Thread: Magico M????

Originally Posted by brodricj

Q3 is a fine sounding speaker, the M3 is just incrementally better all round, except for the new 28mm diamond coated beryllium tweeter which is a leap forward better. The crystallization of treble detail in M3 is remarkable.

Yes, the price gap between used Q3 and new M3 is huge in all markets. If one can't afford M3 then Q3 is a worthy substitute at less than 1/3rd the price. What would be interesting is competition between M2 and Q3 as the price difference between them won't be as great.

Thanks brodricj. Yes, I suspected that most of the difference would be with the tweeter. Based on my experience with the M Pro in a different but familiar system, that new diamond coated tweeter is very smooth, sweet and resolving. Incredible, really.

It will be interesting to see what this new Magico costs. If it is $50K+, that is still 250% more than a used Q3, but boy, it seems really good looking. I wonder what the difference in bass drivers will sound like between this M2 and Q3. I preferred the bass and overall coherence of the Mini 2 to both the V2 and V3, so in those cases, I did not miss those extra woofers. For me it was more about the quality than the quantity. I've only heard the M series in one limited setting and results have been very mixed based on something I can't figure out, but I suspect that the Ms are really special speakers.

Originally Posted by Pallen

IMHO, an astute observation.

Indeed, very much so. We audiophiles love to give in to gear OCD, but sometimes it is better to resist and look for improvements elsewhere. Recently I was thinking about getting the current upgrade to my DAC, or even another one perhaps. Yet instead I got much better speaker stands (Sound Anchors Signature) which, among other dramatic improvements, unexpectedly took care of some grain in certain recordings that I had wrongly attributed to my DAC. I also carefully re-adjusted my speaker position by a few inches, which further improved tone. Now I am again super happy with my first generation Yggdrasil DAC, and constantly impressed with what that little thing can do. We all tend to lust for shiny new gear, but often it is worthwhile to instead optimize what you already have.

Originally Posted by Skanda

Also PeterA, prior to my s5mk2 i had only ever owned monitors...so with that in mind...an m1 would really get my attention! but i would want to keep both haha.

Skanda, why did you move from monitors to full range floor standers? I did the same thing after enjoying monitors for years, but now, I'm not sure I'd go back unless the room dictated it.

Originally Posted by Skanda

change of pace mostly. having only ever had monitors i thought it would be fun to try something new. also my room isn't very big so there was the challenge aspect of fitting a big floorstander in there. magico sealed cabinets made that much easier and i really pushed it - originally was thinking s3mk2. it plays great in there and i know that if i move to a bigger place it'll only have more room to breathe. currently they blend in nice sound and aesthetics wise.

I am glad to hear you got the Magicos to play so well in your room.

the other consideration for floorstander is that the gf really wants a dog. last thing i wanted on my mind was wondering whether or not the pooch had knocked over a pair of monitors while i was at work . we still haven't gotten that dog yet...but NOTHING is moving 200lbs of aluminum!

My previous stands, though already pretty heavy, might have been a danger too, but no normal-size dog would move my new 100 lbs stands, with 75 lbs monitors on top of them!

i noticed that i was missing out alot on lower frequencies with just the monitors. one of those things that now i know, i don't think my main rig could ever be just monitors now. though i do miss the airiness and their disappearing aspect. i always found them to have a more ethereal sound with voices floating and huge soundstage...but the floorstanders feel more planted. you give up some of that floaty-disappearing act to get that planted bassline and in my case the bassline feels like it's below me and voices are dead center in front of me. to put it in simpler terms: monitors allow me to feel like i'm in a world with music floating/emanating around me, floorstanders/full range let me feel like i'm floating through musical landscape.

That's why I have subwoofers. The monitor/sub combo plays great with bass heavy music too, e.g., electronica.

I did wait until there were subs that play in parallel with speakers, not with crossover between main speakers and subs. In 2000 I read about one of the first ones that did (REL), and that, after 9 years of monitors without sub, made me pull the trigger on a REL sub back then (currently I have JL Audio). Like you, I have an aversion against too many crossovers, and I had been fundamentally afraid that a crossover would rob my monitors of liveliness (as was the case with the Ensemble Profundo system, which had been an option for my then Ensemble Reference monitors, but the combo did cross over instead of just having the subwoofer play in parallel). Of course, with a crossover to a sub the monitor can play even louder, but at what cost?

Someone have asked about the S5 mk 2 vs M3 differencies.

In short: the M3 is even more refined. It is actually hard to imagine for S5 mk2 owner, since the S5 mk 2 is such a refined speaker. But once you hear the M3, you will immediately understand what I mean. The M3 sounds even more natural, with a certain unforced, liquid quality to it. It images and disappears better. You offers even more HF resolution and smoothness - the M3 is probably the smoothest sounding speaker I have ever heard.

The only thing I would disagree with Mike on, is the bass. I actually think the S5 mk 2 is more accurate in the bass. It is also reaches much lower and has much more bass slam. If you are into some electronic / rock music which depends heavily on the bass lines, you may be better served by the S5 mk 2 (or jump straight to the M6).

Both are great speakers, although probably aimed at slightly different listener / rooms.

Originally Posted by Elberoth

Someone have asked about the S5 mk 2 vs M3 differencies.

In short: the M3 is even more refined. It is actually hard to imagine for S5 mk2 owner, since the S5 mk 2 is such a refined speaker. But once you hear the M3, you will immediately understand what I mean. The M3 sounds even more natural, with a certain unforced, liquid quality to it. It images and disappears better. You offers even more HF resolution and smoothness - the M3 is probably the smoothest sounding speaker I have ever heard.

The only thing I would disagree with Mike on, is the bass. I actually think the S5 mk 2 is more accurate in the bass. It is also reaches much lower and has much more bass slam. If you are into some electronic / rock music which depends heavily on the bass lines, you may be better served by the S5 mk 2 (or jump straight to the M6).

Both are great speakers, although probably aimed at slightly different listener / rooms.

Interesting. I can understand that. In some ways I preferred the bass of my S5mk1 over my MPros. With my S5's they almost pressurized the room (which is hard to do since it's got opening to other rooms) and I thought the MPro with one more 10" woofer would do the trick but it has less bass in the power (or 'punch') region. The bass is deeper and more refined, but not satisfying for rock (in *my* room of course).

Originally Posted by Elberoth

The only thing I would disagree with Mike on, is the bass. I actually think the S5 mk 2 is more accurate in the bass. It is also reaches much lower and has much more bass slam. If you are into some electronic / rock music which depends heavily on the bass lines, you may be better served by the S5 mk 2 (or jump straight to the M6).

If you really want to rock out, I would recommend the S7. The bass response is amazing, totally visceral in its impact.

Ken

Na

If you want to ROCK out. And you just robbed a big bank. Get a pair of Q15s!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Alpinist

If you really want to rock out, I would recommend the S7. The bass response is amazing, totally visceral in its impact.

Ken

Originally Posted by madfloyd

Interesting. I can understand that. In some ways I preferred the bass of my S5mk1 over my MPros. With my S5's they almost pressurized the room (which is hard to do since it's got opening to other rooms) and I thought the MPro with one more 10" woofer would do the trick but it has less bass in the power (or 'punch') region. The bass is deeper and more refined, but not satisfying for rock (in *my* room of course).

This is a very interesting statement from someone who obviously knows as a former and current owner.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by madfloyd

Interesting. I can understand that. In some ways I preferred the bass of my S5mk1 over my MPros. With my S5's they almost pressurized the room (which is hard to do since it's got opening to other rooms) and I thought the MPro with one more 10" woofer would do the trick but it has less bass in the power (or 'punch') region. The bass is deeper and more refined, but not satisfying for rock (in *my* room of course).

Interesting comment, Ian. I wonder how the measurements differ between these two speakers. I can't really remember the bass sound of your S5s, but the M Pros on solo cello and acoustic bass are amazing. Those three bass drivers hardly move.

I think you bring up an important point, not often discussed with speakers: how they perform with different types of music. I also wonder if the amplification you used/use with these two different speakers is a factor with the bass quality and quantity in your challenging room.

My S5 mk 2 pressurized the room like no other speaker that graced it before (or after). They have the authority and ease in the lowest octaves that few speakers can match. Add to that an impressive speed and articulation, and we are talking about reference calibre LF reproduction.

I think we all have different views of what bass should be. To my ears, there is just no contest when comparing bass quality of M series vs S series and S series is superb. Probably second best on the market (with respect to cone and domes) IMO. The M series bass quality is as good as I’ve heard. I spent nearly 2 years comparing M3 bass to S5 mk2 Bass in the same room. You can follow along the bass notes on the M3 with much better definition than the S5 mk2 - and like I said, S5 mk2 is superb.

But if you’re someone who likes what I call “woofy woofy” bass - lots of air moving around without much bass definition, then you would probably think Wilson has better bass than Magico. For me, a speaker with articulate bass and bass definition is far harder to achieve especially in a “box”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mike, following bass lines is a good test. I like timpani on orchestral music and the massed celli. Did you ever compare the two speakers playing the same solo drum track at realistic volume? Which sounded more real?

Originally Posted by Elberoth

Someone have asked about the S5 mk 2 vs M3 differencies.

In short: the M3 is even more refined. It is actually hard to imagine for S5 mk2 owner, since the S5 mk 2 is such a refined speaker. But once you hear the M3, you will immediately understand what I mean. The M3 sounds even more natural, with a certain unforced, liquid quality to it. It images and disappears better. You offers even more HF resolution and smoothness - the M3 is probably the smoothest sounding speaker I have ever heard.

'Smooth' can have both positive and negative connotations. What exactly do you mean by this adjective, applied to the M3?

I think what we’re discussing is really a question of quality vs. quantity or gourmet vs. gourmand. I personally would always prefer quality or gourmet but I know some rock and roll enthusiasts who would take quantity or gourmand.

Ken

Originally Posted by Alpinist

I think what we’re discussing is really a question of quality vs. quantity or gourmet vs. gourmand. I personally would always prefer quality or gourmet but I know some rock and roll enthusiasts who would take quantity or gourmand.

Ken

No. With rock I want both slam and punch on one hand, and precision and articulation on the other. There's no gourmand without gourmet.

Originally Posted by PeterA

I think you bring up an important point, not often discussed with speakers: how they perform with different types of music. I also wonder if the amplification you used/use with these two different speakers is a factor with the bass quality and quantity in your challenging room.

Important point you’re making, Peter.

In my system the rock’n roll test is absolutely essential for any kind of equipment. If I am happy with the “audiophile” qualities of a component, the next level additional test is to put on some rock. But of course, if the audiophile test is failed, the component is out.

But the rock test is simple: in the lows damped distorted guitar must make a deep and solid “thump” when strummed (test it e.g. on “Lola Montez” from Volbeat) and the distorted highs must sound a bit dirty (test e.g. with Eddie stuff, “Runaround” works ok). Only a few things are worse for me, than polite sounding distorted guitar.

This is also the reason, I am so happy with the S3 mk2. It just does it all.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

Only a few things are worse for me, than polite sounding distorted guitar.

Yes, polite sound is horrible. Unfortunately, many high end systems mistake polite sound for clean sound.

Originally Posted by Nataraja

So Mike, if S5 mk2 is second best cone/dome in the bass region, the best is? M6?
Since you compared the S5 and M3 in your room, which is not small, do you think M3 is absolutely adequate without subs? Most of the people owning M3 are using them with subs i believe. And if not, do you think Magico will produce a model between the M3 and M6 anytime soon?

For me, I absolutely don't feel the M3's need subs. If you recall, I had them paired with some REL's and Jim and I both felt they were adding nothing and in fact taking away. Would M3's with Q-Sub's change that equation, oh yeah, I would imagine so. But for me, I really enjoy the M3's the way they are and after two years have never felt the need to add subs, although as a dealer, I probably should get some Q-Sub 15's in here one day.

No clue on Magico's product plans.

Originally Posted by Al M.

No. With rock I want both slam and punch on one hand, and precision and articulation on the other. There's no gourmand without gourmet.

In a perfect world, who wouldn’t? But in reality, you have speaker like the S7 that can deliver tremendous bass slam and a speaker like the M3 that delivers more articulate bass but with less slam. Both are terrific speakers.

Ken

Originally Posted by Alpinist

In a perfect world, who wouldn’t? But in reality, you have speaker like the S7 that can deliver tremendous bass slam and a speaker like the M3 that delivers more articulate bass but with less slam. Both are terrific speakers.

Ken

Yes, of course, both would be great. But we are now discussing the differences between two distinct lines of speakers and those who have compared them directly do point out differences between the two. I think your comment about quality vs quantity is a good one. I went back and forth when I added two JL Audio subs to my Magico Mini 2s. In the end, I slightly preferred quality bass without the subs over quantity with the subs for the type of music I mostly listen to.

For now, it seems to be a choice. Perhaps one day a company will develop the perfect speaker that does it all in the mid size category.

Originally Posted by PeterA

Yes, of course, both would be great. But we are now discussing the differences between two distinct lines of speakers and those who have compared them directly do point out differences between the two. I think your comment about quality vs quantity is a good one. I went back and forth when I added two JL Audio subs to my Magico Mini 2s. In the end, I slightly preferred quality bass without the subs over quantity with the subs for the type of music I mostly listen to.

Yes, but your particular room, which otherwise has great acoustics, poses unusual problems when it comes to integrating subwoofers with monitors. Perhaps they would integrate better with your Q3s.

Originally Posted by Alpinist

In a perfect world, who wouldn’t? But in reality, you have speaker like the S7 that can deliver tremendous bass slam and a speaker like the M3 that delivers more articulate bass but with less slam. Both are terrific speakers.

Ken

While I don't doubt that quality of bass slam and of bass articulation can be separate, I wonder if sometimes allegedly better 'articulation' can be the result of the ear being guided towards articulation in the absence of slam and punch.

Originally Posted by Al M.

Yes, but your particular room, which otherwise has great acoustics, poses unusual problems when it comes to integrating subwoofers with monitors. Perhaps they would integrate better with your Q3s.

My particular example is just one. I have heard this issue of quality vs. quantity with other monitor/sub systems. I only bring it up because it illustrates for me this distinction between the two types of bass. In this thread, we are actually discussing two full range floor standing speakers systems. I just happen to have heard something similar in my monitor/sub experiments.

Yes, perhaps a sub will integrate better with my Q3s. Interestingly, Magico, the manufacturer being discussed here strongly believes that subs should not be integrated with two way stand mounted speakers. They advice customers to first get one of their larger floor standing models and then perhaps later attempt to integrate subs.

As you have heard with my Q3s, they disappear just like my Mini 2 monitors, which were set up by a pro. So the usual advantage of monitors is not a factor in my particular case. The bass of the Q3 is excellent, so I have no interest in subs at the moment to possibly get more slam for rock music. Those who like adjustable volume on their subs for different music and recordings, like you do, may have different priorities.

Originally Posted by Al M.

While I don't doubt that quality of bass slam and of bass articulation can be separate, I wonder if sometimes allegedly better 'articulation' can be the result of the ear being guided towards articulation in the absence of slam and punch.

This is an interesting question you raise. Is more bass texture and articulation heard when there is less bass slam? I certainly think it’s possible. I think big bass slam could potentially cover over some of these subtleties. Interesting points to ponder.

Ken

Originally Posted by PeterA

My particular example is just one. I have heard this issue of quality vs. quantity with other monitor/sub systems. I only bring it up because it illustrates for me this distinction between the two types of bass. In this thread, we are actually discussing two full range floor standing speakers systems. I just happen to have heard something similar in my monitor/sub experiments.

Yes, perhaps a sub will integrate better with my Q3s. Interestingly, Magico, the manufacturer being discussed here strongly believes that subs should not be integrated with two way stand mounted speakers. They advice customers to first get one of their larger floor standing models and then perhaps later attempt to integrate subs.

As you have heard with my Q3s, they disappear just like my Mini 2 monitors, which were set up by a pro. So the usual advantage of monitors is not a factor in my particular case. The bass of the Q3 is excellent, so I have no interest in subs at the moment to possibly get more slam for rock music. Those who like adjustable volume on their subs for different music and recordings, like you do, may have different priorities.

Yes, the bass of the Q3 is excellent, and I can perfectly see why you have no interest in subs at the moment. The question is, is the bass of the M3 sufficient? Opinions seem divided.

And you are right, your Q3 disappear completely, just like good monitors. They perform the best disappearing act that I have ever heard from floor standers. It's stunning.

IMO

Bass slam when done properly does not cover up the subtleties.

I say that, but I do think that on some recordings the bass slam distorts the recording of the music because of it's high db output for that millisecond.

Originally Posted by Alpinist

This is an interesting question you raise. Is more bass texture and articulation heard when there is less bass slam? I certainly think it’s possible. I think big bass slam could potentially cover over some of these subtleties. Interesting points to ponder.

Ken

My $.02

I have never heard a Magico speaker that I felt it "needed" a sub. They have all had enough bass extension that I in no way felt I was missing part of the music.

I have not heard any of the monitors other than the Q1 which I owned. So I can't really comment on the earlier models. But have heard almost all of the models since say 2010.

Originally Posted by Al M.

No. With rock I want both slam and punch on one hand, and precision and articulation on the other. There's no gourmand without gourmet.

+1

I've always found Wilson bass somewhat overblown and boomy, while Magico lacked impact. I will say the new Sasha DAWs were much better in this regard in my recent audition, but it was an unfamiliar system.

Rockport has really tuneful bass for a ported speaker - it might best split the gap. I had other issues with that speaker however.

I also listen to electronica fwiw.

Good looking speaker. The fit and finish and overall quality of construction seems to be at the highest level. Each model of speaker has a newly developed driver. Given all the various models in the company's short history, that is a lot of drivers to keep in stock for servicing existing speakers. I marvel at the pace of these developments. I also marvel at the prices, especially compared to the S series.

This M2 has come a long way from the old V3. It would be a lot of fun to directly compare the V3, S3mk2, and M2.

There is an official M2 thread I started.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Skanda

for my understanding, your comment that no magico needed a sub includes the Q1? i have never had the pleasure of listening to that speaker

Depends on what your standards are. I have heard the Q1, and I'd definitely want to combine it with a sub. There is no monitor that works miracles, no matter what reviews may suggest.

The Q1 had enough bass extension that I didn't feel it needed a sub. It did need a sub if you wanted to play it very loud in big rooms. But for rooms that you would have a monitor, it did very well.

I used subs with them, but I use subs on every full range speaker too.

Originally Posted by the professor

The Q1 had enough bass extension that I didn't feel it needed a sub. It did need a sub if you wanted to play it very loud in big rooms. But for rooms that you would have a monitor, it did very well.

I used subs with them, but I use subs on every full range speaker too.

Magico does not recommend the use of subs, even their own subs with the Mini 2 or Q1. Alon Wolf told me this directly, as well as the guide during the factory tour. They do not think subs will integrate well enough.

Originally Posted by the professor

I used subs with them, but I use subs on every full range speaker too.

I have the same preferences, both for monitors and for full range speakers.

Originally Posted by PeterA

Magico does not recommend the use of subs, even their own subs with the Mini 2 or Q1. Alon Wolf told me this directly, as well as the guide during the factory tour. They do not think subs will integrate well enough.

With all respect to Alon Wolf, but I emphatically and unapologetically disagree.

They have told me that too. Officially, Magico says that subs with monitors don't integrate properly.

I disagree. It is harder to accomplish tho.

Originally Posted by Al M.

With all respect to Alon Wolf, but I emphatically and unapologetically disagree.

Al, you can disagree, but remember he is talking about Magico speakers, not other brands. With what do you emphatically disagree, that this is Magico's opinion about the use of subs with their Mini 2 and Q1 speakers, that this is what he told me, or more generally, the use of subs with monitors? He is not suggesting what you do with your brand of speakers, that is your business. He is just recommending what sounds best in his experience with the monitor speakers he designs. He told me that a fuller range Magico speaker will sound better than one of his monitors with subs.

Originally Posted by the professor

They have told me that too. Officially, Magico says that subs with monitors don't integrate properly.

I disagree. It is harder to accomplish tho.

Professor, when they told me this, they were specifically talking about their own monitors, including the two way floor standing S1. Did they tell you they were talking about all monitors with subs?