- Thread Author
- #121
Magico M2
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
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
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2013
- Messages
- 2,884
deleted wrong quote.
Myles B. Astor
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2013
- Messages
- 2,884
Ah! Apologies - for some reason I was remembering Bob stating this on the an forum...but now i remember that he was quoting you!
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)
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)
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
New member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2015
- Messages
- 5,203
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
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
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
New member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2015
- Messages
- 5,203
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
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
Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2014
- Messages
- 198
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
New member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2015
- Messages
- 5,203
Thanks for clarifying, I understand your perspective.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
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.
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.
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.