Thread: Magico M2

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.

Originally Posted by brodricj

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.

Originally Posted by PeterA

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.

Originally Posted by Elberoth

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.

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by nile49

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.

Originally Posted by Elberoth

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.

Originally Posted by brodricj

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.

There were more colors (anodized)

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&sourc...51035206000144

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

Originally Posted by Skanda

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

Originally Posted by owldiscourse

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.

deleted wrong quote.

Originally Posted by Skanda

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.😉

Originally Posted by Skanda

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.

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

Originally Posted by Kuoppis

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?

Originally Posted by PeterA

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

Originally Posted by brodricj

Yes, I was quite clear about that.

Thanks for clarifying, I understand your perspective.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Dre_J

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.

Originally Posted by Dre_J

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:

Originally Posted by PeterA

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.

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Is the MPOD a stand, or footers?

Originally Posted by BlueFox

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.

Originally Posted by NekoAudio

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.