MAGICO M9’s

agreed, not to mention the angle of the photo highlights the 'wire mess' behind the racks. Regardless, I for one think the speakers are borderline 'fugly' .............flame suit on !
 
Puma Cat said:
That may be, but that photo of the "showroom" is certainly not up to professional standards, by any stretch...
Click to expand...

I think it was meant to be a quick and dirty iPhone shot. I’m happy to see the M9’s in the wild! Gives a great perspective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Mike said:
I think it was meant to be a quick and dirty iPhone shot. I’m happy to see the M9’s in the wild! Gives a great perspective.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

Yep, that was my thought as well. :D

I've been doing a lot of professional RE and Architectural Photography for the last year or so I see "everything" with respect to "problems", including color contamination. I just "can't not see it" anymore...LOL.
 
Mikado463 said:
agreed, not to mention the angle of the photo highlights the 'wire mess' behind the racks. Regardless, I for one think the speakers are borderline 'fugly' .............flame suit on !
Click to expand...
For me M2 and M3 are really attractive. But the M9 doesn't cut it looks wise. IMHO of course. (For the record, I am a Magico owner.)
 
It’s always hard to tell from a photo how big it actually is, would have to see it in person. I like the basic shape. And I am sure it will sound incredible. Notice that the tweeter is quite low, so if thats an indicator, it is a big one. I am sure small rooms and small wallets need not apply.
 
Its a serious build , plenty tech in the approach, but yet it’s Still a lot of money and speaker for a single point source tweeter ...

Interesting to see how it competes with the other Top tier products like the large MBL’s for eg ..
 
CGabriel said:
It’s always hard to tell from a photo how big it actually is, would have to see it in person. I like the basic shape. And I am sure it will sound incredible. Notice that the tweeter is quite low, so if thats an indicator, it is a big one. I am sure small rooms and small wallets need not apply.
Click to expand...

Yeah, judging from the speaker's size relative to the size of the racks, the M9 looks to be between 5'9" and 6' tall.

So, that would likely put the tweeter at or near ear level when seated. And I would agree it would need to be in quite a large (long from front to back) and fairly tall room and well away from the side & front walls, or there'd be all sorts of room mode problems from those big drivers.

Perfect opportunity to use a DOE to optimize placement of them...
 
a.wayne said:
Its a serious build , plenty tech in the approach, but yet it’s Still a lot of money and speaker for a single point source tweeter ...
Click to expand...

Single point source tweeters are good; in fact, optimal. Multiple tweeters just make driver integration and front baffle design more complex.

From a systems engineering perspective, simpler solutions to achieve functionality are better than more complex ones. There is less possibility of interactions with other control factors (e.g,, the other drivers, front baffle, and cabinet), less susceptibility to noise factors (factors which move the speaker's response off-target and/or add variance, which the control factors then have to try to fix), and better reliability and durability.

In engineering, the point is not to use as much tech as possible to provide the optimal functional response, it's to use as little tech as possible to achieve the functional response. This makes systems simpler, more effective and efficient, allows them to be on-target with minimal variation in a wider variety of use- or environmental cases and less subject to the impact of noise factors, and gets them closer to the concept of "ideality" as described by Altschuler's TRIZ (theory of inventive problem-solving).

It also makes products more reliable and durable as there is less stuff to break and go wrong.
 
Puma Cat said:
Single point source tweeters are good; in fact, optimal. Multiple tweeters just make driver integration and front baffle design more complex.

From a systems engineering perspective, simpler solutions to achieve functionality are better than more complex ones. There is less possibility of interactions with other control factors (e.g,, the other drivers, front baffle, and cabinet), less susceptibility to noise factors (factors which move the speaker's response off-target and/or add variance, which the control factors then have to try to fix), and better reliability and durability.

In engineering, the point is not to use as much tech as possible to provide the optimal functional response, it's to use as little tech as possible to achieve the functional response. This makes systems simpler, more effective and efficient, allows them to be on-target with minimal variation in a wider variety of use- or environmental cases and less subject to the impact of noise factors, and gets them closer to the concept of "ideality" as described by Altschuler's TRIZ (theory of inventive problem-solving).

It also makes products more reliable and durable as there is less stuff to break and go wrong.
Click to expand...

As a retired software engineers, I agree with this. My philosophy is 'Simplicity succeeds, complexity fails.'

Of course speakers that require two amplifiers each to work don't meet that standard. :)
 
Puma Cat said:
Yeah, judging from the speaker's size relative to the size of the racks, the M9 looks to be between 5'9" and 6' tall.

So, that would likely put the tweeter at or near ear level when seated. And I would agree it would need to be in quite a large (long from front to back) and fairly tall room and well away from the side & front walls, or there'd be all sorts of room mode problems from those big drivers.

Perfect opportunity to use a DOE to optimize placement of them...
Click to expand...

SPECIFICATIONS
Driver complement:
1.10-inch diamond coated Beryllium tweeter (x1)
6-inch Gen 8 Magico Nano-Tec cone with Aluminum honeycomb core (x1)
11-inch Gen 8 Magico Nano-Tec cones with Aluminum honeycomb core (x2)
15-inch Gen 8 Magico Nano-Tec cones with Aluminum honeycomb core (x2)
Sensitivity: 94 dB
Impedance: 4 ohms
Frequency response: 18 Hz – 50 kHz
Power handling: 20 W (min) to 2000 W (max)
Dimensions:
Loudspeaker: 80” H x 40” D x 20” W (203 x 102 x 51 cm)
Crossover: 8” H x 18” D x 20” W (20 x 46 x 51 cm)
Crossover power supply: 8” H x 18” D x 20” W (20 x 46 x 51 cm)
Weight:
Loudspeaker: 1000 pounds (454 kg) each
Crossover: 40 lbs. (18 kg)
Crossover power supply: 60 lbs. (27 kg)
Suggested US Retail Price: $750,000/pair
Ship date: Q4 2020​
 
Puma Cat said:
Single point source tweeters are good; in fact, optimal. Multiple tweeters just make driver integration and front baffle design more complex.

From a systems engineering perspective, simpler solutions to achieve functionality are better than more complex ones. There is less possibility of interactions with other control factors (e.g,, the other drivers, front baffle, and cabinet), less susceptibility to noise factors (factors which move the speaker's response off-target and/or add variance, which the control factors then have to try to fix), and better reliability and durability.

In engineering, the point is not to use as much tech as possible to provide the optimal functional response, it's to use as little tech as possible to achieve the functional response. This makes systems simpler, more effective and efficient, allows them to be on-target with minimal variation in a wider variety of use- or environmental cases and less subject to the impact of noise factors, and gets them closer to the concept of "ideality" as described by Altschuler's TRIZ (theory of inventive problem-solving).

It also makes products more reliable and durable as there is less stuff to break and go wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes single point source is simple and easier to do and thats my point , its too simple for such a SOTA attempt , multiple tweeters lower thd and have much better dynamic expression and recovery to keep up with the larger driver area supporting the other frequencies..

This is obvious to me when hearing the large MBL’s or other linesource type Speakers ..
 
a.wayne said:
Yes single point source is simple and easier to do and thats my point , its too simple for such a SOTA attempt , multiple tweeters lower thd and have much better dynamic expression and recovery to keep up with the larger driver area supporting the other frequencies..

This is obvious to me when hearing the large MBL’s or other linesource type Speakers ..
Click to expand...
Well, the M9 isn't a line source speaker. And there are other major speaker brands that have chosen single point tweeter designs for their SOTA flagships, e.g., Wilson, YG Acoustics, Rockport, Gryphon, Tidal, etc. I don't think their approaches are 'too simple' - just maybe not what appeals to you.
 
GSOphile said:
Well, the M9 isn't a line source speaker. And there are other major speaker brands that have chosen single point tweeter designs for their SOTA flagships, e.g., Wilson, YG Acoustics, Rockport, Gryphon, Tidal, etc. I don't think their approaches are 'too simple' - just maybe not what appeals to you.
Click to expand...

And, not to forget TAD, Dynaudio, Harbeth, Vivid, etc., who know also know a thing or two about speakers.
 
a.wayne said:
Yes single point source is simple and easier to do and thats my point , its too simple for such a SOTA attempt , multiple tweeters lower thd and have much better dynamic expression and recovery to keep up with the larger driver area supporting the other frequencies..

This is obvious to me when hearing the large MBL’s or other linesource type Speakers ..
Click to expand...

Complexity for the sake of complexity is not a wise nor effective philosophy for design or functionality. For anything. Especially for manufactured products that have to be kept in statistical control in Ops. All that increased complexity does is increase variance and occurence of failure modes, decrease reliability and durability, drive up COPQ, and decrease profit.

The simpler, the more a design can approach Altschuler's Principle of Ideality, the better.
 
GSOphile said:
Well, the M9 isn't a line source speaker. And there are other major speaker brands that have chosen single point tweeter designs for their SOTA flagships, e.g., Wilson, YG Acoustics, Rockport, Gryphon, Tidal, etc. I don't think their approaches are 'too simple' - just maybe not what appeals to you.
Click to expand...

Puma said simple i carried the theme , simple is relative to the more complex linesource multi tweeter setups ..

Simple is good , but not too simple ...! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top