titanium voice coil to operate within. This radical new driver design sets a new industry benchmark for performance and the minimization of total harmonic distortion.
A purpose built sub-enclosure formed of a proprietary polymer houses the midrange driver to optimize the control and articulation of mid-band frequencies and provides protection from the massive back wave pressure of the bass drivers. Midrange sub-enclosures using different shapes, sizes and materials have been implemented throughout the history of Magico 3-way loudspeaker designs.
The dual bass drivers in the M2 are vertically aligned to achieve ideal room integration and reproduce the lowest registers of bass frequency with speed and accuracy. Combined, the bass drivers are optimized for minimal music related distortions in the frequency and time domain using the latest state-of-the-art FEA simulation of acoustics, mechanics, electromagnetic and thermal behavior. The testing process is now completed on a single platform allowing optimization levels to be taken to a higher level.
An internal three-axis matrix framework along with three tension rods running front to back internally, contribute to an extremely rigid enclosure which eliminates unwanted resonances and colorations, allowing all drivers to perform with stunning resolution and dynamics. All four drivers in the M2 are acoustically integrated using Magico’s exclusive Elliptical Symmetry Crossover topology that includes state-of-the-art components from Mundorf of Germany. The MPOD 3-Pt stand contributes to the overall sonic performance by converting mechanical energy to heat through the science of constrained layer damping, while providing ideal coupling to the floor.
[emoji2398] 2018 Magico LLC Page 2 of 3

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181207/830a1fbca9e04337a5b8f72e23086509.jpg

Magico M2
State of the Art Loudspeaker, Floor standing, 3-way (Four Driver) Design
Driver Complement
1” MBD5D Tweeter (x1)
6” MAG60004RTC Graphene Nano-Tec Midrange (x1)
7” MAG70008RT Graphene Nano-Tec Bass (x2)

- Sensitivity: 88dB
- Impedance: 4 Ohms
- Frequency Response: 26 Hz – 50 kHz
- Recommended Power: Minimum 50W rms
- Dimensions: 18” x 17.5” x 45” (w/ MPod Stand)
- Weight: 165 lbs. (w/ MPod Stand)
- Price M2: SRP US $ 56,000 /pair
- PriceM2 MPOD 3-Pt Stand: SRP US $ 7,600 /pair (optional)
- Ship date: 1st Quarter 2019

Magico was created over a decade ago for the sole purpose of leading a no holds-barred assault on what is possible in contemporary loudspeaker design. Inspired by the unique vision of Industrial designer and accomplished musician Alon Wolf, every Magico product is designed against the true standard of perfect audio reproduction – live music. At Magico, we strive to lead in the creation, development, and manufacture of the most elegant and technologically advanced loudspeaker systems in the world. Each product expresses our passion to craft uncompromising devices that reveal the music as never before.
For more information please contact Peter Mackay, V.P. Global Sales and Marketing at Magico LLC. Telephone: 1-510-649-9700, Ext 104, E-mail: peter@magico.net, or, visit us at www.magico.net
[emoji2398] 2018 Magico LLC Page 3 of 3

[AJR]

Thanks Mike.

Would be fascinating to compare to the S3 Mk2s. My guess looking at the specs (acknowledging they are only specs) is that the M2’s bass will not be quite as deep, although may be a little more refined. So probably not an option for me - I still have my eyes set on the M3s.

[Kingsrule]

Another great Magico design.

I just wish they could figure a way to get their newest additions to be more sensitive, say 94-96 db while keeping their sonic signature.

That would make their speakers even more amazing!

[Skanda]

Another great Magico design.

I just wish they could figure a way to get their newest additions to be more sensitive, say 94-96 db while keeping their sonic signature.

That would make their speakers even more amazing!

completely agree - they managed to do something special with the q7 there. my guess is that its probably a very expensive proposition and hard to meet at lower price points? i've heard magico's play nicely with SETs but they certainly open up with high power ss but the thought of a very efficient magico, soulution pre, and maybe some absolare SET monos or even a line mag SET is very enticing!

[Kuoppis]

Great design, I do like the M2 shape. But I’m with Andrew, too close to S3 mk2 specs. And in some areas below.

I think adding the 9” woofers to the S3 mk2 was a good move from Alon.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Al M.]

Another great Magico design.

I just wish they could figure a way to get their newest additions to be more sensitive, say 94-96 db while keeping their sonic signature.

That would make their speakers even more amazing!

I guess the crossovers used do not allow for that.

[AJR]

Can solve with a kick-ass amp, right?

[Dguitarnut]

Another beautifully designed speaker from Magico. I want them.... they would be perfect in my space! Let’s see.....I have a rectangular room.....could put M2s on one end and Avantgardes uno finos on the other. All I need is a 180 degree swiveling audio easy chair.
Dang why couldn’t I have been born filthy rich instead of so good looking? :rolleyes:

[PeterA]

Another great Magico design.

I just wish they could figure a way to get their newest additions to be more sensitive, say 94-96 db while keeping their sonic signature.

That would make their speakers even more amazing!

Completely agree. It would open up amp choices too.

[LVB]

completely agree - they managed to do something special with the q7 there. my guess is that its probably a very expensive proposition and hard to meet at lower price points? i've heard magico's play nicely with SETs but they certainly open up with high power ss but the thought of a very efficient magico, soulution pre, and maybe some absolare SET monos or even a line mag SET is very enticing!

It is simple physics. A speaker can’t be small, go low (and sealed), and efficient. Something got to give. No amount of money in the world will change that equation.

[kzhtoo]

Gorgeous! Prettiest Magico girl.

[the professor]

Looks great!!!!!

Hmmmmmm

[Adyc]

Thanks Mike.

Would be fascinating to compare to the S3 Mk2s. My guess looking at the specs (acknowledging they are only specs) is that the M2’s bass will not be quite as deep, although may be a little more refined. So probably not an option for me - I still have my eyes set on the M3s.

What kind of music are you listening? It seems that Madfloyd and Elboreth felt that the bass of S series had more slam than M3.

[brodricj]

I'm surprised in the weight difference between M2 and M3.

[the professor]

They learned from the M3 to M6. The M2 uses that learning curve.

[BlueFox]

Great. What did they learn? Use lighter material? Use less material? Something else?

[XV-1]

Another great Magico design.

I just wish they could figure a way to get their newest additions to be more sensitive, say 94-96 db while keeping their sonic signature.

That would make their speakers even more amazing!

they do :P

https://magico.net/product/ultimate.php


https://magico.net/images/product/ultimate/2.jpg

[Alpinist]

Great. What did they learn? Use lighter material? Use less material? Something else?

Hi Bud,

They learned to make the cabinet using monocoque construction, which is stronger, more rigid, lighter and takes up less space than the internal metal skeleton of the M3.

Best,
Ken

[Kingsrule]

they do :P

https://magico.net/product/ultimate.php




I said newest additions....

[XV-1]

I said newest additions....

you are expecting a lot from sealed boxes - won't happen.

[Kingsrule]

you are expecting a lot from sealed boxes - won't happen.

Let's be real clear here. Please actually read my post

I'm not "expecting" anything

[Rob181]

Another great Magico design.

I just wish they could figure a way to get their newest additions to be more sensitive, say 94-96 db while keeping their sonic signature.

That would make their speakers even more amazing!

That's should be relatively easy - power the base drivers separately
Ideally use an inbuilt amp (D Class - shock - horror) & fix the xover point at optimum
Design a 2 way minimalist crossover & Mike's your uncle
NOTE all subject to the current xover points used - data not available to mere mortals

[Elberoth]

Hi Bud,

They learned to make the cabinet using monocoque construction, which is stronger, more rigid, lighter and takes up less space than the internal metal skeleton of the M3.

Best,
Ken

+1

The enclosure design is much more advanced than the M3. M3 is a bit like the Q3 is disguise - built from aluminium panels with carbon fibre 'skins' on both sides (if you take out the M3 drivers, you would see that the inside of the speaker is all aluminium, although AFAIK the side walls are no loger parallel, which is an advancement over the Q series) to make it look nice and help the dispersion.

The M6 on the other hand, is a completely different design. There are no aluminium sidewalls. The whole carbon fibre enclosure is now a monocock, acting as an enclosure with curved walls (so now if you take out the M6 drivers, you would see that the inside of the speaker is all carbon fibre, with curved walls).

M2 is basicly build using the very same technology as the M6. Getting rid of aluminium sidewalls and the accompaning aluminium skeleton, makes the speaker lighter.

[Alpinist]

I’m listening to the sealed cabinet Magico M6’s at this very moment. I am hearing some of the finest bass I’ve ever experienced in terms of impact, texture and articulation.

Ken

[Alpinist]

Repeat post.

[KeithR]

I’m listening to the sealed cabinet Magico M6’s at this very moment. I am hearing some of the finest bass I’ve ever experienced in terms of impact, texture and articulation.

Ken

For $160k or whatever, I’d hope so.

[Kuoppis]

I’m listening to the sealed cabinet Magico M6’s at this very moment. I am hearing some of the finest bass I’ve ever experienced in terms of impact, texture and articulation.

Ken

The M6 is a wonderful speaker. Heard it in Munich and was impressed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Kuoppis]

+1

The enclosure design is much more advanced than the M3. M3 is a bit like the Q3 is disguise - built from aluminium panels with carbon fibre 'skins' on both sides (if you take out the M3 drivers, you would see that the inside of the speaker is all aluminium, although AFAIK the side walls are no loger parallel, which is an advancement over the Q series) to make it look nice and help the dispersion.

The M6 on the other hand, is a completely different design. There are no aluminium sidewalls. The whole carbon fibre enclosure is now a monocock, acting as an enclosure with curved walls (so now if you take out the M6 drivers, you would see that the inside of the speaker is all carbon fibre, with curved walls).

M2 is basicly build using the very same technology as the M6. Getting rid of aluminium sidewalls and the accompaning aluminium skeleton, makes the speaker lighter.

Sounds like there is an M3 mk2 in the works [emoji3].


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Dguitarnut]

Wow weighs about 10 pounds less than the S3Mk2s.......nice!

[brodricj]

If they can rip out all that machined aluminium in a M3Mk2 perhaps there will be a significant price drop? Here I am, just taken delivery of the last speaker I need ever buy and already there is talk of its replacement (and which might be much lighter and cheaper).

[Rob181]

If they can rip out all that machined aluminium in a M3Mk2 perhaps there will be a significant price drop? Here I am, just taken delivery of the last speaker I need ever buy and already there is talk of its replacement (and which might be much lighter and cheaper).

I wouldn't be holding my breath...

[brodricj]

So you think we'll see an M1 before we see a M3Mk2? The M2 no doubt has opened up opportunities to make the M3 better.

[Elberoth]

If they can rip out all that machined aluminium in a M3Mk2 perhaps there will be a significant price drop? Here I am, just taken delivery of the last speaker I need ever buy and already there is talk of its replacement (and which might be much lighter and cheaper).

Carbon fibre monocoque is much more expensive to manufacture than the enclosure made from extruded aluminium (or any aluminium for that matter).

[Rob181]

So you think we'll see an M1 before we see a M3Mk2? The M2 no doubt has opened up opportunities to make the M3 better.

I was referring to your comment "perhaps there will be a significant price drop"​ which - to be honest - I found amusing.

[brodricj]

It's expensive to machine and assemble that aluminium internal skeleton. I don't know about CF manufacturing costs, but I would think the CF in a M2/6 design wouldn't cost much more to build than what the side panels in M3 cost. So if their build price comes down, maybe MSRP of the Mk2 will come down also.

[Elberoth]

Started early 2016 and now we almost have 2019. It may be a few months short from beeing 3 years old, but far cry from the 1 year old you have claimed.

[Elberoth]

It's expensive to machine and assemble that aluminium internal skeleton. I don't know about CF manufacturing costs, but I would think the CF in a M2/6 design wouldn't cost much more to build than what the side panels in M3 cost. So if their build price comes down, maybe MSRP of the Mk2 will come down also.

You are wrong.

[Alpinist]

Carbon fibre monocoque is much more expensive to manufacture than the enclosure made from extruded aluminium (or any aluminium for that matter).

Is it more expensive because the carbon fiber sides need to be thicker to support the tension of the monocoque design?

Ken

[brodricj]

The absolute cost in the extra materials (resin and CF fabric) needed to build a thicker panel wouldn't be all that much....the cost is in building the molds and polishing the finished panels, which I'd think would be much the same for M3 and M3Mk2 panels.

[Adyc]

FYI, the CF monocoque is manufactured by a Canadian company called Apex Composite.

[BlueFox]

IMO we will sooner see the S7 mk2.....

Not to sidetrack the thread, but when the S7 was released I was invited to Magico for a demo. Magico has a very quiet listening room, and when you close the door it really is sonically isolated. So, Alon was switching between the S5 and the S7, and I commented on the S5, “This sounds just like my S5.” Alon replies, “That’s the point.” LOL.

The point I was trying to make is my S5 is in the living room, not an isolated, dedicated listening room. :)

Anyway, the S7 was a little better, but not enough to justify the price difference with the S5. However, a V2 version might be a worthwhile final speaker upgrade.

[PeterA]

Well it hasn't been replaced yet so the argument of months is moot. However, the release of the M3 pretty soon after the ultra special and unique and limited edition M Project pretty much demonstrates my point more accurately.

In any case, I really would like to see Magico release a M1. That would be an interesting speaker to me; I gave the Q1 a 3 month shot but ultimately it wasn't for me and I sold it. An M1 would be interesting.

Priaptor, what didn't you like about the Q1 and what amps did you use?

[PeterA]

I never trashed the Q1. I paid big bucks for the Q1 and Constellation amp and was lucky enough not to loose money when I sold them 3 months later given the press they were receiving at the time. I thought the bass was outstanding for a “monitor” but didn’t like its imaging which was flat and 2 dimensional despite what I felt was as accurate timbre of any monitor speakers available at the time. They didn’t move me as much as my big system at the time and my big system which consisted of NOLA Baby Grands and ARC REF250s I felt were better “monitors” so I moved on. The M series with the new drivers have expanded on what the Q was capable of in terms of imaging.

It seems that you did not like the imaging of the Q1. Properly set up, I would have assumed they were at least as good as my old Mini 2s, because they were even smaller. Perhaps the flat side walls hurt the imaging. But my experience with the Q3 is completely different. They disappear and image as well as or better than my Mini 2s which were excellent in those regards. I continue to marvel at how completely the Q3s disappear from the room, and their imaging is superb. The Ms, with their curved sides and top, may be even better.

[Ritmo]

Back to the M2 thread, already in progress...

[Mike]

Ok, in the spirit of Christmas, let’s just all try to get along. I’ve cleaned up all the threads because I feel the name calling had really gotten out of hand.

[Priaptor]

Ok, in the spirit of Christmas, let’s just all try to get along. I’ve cleaned up all the threads because I feel the name calling had really gotten out of hand.

Thank you.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all.

[nonesup]

The same for you.
I feel the attacks you have received.

[Kingsrule]

Thank you.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all.

Lucky You.....

[Priaptor]

Meaning???

[PeterA]

I no longer see my posts which questioned Howie about his thoughts on the Q1 and the quality of imaging he heard. It seems that this was one of the specific reasons he does not own Magico speakers. Those posts must have been considered off-topic.

Regarding the new M series of speakers, I think much of their shape is precisely about helping the speakers to disappear. Howie made a distinction between disappearing and imaging. What is it about a speaker's design that affects the quality of the images it conveys? I always thought it had something to do with placement in the room, but it must also have something to do with the speaker itself. With these M speakers, Magico seems to be paying a lot of attention to shape. An owner of both the S5 and S5 mk2 told me that the curved top plate really improved the sense of image height in his system.

[Mike]

I no longer see my posts which questioned Howie about his thoughts on the Q1 and the quality of imaging he heard. It seems that this was one of the specific reasons he does not own Magico speakers. Those posts must have been considered off-topic.

Regarding the new M series of speakers, I think much of their shape is precisely about helping the speakers to disappear. Howie made a distinction between disappearing and imaging. What is it about a speaker's design that affects the quality of the images it conveys? I always thought it had something to do with placement in the room, but it must also have something to do with the speaker itself. With these M speakers, Magico seems to be paying a lot of attention to shape. An owner of both the S5 and S5 mk2 told me that the curved top plate really improved the sense of image height in his system.

I just restored them. See above.

[PeterA]

Thanks Mike. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

[Mike]

Thanks Mike. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

Thank you Peter. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skanda]

It is simple physics. A speaker can’t be small, go low (and sealed), and efficient. Something got to give. No amount of money in the world will change that equation.

would the correct reading of this be that the Q7 went large in order to retain going low and being efficient? That would explain why that speaker has so much physical depth (not in the sound...the actual cabinet size)

[LVB]

would the correct reading of this be that the Q7 went large in order to retain going low and being efficient? That would explain why that speaker has so much physical depth (not in the sound...the actual cabinet size)

Precisely, although a similar size loudspeaker with smaller drivers (but same amount), will be less efficient. All things being equal, larger diameter woofers are more efficient (easier coupling to the air).

[GSOphile]

I've read that the Q7 is not an easy load to drive due to it's complex impedance characteristics.

[Mike]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181219/a8a9b5e88ad09d606ad4b2dc81df4fb0.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[apdoc2004]

Mike,
Absolutely gorgeous! When are you getting one for your store?
Anshul

[PeterA]

I must say it really is a gorgeous speaker. Mike, any images of the interior? I'd love to see the structure, midrange enclosure and attachment points for the skin, and front/back baffles.

[the professor]

Have they come out with the dimensions of the speaker itself? They gave us the footprint dimensions, just curious how wide the front is.

[Mike]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181221/3a6999b7abab5488c22fd5d63e04ef72.jpg

Just gorgeous!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brodricj]

I wonder if M2 will have any affect on M3 sales.....those who might financially stretch but ultimately buy M3 might opt for M2 instead. And on S3/5Mk2 sales as well, buyers might opt for M2 instead.

[Mike]

I wonder if M2 will have any affect on M3 sales.....those who might financially stretch but ultimately buy M3 might opt for M2 instead. And on S3/5Mk2 sales as well, buyers might opt for M2 instead.

Good question. I’m always thinking about the right speaker for the right room. M2 wi be wonderful in those smaller to midsized rooms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kuoppis]

IMHO this is an addition to the range. As an S3 mk2 owner at least I am not tempted, due to the higher specs of the S3 mk2.

But, I am toying around with the idea of getting M3s.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mike]

But, I am toying around with the idea of getting M3s.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Uh oh! I consider the M3’s in my top 4 - and best cone & dome.

In no particular order....

Avantgarde
MBL
Quad
Magico M3/M6 (assuming M2 too)
....

I just haven’t heard better than the M series from Magico for cone & dome. I really haven’t.

[BlueFox]

I am seriously considering a reverse mortgage to upgrade my stereo. Of course, the way the economy is going I might be able to buy a used CD player. :)

[PeterA]

I wonder if M2 will have any affect on M3 sales.....those who might financially stretch but ultimately buy M3 might opt for M2 instead. And on S3/5Mk2 sales as well, buyers might opt for M2 instead.

I think the S and M series are voiced and priced for slightly different customer tastes and budgets. I think we can speculate but Magico has this all figured out.

[BlueFox]

I think the S and M series are voiced and priced for slightly different customer tastes and budgets. I think we can speculate but Magico has this all figured out.

I agree. Unfortunately, I like Classical during the week, and Rock on the weekends, at least at night. LOL.

[Mike]

Don’t get me wrong, the S series is superb and just below the M series. The VAC i170iQ on the S3 mk2’s is one of my favorite systems in the store. Head shaking good.

[Kuoppis]

I agree. Unfortunately, I like Classical during the week, and Rock on the weekends, at least at night. LOL.

The beauty of the S series for my ears is, that they can rock and also do classic very well.

I would assume the M series can do both as well, but I have not yet tested them enough yet to be able to say.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AJR]

Agree re the S3 mk2s. And Jazz. And electro (including bass-heavy electro). Am hoping my Magico dealer will get some M3s in store next year so I can test but I am willing to buy blind based on the feedback I have heard (especially from Sharks).

[Kuoppis]

Agree re the S3 mk2s. And Jazz. And electro (including bass-heavy electro). Am hoping my Magico dealer will get some M3s in store next year so I can test but I am willing to buy blind based on the feedback I have heard (especially from Sharks).

This is for me probably the only non-negotiable criteria for speakers: they have to do all kinds of music well.

I listen to jazz a lots, but speakers that cannot rock would be useless for my application.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GSOphile]

Will be interesting to hear just how good the bass is in this small speaker.

[kzhtoo]

Will be interesting to hear just how good the bass is in this small speaker.

Exactly what I’ve been wondering ever since the announcement. It has to be at least on par with S3 for me, but the physics is not on M2 side.

[Mike]

Magico said they have made improvements on the M3’s woofers to compensate for only using two and less volume in the cabinet. Should be interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kuoppis]

Exactly what I’ve been wondering ever since the announcement. It has to be at least on par with S3 for me, but the physics is not on M2 side.

Neither is the frequency range.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[PeterA]

Magico said they have made improvements on the M3’s woofers to compensate for only using two and less volume in the cabinet. Should be interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very interesting. Can you elaborate, Mike? What changes were made to the M2 woofers? Are you suggesting that the M2 bass will be similar to the M3 bass in extension and articulation?

[Mike]

Very interesting. Can you elaborate, Mike? What changes were made to the M2 woofers? Are you suggesting that the M2 bass will be similar to the M3 bass in extension and articulation?

I have no further details at this time.

[brodricj]

Surely if they made improvements to the woofer they would use the same improved woofer in both M2 and M3?

[GSOphile]

Surely if they made improvements to the woofer they would use the same improved woofer in both M2 and M3?
That would probably be the M3 Mk II.

[brodricj]

Don't they use the exact same woofer in M2 and M3? That was my point.

[GSOphile]

Same diameter but my assumption in light of Mike's coment was a different part number. If the same part number, you have a point, but if the change is significant, what to do about current M3 owners?

[imprezap2]

Same diameter but my assumption in light of Mike's coment was a different part number. If the same part number, you have a point, but if the change is significant, what to do about current M3 owners?

Simple, keep enjoying the already fantastic M3 and not worry too much

[kzhtoo]

Simple, keep enjoying the already fantastic M3 and not worry too much

I think he meant what the manufacturer should do for the M3 owners, in which case, M3 mk2 of course. [emoji57] Look how that all turn out for Magico?! Alon is genius.

[imprezap2]

I think he meant what the manufacturer should do for the M3 owners, in which case, M3 mk2 of course. [emoji57] Look how that all turn out for Magico?! Alon is genius.

M3 is now on the market for a few years, why should Magico do anything for the M3 owners, just because a smaller speaker (M2) is being introduced, I don't see the point.

Except for the Q7, Magico has never worked with an upgrade program.

[Kuoppis]

Actually, a new part number does not equal to a new product [emoji3].


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mike]

M3 is now on the market for a few years, why should Magico do anything for the M3 owners, just because a smaller speaker (M2) is being introduced, I don't see the point.

Except for the Q7, Magico has never worked with an upgrade program.

Agreed, don’t read too much into. M3 is still the speaker to get for medium to largish rooms IMO. If anyone wants to trade their M3’s for M2’s even up, I’m all ears. [emoji6]

Like I said before, I consider my M3’s in my top 5 speakers list and #1 for cone and dome. I just love them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kzhtoo]

M3 is now on the market for a few years, why should Magico do anything for the M3 owners, just because a smaller speaker (M2) is being introduced, I don't see the point.

Except for the Q7, Magico has never worked with an upgrade program.

No one is really suggesting Magico should do something for M3 owners literally. It’s a figure of speech.

Mike mentioned M2 has new drivers, so someone thought newer M3 should also use the same drivers. Then, someone asked what about the older M3 that are already out in the market. And I just gave my opinion that M3 mk2 could happen (to distinguish between current M3 and “newer” M3) if you know what I’m saying.

It’s just all speculation. It may be true, it may be not. But that’s the point, people share their opinion on an Internet forum to discuss/talk/speculate.

[Elberoth]

Only Magico knows the details of the new M2 bass drivers. Magico does not use off the shelf drive units, which means that almost each drive unit ends up beeing modified to best suit a gived design.

M2 is a smaller speaker, with a smaller # of drive units - I would be surprised if Magico didn't tweak (at least) some of the parameters of the drive unit.

The fact that the parameters are different, doesn't mean, that the drive unit is better by default - it is certainly better for a given application.

IMO we will first see the new S7, Q1 and Q7, than we see the new M3 mk 2.

[GSOphile]

[QUOTE=Kuoppis;257325]Actually, a new part number does not equal to a new product [emoji3].

No, but for a Magico product that's been out for a couple of years, it's probably not an engineering change tweek either - especially for something that's not broke. So for a new driver, you probably won't see it retrofitted into a mid-life product, more likely a follow-on product. IMO of course - Magico is the one with the plan.

[the professor]

I agree. Just because it's different doesn't make it better for all speaker sizes.


Only Magico knows the details of the new M2 bass drivers. Magico does not use off the shelf drive units, which means that almost each drive unit ends up beeing modified to best suit a gived design.

M2 is a smaller speaker, with a smaller # of drive units - I would be surprised if Magico didn't tweak (at least) some of the parameters of the drive unit.

The fact that the parameters are different, doesn't mean, that the drive unit is better by default - it is certainly better for a given application.

IMO we will first see the new S7, Q1 and Q7, than we see the new M3 mk 2.

[brodricj]

[QUOTE=Kuoppis;257325]
...So for a new driver, you probably won't see it retrofitted into a mid-life product, more likely a follow-on product..

They retrofitted a new driver in SCC which was a mid-life product, and they didn't even attach a Mk2 badge to it after doing so.

[GSOphile]

[QUOTE=GSOphile;257357]

They retrofitted a new driver in SCC which was a mid-life product, and they didn't even attach a Mk2 badge to it after doing so.

I won't be holding my breath on the M3.

[Mark Jones]

The M2's are in my opinion the most beautiful Magico ever.

I'm expecting them to sound sublime in small to medium sized rooms with unbeatable speed and articulation.

Will it be better than the M3 and/or do we need a Mark II version of the M3, I say no. That said, I have ordered up a pair of demo M2's and hope they will arrive just in time for Montreal show, late March.

Back to Mark II's. I don't believe there is a single model in Magico's current line up that is in need for a refresh, including the S7's. Only a guess on my part, but I'm expecting an expansion to M and especially the A series before we see any new Mark II's.

Wishing everyone a Happy New Year.

Cheers,
Mark.

[Elberoth]

The S7 needs a refresh, as this is the only one with flat top left.

[Mark Jones]

The S7 needs a refresh, as this is the only one with flat top left.

I love the flat top, makes levelling nice and easy ;-)

[kzhtoo]

I love the flat top, makes levelling nice and easy ;-)

And a glass of wine [emoji485] or two..

[Kuoppis]

I used to pile vinyls on top of both speakers, when I had the S3 mk1.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kzhtoo]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190205/66e827711c9846b1a57010b7d82b4648.jpg

WAF 9,000.

[PeterA]

Gorgeous speaker. Thanks for posting the image.

I understand it is constructed like, and has more in common with, the flagship M6 than it does with the M3. I wonder then why the base/footer and bottom design resembles the M3 more than it does the M6. Must be cost.

It also makes me wonder why Magico never developed a Q2 speaker.

[Bart001]

WAF 9,000.

Retail price is what -- 6-fold of WAF?

I do want the M2's, and surely could leverage my not-yet-delivered A3's, but they are far out of budget at the moment.

[PeterA]

There is an excellent used pair of Q3s available on Audiogon right now. Perhaps not as good as the M2 or M3, but they are far less expensive and remain an extremely capable speaker.

[brodricj]

And there is an excellent used pair of Q3 available on eBay right now, and cheaper than either pair on Audiogon.

[PeterA]

And there is an excellent used pair of Q3 available on eBay right now, and cheaper than either pair on Audiogon.

That looks like the pair from Australia. It was also posted on Audiogon. The other pair is in Cyprus. I have a friend who is looking for a pair but wants to buy from the USA. It's interesting that there are two pairs of M3s for sale already at about the same price as a pair of M2s.

Also interesting is that the S5 mk2 is selling for about the same as a Q3.

[Elberoth]

That looks like the pair from Australia. It was also posted on Audiogon. The other pair is in Cyprus. I have a friend who is looking for a pair but wants to buy from the USA. It's interesting that there are two pairs of M3s for sale already at about the same price as a pair of M2s.

Also interesting is that the S5 mk2 is selling for about the same as a Q3.

Having sold and bought hi-end gear across 6 continents (no audiophiles from Antarctica so far) I really can't understand this.

Pay the seller from Australia to ship the speakers to Magico (should be around $1500-2000). Let Magico check out the speakers and confirm delivery. Wire the rest of the funds to the seller from Australia, let Magico ship the speakers to you.

Problem solved. You just bought the cheapest pair of Q3, with a clean bill of health from Magico.

[PeterA]

Having sold and bought hi-end gear across 6 continents (no audiophiles from Antarctica so far) I really can't understand this.

Pay the seller from Australia to ship the speakers to Magico (should be around $1500-2000). Let Magico check out the speakers and confirm delivery. Wire the rest of the funds to the seller from Australia, let Magico ship the speakers to you.

Problem solved. You just bought the cheapest pair of Q3, with a clean bill of health from Magico.

Yes, that makes perfect sense to me. Those shipping charges will cut into the seller's price or add to the buyer's cost. I bought my pair of Q3s from a local friend, but the speakers were being checked out by Magico and were shipped to me from the factory, and a great price. Everyone was happy.

[nile49]

Does Magico charge anything to verify the operation of their speakers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brodricj]

The Q3 on eBay Australia listing price includes International shipping. And they don't need to be shipped to Magico for testing, there is an authorized rep in Australia who will test them prior to shipping and provide an inspection report to prospective buyer.

[Elberoth]

Does Magico charge anything to verify the operation of their speakers?


I would be surprised if they didn't. That is at least 4h job to get them out of the crates, measure/listen, clean them, put the new foil and crate them back.

[PeterA]

I would be surprised if they didn't. That is at least 4h job to get them out of the crates, measure/listen, clean them, put the new foil and crate them back.

I agree. Mine was packed up to look like new. I was impressed. That anodized finish is incredible and I can see why it is an upcharge.

[brodricj]

Anodized on Q3 was standard finish.

[PeterA]

Anodized on Q3 was standard finish.

Thanks for the correction. I didn't know that and must have assumed it based on some of the other Magico speakers which are offered with different finishes. Do you know if the Q3 was ever offered in something other than black anodized? I think I saw an image of a brown/bronze Q3 once but that may have been an S5.

[brodricj]

As far as I know, only in black anodized.

[imprezap2]

There were more colors (anodized)

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiO4eDnxtLgAhXBCOwKHUu0CHMQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.soundandcolors.com%2Fen%2Fpro duits%2Fqsub-15%2F&psig=AOvVaw3KHfNL98W1g3sz82IgJPWT&ust=1551035206000144

[Mike]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190228/bab03da8b54860c95286960ec2e04e2d.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ritmo]

This new M2 is a good looking speaker. Look forward to hearing at AXPONA in April.

[a.wayne]

I guess the crossovers used do not allow for that.

Due to sealed enclosure mostly , , not xover design , you lose some sensitivity going for bandwidth ............


Regards ..

[owldiscourse]

That looks like the pair from Australia. It was also posted on Audiogon. The other pair is in Cyprus. I have a friend who is looking for a pair but wants to buy from the USA. It's interesting that there are two pairs of M3s for sale already at about the same price as a pair of M2s.

Also interesting is that the S5 mk2 is selling for about the same as a Q3.

How do you think it compares performance wise for the same price as the S5Mk2?

[Bart001]

This new M2 is a good looking speaker. Look forward to hearing at AXPONA in April.

I think it's fantastic looking. I'll have to wait for Goodwin's to get a pair. Should I ever decide to go UP the range with Magico, at least I'll be able to sell my A3's (which I've not even taken delivery of yet!).

[Skanda]

How do you think it compares performance wise for the same price as the S5Mk2?

the s5mk2 will hit harder on the low end, but certainly no boom. overall, it will be the more forgiving of the two speakers with very little lost in terms of speed and resolution and this should give you more variety in terms of types of music and recordings. the diamond coated be tweeter on the m series and mk2 series is just superb whereas i thought the original be tweeter got a bit hot on recordings that weren't perfect.

if you're really into small scale acoustic i think the q3 wins. that's not to say that it can't play other genres, just that it does really really well on this - i would imagine similarly on classical and stuff too.

i read a while back that the "s" in the s series stands for "soul" - not something from magico officially but just something a dealer mentioned that i thought was accurate

[Mike]

the s5mk2 will hit harder on the low end, but certainly no boom. overall, it will be the more forgiving of the two speakers with very little lost in terms of speed and resolution and this should give you more variety in terms of types of music and recordings. the diamond coated be tweeter on the m series and mk2 series is just superb whereas i thought the original be tweeter got a bit hot on recordings that weren't perfect.

if you're really into small scale acoustic i think the q3 wins. that's not to say that it can't play other genres, just that it does really really well on this - i would imagine similarly on classical and stuff too.

i read a while back that the "s" in the s series stands for "soul" - not something from magico officially but just something a dealer mentioned that i thought was accurate

In your opinion, does the Q3 outperform the S5 mk2?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skanda]

honestly, really had to say - they are both amazing speakers and with the mk2 series being newer/current that's also a plus.

on performance alone, i think i would give the edge to the mk2 because of the tweeter.

[PeterA]

How do you think it compares performance wise for the same price as the S5Mk2?

That's a great question. I have not directly compared them in the same system. I own the Q3s and continue to be astonished at what they can do in my 14.5 X 16 room. They are extremely transparent and revealing of set up and the rest of the system. I do not hear that "hot" tweeter at all. Many people described the Q3 as analytical and sterile. I lived with it for a month in my system and would never describe it that way. I have been able to shift the tonal balance of my system with minute changes in speaker position. I listen to acoustic music, both small and large scale symphony. I also listen to jazz and some classic rock.

I have heard the S5mk2 in Myles Astor's system and it sounded fantastic. I don't know how much of that sound to attribute to the speakers. I do think there are some fundamental design differences which may affect the overall sound, namely the baffle shapes and the cabinet construction. I think the S5 is likely more forgiving of upstream components. Aesthetics also play a role.

My comment was based on used prices for the two speakers. The S5 mk2 is newer, so that is a factor. At current prices, I think the Q3 will be more stable over time, while the S5 may depreciate a bit more based only on age. When new, I think the Q3 was more expensive.

I would love to conduct a direct comparison of these two speakers.

[Myles B. Astor]

deleted wrong quote.

[Myles B. Astor]

the s5mk2 will hit harder on the low end, but certainly no boom. overall, it will be the more forgiving of the two speakers with very little lost in terms of speed and resolution and this should give you more variety in terms of types of music and recordings. the diamond coated be tweeter on the m series and mk2 series is just superb whereas i thought the original be tweeter got a bit hot on recordings that weren't perfect.

if you're really into small scale acoustic i think the q3 wins. that's not to say that it can't play other genres, just that it does really really well on this - i would imagine similarly on classical and stuff too.

i read a while back that the "s" in the s series stands for "soul" - not something from magico officially but just something a dealer mentioned that i thought was accurate

I actually used the term soul in my S5 review.😉

[Skanda]

I actually used the term soul in my S5 review.

Ah! Apologies - for some reason I was remembering Bob stating this on the an forum...but now i remember that he was quoting you!

[Skanda]

I have heard the S5mk2 in Myles Astor's system and it sounded fantastic. I don't know how much of that sound to attribute to the speakers. I do think there are some fundamental design differences which may affect the overall sound, namely the baffle shapes and the cabinet construction.

.

Given this experience, what would your takeaway be on the differences between these speakers. Or rather, was there anything about the s5 system that instantly struck you as different from your q3s - anything that you could exclude the effect of upstream gear from (maybe you know the amps, or source very well etc)

[brodricj]

I heard S5 before buying S3. S3 is better. Q3 is a vastly better speaker than S3. Magico made a lot of improvements to S5Mk2, whether to the extent that S5Mk2 sounds better than Q3 I don't know. I haven't heard S5Mk2. If used Q3 and used S5Mk2 were about the same price, and I hadn't heard either, I'd go for Q3 - despite being an older model - simply because that was a much more expensive speaker than S5Mk2 when new. The price difference between used Q3 and new M3 is huge, the performance difference isn't anywhere near as huge as the price difference.

[Skanda]

I heard S5 before buying S3. S3 is better. Q3 is a vastly better speaker than S3. Magico made a lot of improvements to S5Mk2, whether to the extent that S5Mk2 sounds better than Q3 I don't know. I haven't heard S5Mk2. If used Q3 and used S5Mk2 were about the same price, and I hadn't heard either, I'd go for Q3 - despite being an older model - simply because that was a much more expensive speaker than S5Mk2 when new. The price difference between used Q3 and new M3 is huge, the performance difference isn't anywhere near as huge as the price difference.

not to sound defensive but you could make that same argument about the s5mk2. prices can also come down over model years due to changes in production (bringin in machines that were otherwise outsourced portions of production, buying materials at lower costs because of discount on units etc)

[brodricj]

The price of Magico speakers only goes in one direction over time, and that is not down.

I don't think you can make that argument for S5Mk2 vs Mk1 (if that was your point).

[PeterA]

Given this experience, what would your takeaway be on the differences between these speakers. Or rather, was there anything about the s5 system that instantly struck you as different from your q3s - anything that you could exclude the effect of upstream gear from (maybe you know the amps, or source very well etc)

Sorry, unfortunately, the system components and rooms are so different between my system and Myles' that I could not make any conclusions about the respective speakers separate from the system/room contexts. Both systems are highly resolving and analog based, but that is where the similarities end.

[Kuoppis]

Brodricij, aren’t you still selling a pair of Q3s? Is that where you’re coming from?

The new Magico graphene mids/ woofers, and diamond coated tweeters are significantly better drivers compared to the older generations.

Therefore e.g. the S3 mk2 is the significantly more refined and more coherent sounding speaker compared to the original S3, which already features the same generation of drivers as the Q3.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[PeterA]

Therefore e.g. the S3 mk2 is the significantly more refined and more coherent sounding speaker compared to the original S3, which already features the same generation of drivers as the Q3.

Kuoppis, the S5 mk2 used costs about the same as a Q3. You seem to imply that the S5 mk2 is a better speaker given its newer technology, especially regarding the drivers. Shouldn't it cost much more?

[Kuoppis]

Kuoppis, the S5 mk2 used costs about the same as a Q3. You seem to imply that the S5 mk2 is a better speaker given its newer technology, especially regarding the drivers. Shouldn't it cost much more?

Not necessarily. I would argue, due to the newer driver technology and x-overs:

- S5 mk2 is better than S5
- S3 mk2 is significantly better than S3

Q3 is a higher range product, but the same generation as S5/ S3. The Q and S range have a slightly different tonality with the Q3 being more transparent and S5/ S3 a bit more full sounding.

All are great speakers. However, Magico is a company which is strongly driving technology innovation in its products. Typically a newer generation product has quite significant improvements compared to the previous one.

The M Pro was an innovation leader, breaking new ground in several areas. Those technologies have trickled down the range into lower M series an and also the S5 mk2/ S3 mk2 products. The M Pro cost about 160K new, if I remember correctly. Now the M3 can be had for 75K. The trickle down allows significant cost reduction of e.g. graphene and diamond coated drivers compared to when they were introduced in the M Pro. The Q3 was introduced before the M Pro.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[brodricj]

Brodricij, aren’t you still selling a pair of Q3s? Is that where you’re coming from?


Yes, I was quite clear about that. I'd be happy to keep my Q3 if I got a very good offer for my M3. I like the Q3 more than any other Magico speaker I'd heard prior to M3.

[Skanda]

Yes, I was quite clear about that. I'd be happy to keep my Q3 if I got a very good offer for my M3. I like the Q3 more than any other Magico speaker I'd heard prior to M3.

That's a strong statement. When I started my magico journey, I wanted the M3 but it was out of my budget so I looked for the next best thing. To my ears, it was the s5mk2. Would be great to get your thoughts on your q3 vs. m3 in your system.

[Dre_J]

Sorry, unfortunately, the system components and rooms are so different between my system and Myles' that I could not make any conclusions about the respective speakers separate from the system/room contexts. Both systems are highly resolving and analog based, but that is where the similarities end.

Given the statement above, what are the sonic contrasts and differences from a system/room context you observed given there are few similarities besides those stated in the last sentence?

Dre

[Kuoppis]

Yes, I was quite clear about that.

Thanks for clarifying, I understand your perspective.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[PeterA]

Given the statement above, what are the sonic contrasts and differences from a system/room context you observed given there are few similarities besides those stated in the last sentence?

Dre

Hello Dre. That is kind of tough because I only spent a few hours listening with Myles. I really enjoyed meeting Myles and having a chance to hear his system about which I had read so much. A good friend up here in Boston suggested I visit because he had heard the system and remarked about just how good those S5mk2s sounded in that room.

I would say the main difference has to do with soundstaging and imaging: spatial resolution, listener perspective, scale and sense of presence. Myles has a fantastic music collection. He played for me two choral recordings, one of which I bought previously on his recommendation: Holst, Six Medieval Lyrics, Argo ZrG 5495, and The King's Singers, A French Collection, EMI CSD 3740.

We listened to a lot of music, but for the sake of simplicity, these two recordings should illustrate the sonic contrasts and differences from a system/room context that I heard. We played the first tracks from each LP. Both recordings sounded highly resolved and natural, but very similar in terms of presentation. I enjoy the music and I quickly forgot about the system and instead just relaxed and marveled at how good the system sounded. I was quite surprised because despite what I had read, I was expecting a really small presentation given the size of the room. I guess I was also expecting the speakers to perhaps overload the room, given their large size relative to the room. This was not the case.

The system and speakers disappeared and we were left with the music. The Holst is a large male choir with some string instruments. The individual singers were spread from left to right and filled the front wall. The image was recessed back behind the system near the front wall. Each voice was distinct, clear, and articulate. Myles remarked that if I liked the Holst, I would love the The King's Singers. This is a much smaller ensemble of six male singers. The recording is a stand out and sonic marvel. Resolution was off the charts. However, the singers occupied about the same space in the room, they just sounded bigger.

When I returned home, I bought a copy of the King's Singers to hear in my own system. In my room, there is a larger contrast between the two recordings. The image of the Holst fills the front wall from right to left, and the singers are slightly further back in the space than at Myles' place. The King's Singers however, are more forward, and are more or less at the plane of the speakers. They do not fill the front wall, but rather seem up close and personal, located from the outside edge of one speaker to the other. They are extremely present, in the room. The differences in scale, listener perspective, and sense of presence is more distinct between the two recordings. There is more spatial information and recording space acoustic. The contrast between the recordings is pretty clear.

At first I also thought Myles' system was a bit warmer than mine, with slightly more body and weight, though not energy. My sound had been a bit thin, I thought, based on what I heard at Myles', and some recent live music concerts, both large and small scale. I have been experimenting with cartridge loading and slight speaker positioning adjustments. This has resulted in considerably more weight, body, and warmth. I would now say that my system has a tonal balance which I think is very similar to what I heard at Myles. So, after the visit, I would have said that Myles' system had a richer, warmer tonal balance, and mine was thinner and slightly cooler, but I no longer think that is the case.

I don't know how responsive the S5 Mk2 is to such changes of speaker position and up stream vinyl adjustments, but the Q3 is a chameleon when it comes to upstream set up and gear changes. It really seems to have very little sound of its own. It is really hard to say that the differences I notice between our two systems have anything to do with the speakers. I think they are more likely based on the two rooms.

I did not hear differences that I might have attributed to solid stage versus tube electrics, belt drive versus direct drive turntables, etc. I should add that I was astonished at the spatial information and sheer experience of listening to his tape of Dark Side of the Moon. That was fantastic. It filled the room to a much greater extent than did his other recordings.

In the end, I actually think our two systems sound much more alike than I would have thought given the differences in components and typologies. In no way can I reach any conclusions about the sonic differences of the two speakers simply based on what I hear from our two systems.

[IanG-UK]

What a fascinating analysis by PeterA, and in my view a commendable one. These are both, I suspect, truly great speakers. I've heard lots of Magico but I could not say for sure that I have heard both these - I use Q1s (with the Wilson Benesch Torus) and have recently seriously auditioned M3s; and am waiting for the M2s.

But (1) room, (2) change of speaker position, (3) change of listening position and (4) recording - and I could add mood and listening volume - contribute far more than changes in quality conventional loudspeakers, if adequately driven.

This should encourage all to devote much time and thought to any loudspeaker change, which therefore usually requires a lot of commitment from a good dealer - which is tough to find here in the UK.

[Dre_J]

Hello Dre. That is kind of tough because I only spent a few hours listening with Myles. I really enjoyed meeting Myles and having a chance to hear his system about which I had read so much. A good friend up here in Boston suggested I visit because he had heard the system and remarked about just how good those S5mk2s sounded in that room.

I would say the main difference has to do with soundstaging and imaging: spatial resolution, listener perspective, scale and sense of presence. Myles has a fantastic music collection. He played for me two choral recordings, one of which I bought previously on his recommendation: Holst, Six Medieval Lyrics, Argo ZrG 5495, and The King's Singers, A French Collection, EMI CSD 3740.

We listened to a lot of music, but for the sake of simplicity, these two recordings should illustrate the sonic contrasts and differences from a system/room context that I heard. We played the first tracks from each LP. Both recordings sounded highly resolved and natural, but very similar in terms of presentation. I enjoy the music and I quickly forgot about the system and instead just relaxed and marveled at how good the system sounded. I was quite surprised because despite what I had read, I was expecting a really small presentation given the size of the room. I guess I was also expecting the speakers to perhaps overload the room, given their large size relative to the room. This was not the case.

The system and speakers disappeared and we were left with the music. The Holst is a large male choir with some string instruments. The individual singers were spread from left to right and filled the front wall. The image was recessed back behind the system near the front wall. Each voice was distinct, clear, and articulate. Myles remarked that if I liked the Holst, I would love the The King's Singers. This is a much smaller ensemble of six male singers. The recording is a stand out and sonic marvel. Resolution was off the charts. However, the singers occupied about the same space in the room, they just sounded bigger.

When I returned home, I bought a copy of the King's Singers to hear in my own system. In my room, there is a larger contrast between the two recordings. The image of the Holst fills the front wall from right to left, and the singers are slightly further back in the space than at Myles' place. The King's Singers however, are more forward, and are more or less at the plane of the speakers. They do not fill the front wall, but rather seem up close and personal, located from the outside edge of one speaker to the other. They are extremely present, in the room. The differences in scale, listener perspective, and sense of presence is more distinct between the two recordings. There is more spatial information and recording space acoustic. The contrast between the recordings is pretty clear.

At first I also thought Myles' system was a bit warmer than mine, with slightly more body and weight, though not energy. My sound had been a bit thin, I thought, based on what I heard at Myles', and some recent live music concerts, both large and small scale. I have been experimenting with cartridge loading and slight speaker positioning adjustments. This has resulted in considerably more weight, body, and warmth. I would now say that my system has a tonal balance which I think is very similar to what I heard at Myles. So, after the visit, I would have said that Myles' system had a richer, warmer tonal balance, and mine was thinner and slightly cooler, but I no longer think that is the case.

I don't know how responsive the S5 Mk2 is to such changes of speaker position and up stream vinyl adjustments, but the Q3 is a chameleon when it comes to upstream set up and gear changes. It really seems to have very little sound of its own. It is really hard to say that the differences I notice between our two systems have anything to do with the speakers. I think they are more likely based on the two rooms.

I did not hear differences that I might have attributed to solid stage versus tube electrics, belt drive versus direct drive turntables, etc. I should add that I was astonished at the spatial information and sheer experience of listening to his tape of Dark Side of the Moon. That was fantastic. It filled the room to a much greater extent than did his other recordings.

In the end, I actually think our two systems sound much more alike than I would have thought given the differences in components and typologies. In no way can I reach any conclusions about the sonic differences of the two speakers simply based on what I hear from our two systems.

Thanks for the reply.

From the original statement, I’d gathered there were no similarities other than the two you had mentioned. That seemed unusual in some ways.

Now that you have expanded on this observation, the one difference you have focused on was the perception of depth (I gather that is mostly from a few tracks from two vocal-based albums) and the associated subjective attributes you ascribed to that feature. Ok, Thanks.

I did notice you mentioned DSOTM sounded fantastic: which is a more full range performance and not as midrange-ish (single driver) limited as the first two albums you focused on. That was interesting.

I also learned you thought your system was on the cooler/thinner side at the time of the listening event compared to the warmer/weightier sound from the visited system in addition to your live venue experiences. Although, you have mentioned since that time you have taken steps to improve your perception of the sound you are getting; while not always the case, this can sometimes be the plus side of getting out more.

And finally, your affirming, in the end, that the two systems are more similar than different brings me full circle to why I had asked the question originally. It seems upon reflection, this latest and more complete response is more in-line with what I would have initially thought.

I had a feeling the additional clarity would be more beneficial and in better context than the original statement you had made.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Dre

[PeterA]

Thanks for the reply.

From the original statement, I’d gathered there were no similarities other than the two you had mentioned. That seemed unusual in some ways.

Now that you have expanded on this observation, the one difference you have focused on was the perception of depth (I gather that is mostly from a few tracks from two vocal-based albums) and the associated subjective attributes you ascribed to that feature. Ok, Thanks.

I did notice you mentioned DSOTM sounded fantastic: which is a more full range performance and not as midrange-ish (single driver) limited as the first two albums you focused on. That was interesting.

I also learned you thought your system was on the cooler/thinner side at the time of the listening event compared to the warmer/weightier sound from the visited system in addition to your live venue experiences. Although, you have mentioned since that time you have taken steps to improve your perception of the sound you are getting; while not always the case, this can sometimes be the plus side of getting out more.

And finally, your affirming, in the end, that the two systems are more similar than different brings me full circle to why I had asked the question originally. It seems upon reflection, this latest and more complete response is more in-line with what I would have initially thought.

I had a feeling the additional clarity would be more beneficial and in better context than the original statement you had made.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Dre

You are welcome, Dre. I think this thread about the new M2 is not really the place to discuss how similar or different two other Magico speakers may or may not sound, especially considering that I have not directly compared them. The system and room contexts in which I did hear Myles' S52 and my Q3 are considerably different, and that is the point I was trying to make. Upon reflection, I am somewhat surprised that they sound as similar as they do.

It is interesting that visitors are not often asked to describe the differences between two members' systems in forums like these. In fact, such descriptions are usually made in isolation and not relative to other people's systems. Furthermore, people do often make pronouncements about specific components and how they sound compared to others without actually having heard them side by side.

When I wrote this:


Sorry, unfortunately, the system components and rooms are so different between my system and Myles' that I could not make any conclusions about the respective speakers separate from the system/room contexts. Both systems are highly resolving and analog based, but that is where the similarities end.

I was referring to the room and components being so different rather than my impressions of each system's sonic attributes.

[brodricj]

That's a strong statement. When I started my magico journey, I wanted the M3 but it was out of my budget so I looked for the next best thing. To my ears, it was the s5mk2. Would be great to get your thoughts on your q3 vs. m3 in your system.

I asked my dealer this same question before I bought M3. His reply was, M3 make Q3 sound broken. My Q3 were on SPOD and I prefer their sonic attributes over the MPro I heard in another hi-end dealer show room. So I wouldn't go as far to say that M3 make Q3 sound broken. Alon Wolf made a big deal about the vast improvements brought about by the curved side/top surfaces of M3 (to counter diffraction effects) compared to the flat straight edges of the Q3 cabinet. Whether that is validated by measurement, whether true or not, I don't know. What I do know is both speakers can be made to vanish in the room, despite the enormity of their physical presence, curved cabinets or not. When you can achieve that it's a good starting point for everything else. The most apparent sonic difference between M3 and Q3 is that diamond coated Be tweeter. It really is something special. It allows the treble to keep pace and tonal balance with the bass texture through the operating volume range. Meaning M3 can bring on a thoroughly enjoyable listening experience at a lower volume compared to Q3, which needs more current and volume to snap everything into focus (in other words, bass tends to swamp treble in Q3 at lower volumes, but not so in M3). I have Mpods for my M3 but I haven't installed them yet. I expect that when I do the differences between it and Q3 will be more apparent.

[Skanda]

I asked my dealer this same question before I bought M3. His reply was, M3 make Q3 sound broken. My Q3 were on SPOD and I prefer their sonic attributes over the MPro I heard in another hi-end dealer show room. So I wouldn't go as far to say that M3 make Q3 sound broken. Alon Wolf made a big deal about the vast improvements brought about by the curved side/top surfaces of M3 (to counter diffraction effects) compared to the flat straight edges of the Q3 cabinet. Whether that is validated by measurement, whether true or not, I don't know. What I do know is both speakers can be made to vanish in the room, despite the enormity of their physical presence, curved cabinets or not. When you can achieve that it's a good starting point for everything else. The most apparent sonic difference between M3 and Q3 is that diamond coated Be tweeter. It really is something special. It allows the treble to keep pace and tonal balance with the bass texture through the operating volume range. Meaning M3 can bring on a thoroughly enjoyable listening experience at a lower volume compared to Q3, which needs more current and volume to snap everything into focus (in other words, bass tends to swamp treble in Q3 at lower volumes, but not so in M3). I have Mpods for my M3 but I haven't installed them yet. I expect that when I do the differences between it and Q3 will be more apparent.

Thanks for sharing this. I found your comments on the tweeter especially insightful. In my small room the s5's disappear completely and i have them set up as a 9ft equilateral triangle - it's extremely impressive when 440lbs of aluminum just move out of the way! Reminds me of my old monitors in that sense.

I have a symphonic line kraft on the way...I am eager to see what that power and current (not that my current amp is a slouch) can get these speakers to do.

[GSOphile]

I own an S3 Mk2. Much of my listening is done at what I'd call low-moderate volume levels, and I'd have to say the combination of the S3 Mk2s and Gryphon Diablo 300 integrated is excellent at these levels.

[skytop]

Price of Magico M2: SRP US $ 56,000 /pair plus applicable taxes. Price M2 MPOD 3-Pt Stand: SRP US $ 7,600 /pair (optional)

[UltraFast69]

Is the MPod stand better for any one type of surface; concrete, wood, tile, turf?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[BlueFox]

Is the MPOD a stand, or footers?

[NekoAudio]

Is the MPOD a stand, or footers?
The MPOD for Magico M2 or M3 speakers is the set of silver metal feet with vibration absorption material sandwiched in-between, that you screw into the base of the speaker instead of regular spikes. It's good in any situation where vibrations would be traveling between the floor and speaker enclosure.

[BlueFox]

The MPOD for Magico M2 or M3 speakers is the set of silver metal feet with vibration absorption material sandwiched in-between, that you screw into the base of the speaker instead of regular spikes. It's good in any situation where vibrations would be traveling between the floor and speaker enclosure.

Thanks. Sounds like an SPOD.

[brodricj]

Actually, Mpods get screwed into a 3-point stand and the stand gets attached to the bottom of the speaker. With Spod, that is a direct fixing in the same hole as the spike that is being replaced. Magico have something called M-feet which is now the standard footer for M3. It is very similar to Spod, but much larger. Mpods and Spods are constructed differently internally.

M3 is carried by either four M-feet, or three Mpods on 3-point stand. I assume M2 is the same.

[BlueFox]

Zounds. Glad I retire next month and will no longer be able to afford this stuff. It is getting to be too much for my feeble mind to keep up with. :)

[brodricj]

Huh? I thought when you retire that's when you up the spending on hobbies.

[PeterA]

If one were in the market for a new Magico speaker for a particular room size, regardless of cost, would he compare an M2 to an S3 mk2 or S5 mk 2? I think the S series generally has fewer but larger woofer drivers than the comparable M series speaker which has more and smaller woofer drivers: M3 v. S5 mk2.

[Elberoth]

The M3 sounds noticably better than the S5 mk2. More natural and smoother, with greater tone density. The M3 tweeter is just out of this (dome) world great. Down low, I prefer the S5 mk 2 though. There is just no replacement for displacement :)

[Mike]

If one were in the market for a new Magico speaker for a particular room size, regardless of cost, would he compare an M2 to an S3 mk2 or S5 mk 2? I think the S series generally has fewer but larger woofer drivers than the comparable M series speaker which has more and smaller woofer drivers: M3 v. S5 mk2.

M3 has smaller woofers, but three instead of two. They’re totally different, but both great in their own way. The more difficult comparison is S7’s vs M3. Then it’s three bass drivers vs 3. Again, both are awesome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike]

The M3 sounds noticably better than the S5 mk2. More natural and smoother, with greater tone density. The M3 tweeter is just out of this (dome) world great. Down low, I prefer the S5 mk 2 though. There is just no replacement for displacement :)

Well said. I agree 100%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PeterA]

M3 has smaller woofers, but three instead of two. They’re totally different, but both great in their own way. The more difficult comparison is S7’s vs M3. Then it’s three bass drivers vs 3. Again, both are awesome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks Mike. Do you think the M3 and S7 are designed for the same size room? And which S series speaker do you think is more appropriate for someone considering an M2? I understand that the two series have different tonal characteristics, but I am curious about room compatibility and which models one would realistically be comparing in that sense.

[PeterA]

The M3 sounds noticably better than the S5 mk2. More natural and smoother, with greater tone density. The M3 tweeter is just out of this (dome) world great. Down low, I prefer the S5 mk 2 though. There is just no replacement for displacement :)

That's interesting. Are you suggesting that Magico needs an M4/M5 to be consistently better in both the highs and lows than the S5 mk2? Do most customers prefer the lower frequencies of the S5 mk2 to those of the M3? I thought they are simply different, the S5 mk 2 being more about quantity while the M3 is more about quality. Is that wrong?

[Mike]

Thanks Mike. Do you think the M3 and S7 are designed for the same size room? And which S series speaker do you think is more appropriate for someone considering an M2? I understand that the two series have different tonal characteristics, but I am curious about room compatibility and which models one would realistically be comparing in that sense.

The M3 fills the 20 x 25 in the store beautifully. The S5 mk2/S7 do too.

M2 would be for someone considering S3 mk2. M3 is more for someone stepping up from the S5 mk2. I’m really anxious to get my M2’s. I think in the 17 x 25 room they will sing! My hunch on the M2 is that for many, it will be THE Magico to buy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skanda]

Actually, Mpods get screwed into a 3-point stand and the stand gets attached to the bottom of the speaker. With Spod, that is a direct fixing in the same hole as the spike that is being replaced. Magico have something called M-feet which is now the standard footer for M3. It is very similar to Spod, but much larger. Mpods and Spods are constructed differently internally.

M3 is carried by either four M-feet, or three Mpods on 3-point stand. I assume M2 is the same.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but you had the m3's singing for a little while without mpods right? the mpod vs. no mpod has been talked about before but did you have some findings to share?

i have been thinking about spods for my s5's but my biggest concern is that my furniture is low to the ground (my damned love of danish furniture) and i'm currently at a perfect level with the speaker and i worry that raising the height may lead to other issues.

[brodricj]

I received the Mpods with 3 point stand about 2 months ago but I'm unable to fit them by myself. The M3 speaker is just too heavy for me to do it alone. Most customers order their M3's with Mpods and they arrive from the factory with the stand already fitted to the base of the speaker (I originally ordered my M3 without Mpods).

[Skanda]

I received the Mpods with 3 point stand about 2 months ago but I'm unable to fit them by myself. The M3 speaker is just too heavy for me to do it alone. Most customers order their M3's with Mpods and they arrive from the factory with the stand already fitted to the base of the speaker (I originally ordered my M3 without Mpods).

ahh that's right. well in that case i think your thoughts are even more helpful as i'm not aware of any posters who have had such lengthy experience without the mpod - most posts i have seen have suggested that mpods were added shortly after purchase. especially curious about this since you mentioned earlier that you think the m3-q3 differential might be higher with the mpod going back to the q3 sounding "broken" in comparison comment earlier

[brodricj]

My M3 are on M-feet which is an M version of the Spod. M3 used to ship with basic steel spikes. Now they ship with M-feet as standard. So I haven't heard M3 on standard spikes. I did upgrade my Q3 from standard spikes to Spods and they are worth the price of entry. Read into that my M3 on M-feet are likely to be better than earlier production M3 that had basic spikes. I'm expecting M3 will sound better on the Mpods, but not by as much as the early M3 on spikes (because my M3 are on M-feet).

[Kuoppis]

Magico claims the quietest enclosures in the industry. Here testing the M2 enclosure using a Laser Vibrometer.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190314/38e406d71d8d0607c948b8825f53cb3e.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[brodricj]

I'd like to see how those measurements change with and without Mpods.

[Kuoppis]

I think that is a good one. Maybe a question to inquire Magico about.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Kingsrule]

I'd like to see how those measurements change with and without Mpods.

Irrelevant in regards to cabinet noise

[brodricj]

Really? I thought the Mpods channeled cabinet noise into the Mpod elastomerics and dissipated it as heat?

[PeterA]

Perhaps Magico is trying to develop cabinet technology which reduces the vibrations regardless of whether it can then be drained later by the use of specific footers. I think it would be interesting to see measured efficacy of the M pods on the vibrations of the cabinet. I suspect Mágico has this data but may not be willing to share it.

[Kingsrule]

The MPOD measurement u all should be interested in is how much noise is eliminated on the surface they are sitting on....

[PeterA]

The MPOD measurement u all should be interested in is how much noise is eliminated on the surface they are sitting on....

I agree. That would be interesting too. But, I do think it would be fascinating to measure cabinet resonance and then see how much of that resonance is drained away from the cabinet through the use of different footers. There is also isolation between the cabinet resonances and the floor. It seems the M Pods do a bit of both, draining energy out of the system and preventing it from reaching the floor.

I think testing with and without the M Pods would simply help to demonstrate how effective they are at what they do. Listening is useful too, obviously. I have heard their effect on my friend's M Pros. I was impressed.

[Matias]

Irrelevant in regards to cabinet noise

I don't know about MPODs but IsoAcoustics Gaia feet improvements to cabinet vibrations are measurable. MPODs most likely too.

http://www.isoacoustics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/isoacoustics_techonology-explained-fig06-07.jpg


http://www.isoacoustics.com/isoacoustics-speaker-isolation-technology/ (http://www.isoacoustics.com/isoacoustics-speaker-isolation-technology/)

[Paul]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190319/bea6fd9eea195cf8bce0da7f2ef1548a.jpg


https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190319/dfe0f43fabe90028898903835cd9ffa6.jpg

First pair of M2 will showing at Montreal audio show this week by Audio by MarkJones

[brodricj]

I can't help but feel sad when I see a fine speaker like that end up in ridiculous installation like that.

[Paul]

I can't help but feel sad when I see a fine speaker like that end up in ridiculous installation like that.

If you are referring to my post. The speakers are just playing on 24/7 to break in to be primed for their debut.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brodricj]

If M2 are similar to M3 re break in, there aren't anywhere near enough 24/7 left between now and then to get them anywhere near primed for debut. Some is better than none, of course.

[Paul]

Hoping I can hear them soon :).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[a.wayne]

If M2 are similar to M3 re break in, there aren't anywhere near enough 24/7 left between now and then to get them anywhere near primed for debut. Some is better than none, of course.


Haa ha , thats Hillarious , break in is the last 5% if bad after a few days its time to run and beat the 90day charge back policy ..

:)

[a.wayne]

I agree. That would be interesting too. But, I do think it would be fascinating to measure cabinet resonance and then see how much of that resonance is drained away from the cabinet through the use of different footers. There is also isolation between the cabinet resonances and the floor. It seems the M Pods do a bit of both, draining energy out of the system and preventing it from reaching the floor.

I think testing with and without the M Pods would simply help to demonstrate how effective they are at what they do. Listening is useful too, obviously. I have heard their effect on my friend's M Pros. I was impressed.


Hello Peter ,

Could you be more specific on how the mpods helped sonically , was this on hard floors or wood ..?


Regards

[brodricj]

Disagree with you on that...break-in completes the whole package that then establishes the speaker above all others. Prior to being broken-in they might just be any of a number of other speakers. But it is an audio show, so getting them out there and visible is the most important thing, even if they are under-done with break-in. They will be drooled over no matter what they sound like.

[PeterA]

Hello Peter ,

Could you be more specific on how the mpods helped sonically , was this on hard floors or wood ..?


Regards

Hello, The M Pods made the sound more clear, less diffuse. Overall system resolution seemed to improve. It also improved bass definition, though I can't remember the effect on bass extension.

[kzhtoo]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190322/c96b6b259e1ac6c8ca00b9cd13b319d0.jpg

[Paul]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190322/d011c83e406b334594f403d109becfc6.jpg

At the show now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190322/d011c83e406b334594f403d109becfc6.jpg

At the show now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How’s the sounds?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kuoppis]

Only passive demo or what...?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[brodricj]

With those electronics I should think the sound would be quite presentable, not-withstanding the newness of the speakers.

[Elberoth]

Magico M2 CF box:

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/4118/zOWK0g.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/6312/7R5FmA.jpg

[imprezap2]

thickness of the CF box looks impressive, will be very strong

[brodricj]

Presumably the M6 box is similar, and the M3 box is not?

[Elberoth]

Correct.

[brodricj]

The top cap of the M2 cabinet is still CNC aluminium, right?

[Paul]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190324/d477e19a4c2c0202d6646bfd30167e6a.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brodricj]

They didn't pull the pins out of the Mpods for the show demo?

[Kuoppis]

Presumably the M6 box is similar, and the M3 box is not?
How so?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[brodricj]

The M3 has an internal metal skeleton similar to the Q platform.

[Elberoth]

M3 have CF 'skins' over aluminium structure. It is my understanding, that when you take the drivers out and look inside, you will not see CF - all walls and bracing are aluminium.

Both M2 and M6 have what we can call 'next generation' Magico enclosures. Thay are far more advanced CF monocoque designs.

[brodricj]

That's right. I expect M3Mk2 will evolve into the CF monocoque design, with associated weight reduction.

25222

[PeterA]

M3 have CF 'skins' over aluminium structure. It is my understanding, that when you take the drivers out and look inside, you will not see CF - all walls and bracing are aluminium.

Both M2 and M6 have what we can call 'next generation' Magico enclosures. Thay are far more advanced CF monocoque designs.

The different construction techniques between the M2 and M3 are fascinating. I am curious about the aluminum curved top plate on the M2. Does it simply attach somehow to the curved CF box? Also, it seems as though there is a front side to the box attached with screws before the curved aluminum front baffle is attached with the long rod/bolt system first seen in the Mini 2. Is the tweeter attached to the baffle while the mid and woofer drivers are attached to the box before the front baffle is attached?

The M2's carbon fiber cabinet harks back to the birchply cabinet of the Mini with front and rear aluminum baffles clamped on with tension rods through the structure. Very different from the aluminum skeleton structure of the Q series, MPro and M3.

Thank you for posting that image of the M3 brodricj. It is the first I've seen of the M3 interior.

[Skanda]

damn - my desire for an m2 is increasing by the day!

[Darrel]

The speaker looks really beautiful.

I do find it interesting the construction of aluminum in contact with carbon fiber. In my experience in the aircraft industry you never have aluminum assembled to carbon fiber due to corrosion issues. The requirements are very different and with speakers in that they don't have temperature, altitude or stress the same as aircraft. But, the two don't play well together due to the effect of carbon fibers corrosive effects on aluminum. Just a thought.

[Dizzie]

25230252312523225233252342523525236

[Darrel]

Nice pictures but the angle on some of them make me "Dizzie".

[joeinid]

25237


PNG from JPG conversion.

[joeinid]

25238

[Kingsrule]

The speaker looks really beautiful.

I do find it interesting the construction of aluminum in contact with carbon fiber. In my experience in the aircraft industry you never have aluminum assembled to carbon fiber due to corrosion issues. The requirements are very different and with speakers in that they don't have temperature, altitude or stress the same as aircraft. But, the two don't play well together due to the effect of carbon fibers corrosive effects on aluminum. Just a thought.

Pretty sure there is a gasket between the carbon and aluminum....

[Darrel]

Pretty sure there is a gasket between the carbon and aluminum....


If that was all that was required to stop the effects then airplane manufacturing would use as described. They don't for a reason.

[Kingsrule]

If that was all that was required to stop the effects then airplane manufacturing would use as described. They don't for a reason.


Speakers don't get rain, salt, chemicals. U are way over thinking this...

[Darrel]

Speakers don't get rain, salt, chemicals. U are way over thinking this...


I'm merely bringing up the facts about aluminum and carbon fiber. Weather and the environment has an effect on everything everywhere even in the home with equipment and speakers.

[Elberoth]

M3:

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/4758/o1B715.jpg

[FDPDK]

well years ago when carbon was still exotic in bicycle industry , the French manufacturing company LOOK bicycles used pipes of carbon and those where glued together with aluminum joints , can't recall i have heard of any faulty because of those parts together.
Apart from that i like the look of the M2 :)

[Elberoth]

French engineering ;)

[FDPDK]

he he , can be both good or bad. :)

[LVB]

Had several cars, including the BMW M3, aluminum chassis with a CF roof, so its not just the French ;)

[brodricj]

Is special tooling required to open up an M3 enclosure?

[Darrel]

Are there any reports on how this Magico sounds?

[brodricj]

A3 cracked a brief mention in the Stereophile Montreal show reports. I don't think M2 got a mention at all.

[Kingsrule]

Atkinson mentioned the M2....

[Alpinist]

The monocoque construction of the M2 and M6 is a brilliantly engineered design with tension rods holding the cast aluminum front and back and the thick carbon fiber sides very tightly together. No bonding of aluminum and carbon is necessary. Consequently, the cabinet is amazingly strong, rigid and inert. I knocked hard on the carbon fiber sides of the M6 and it is as solid as a rock. Highly impressive.

Ken

[PeterA]

The monocoque construction of the M2 and M6 is a brilliantly engineered design with tension rods holding the cast aluminum front and back and the thick carbon fiber sides very tightly together. No bonding of aluminum and carbon is necessary. Consequently, the cabinet is amazingly strong, rigid and inert. I knocked hard on the carbon fiber sides of the M6 and it is as solid as a rock. Highly impressive.

Ken

I agree. The original Magico Mini was also constructed like this but with birch plywood instead of carbon fiber. I imagine it takes less time to assemble these new speakers because of the few connectors, saving costs.

[a.wayne]

well years ago when carbon was still exotic in bicycle industry , the French manufacturing company LOOK bicycles used pipes of carbon and those where glued together with aluminum joints , can't recall i have heard of any faulty because of those parts together.
Apart from that i like the look of the M2 :)

i used to race with one of those creaked and groan like a old hag , no confidence endured when in a 42 mph flat sprint, hated it same for the Klein ...

Went back to steel frames always thought them better than composites or ally back then ...

[Gene]

Atkinson mentioned the M2....

Here... https://www.stereophile.com/content/jas-saturday-morning-montreal

[Alpinist]

I agree. The original Magico Mini was also constructed like this but with birch plywood instead of carbon fiber. I imagine it takes less time to assemble these new speakers because of the few connectors, saving costs.

Yes, less assembly time and better performance!

Ken

[Kingsrule]

Funny that there is basically no talk about the M2..you would think it would be a talking point of the show....

[Mike]

Funny that there is basically no talk about the M2..you would think it would be a talking point of the show....

Canadians are cheap (I’m Canadian and American), they saw the price and kept walking.

You know the difference between a Canadian and a canoe?

A canoe tips.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brodricj]

I completely missed the mention of M2 in that report, I was expecting to see something more substantial. A new Magico speaker usually generates more hoopla at its first public showing.

[PeterA]

I completely missed the mention of M2 in that report, I was expecting to see something more substantial. A new Magico speaker usually generates more hoopla at its first public showing.

I'm surprised too, especially given the great looks and high expectations of the sound. I wonder why Magico chose to debut the speaker at this show. I would have thought Munich.

[Dizzie]

Munich show isn't until May 9-12. Maybe Magico did not want to wait.

[PeterA]

Munich show isn't until May 9-12. Maybe Magico did not want to wait.

Most likely.

[LVB]

Can't expect much from Stereophile when it comes to Magico :(
Here is another report:
The Best of Montréal Audio Fest 2019
https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/opinion/1272

[Darrel]

From reading the article it sounds like a very new pair of M2's in a less than perfict room.

One thing I noticed from the articles header under details at the top of the article

Written by Doug Schneider

Category: Uncategorised

Created: 01 April 2019

[LVB]

According to Magico FB, they will be at Overture, Delaware this coming weekend. I believe they will be at AXPONA as well.

[Mike]

My pair is coming soon. Looking forward to it. Time to cue up the Daft Punk!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Alpinist]

My pair is coming soon. Looking forward to it. Time to cue up the Daft Punk!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mike,

Can’t wait to hear your impressions of the M2’s.

Ken

[Dguitarnut]

‘Your pair’???.....you keep saying that. :eyebrow:

[Paul]

https://www.monoandstereo.com/2019/03/2019-montreal-audio-fest-show-report-by.html?m=1

[kzhtoo]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190406/235ed87484808f729572778b49afdb45.jpg

[brodricj]

Looks like Mike's crates are ready....

http://www.monoandstereo.com/2019/04/magico-m2.html

[Mike]

Looks like Mike's crates are ready....

http://www.monoandstereo.com/2019/04/magico-m2.html

YES!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[the professor]

Nice

[Adam Riess]

Anyone compare M2 to M3?

[Mike]

Anyone compare M2 to M3?

Soon!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[owldiscourse]

Or the A3 to M2. The form factors are quite similar...

[Alpinist]

Anyone compare M2 to M3?

With the improved woofers and monocoque cabinet construction, I believe the difference will be much less than people expect.

Ken

[Kuoppis]

With the improved woofers and monocoque cabinet construction, I believe the difference will be much less than people expect.

Ken

How have the woofers been improved, any details on that?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Alpinist]

With the improved woofers and monocoque cabinet construction, I believe the difference will be much less than people expect.

Ken

Apparently the M2’s woofers were redesigned to deliver more bass since there are only two of them. This enables the M2 to deliver nearly as much bass overall as the M3’s. Mike may have some details on the actual changes that were made to achieve this result.

Ken

[Kuoppis]

Apparently the M2’s woofers were redesigned to deliver more bass since there are only two of them. This enables the M2 to deliver nearly as much bass overall as the M3’s. Mike may have some details on the actual changes that were made to achieve this result.

Ken

Thanks Ken, I have also heard the M2s do not lack far behind the M3s in terms of bass output, and that definition might even be a tad better.

Mike, any insights into this?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bart001]

Or the A3 to M2. The form factors are quite similar...

My A3's should arrive in a couple of weeks. The M2's would be akin to 'grail' speakers in theory. The good thing is that the A3's should hold their value (I'm paying the original on-offer price) well enough that trading them will be doable.

[Mike]

My A3's should arrive in a couple of weeks. The M2's would be akin to 'grail' speakers in theory. The good thing is that the A3's should hold their value (I'm paying the original on-offer price) well enough that trading them will be doable.

Nice! At $9800 they were a STEAL! $12,300 is still a great value for the A3.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190514/abab8b1544aef592211141b3ff5c24e8.jpg

My Magico M2’s arrive!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk