MAGICO M9’s

[a.wayne]

Simple answer - no.
my old man can spare this amount of money but wouldn't consider spending 1/100 on audio. myself, i think my red line would be somewhere between $55,000 to $65,000 on speakers, and this already feel ridiculous sum for me to spend on audio.

I dont get why others seem to have a problem how people spend their own cash, the price is irrelevant, the M9 is a statement product , does it make the statement or it doesn't, thats the only criteria necessary in my books ..



Regards ...

 

[u-sound]

i see the m9 more or less as a m6 with integrated subs.
it might take the sealed concept to perfect levels. would love to hear them.

 

[a.wayne]

i see the m9 more or less as a m6 with integrated subs.
it might take the sealed concept to perfect levels. would love to hear them.

Now this opens the discussion about the M9 much more than Magico pricing , the real strength here over their other models is the effortless way it goes about reproducing music, this mostly due to the tremendous Power offered by multiple amplification and the ease of low thd from large bass drivers ..

It still offers the same limitation of a single 6” mid and 1.1” tweeter as the other models ..


Regards

 

[Bobvin]

It still offers the same limitation of a single 6” mid and 1.1” tweeter as the other models ..

Regards

Exactly what I thought when I first saw them. All those big drivers and a wee-little tweeter and single 6" midrange. Then the music started playing... just a big seamless wall of music. If there are limitations (of course there probably are) they were not evident to me when listening. Tinkling bells on one track, seemingly coming from a balcony over the orchestra pit, they hovered three feet over the tops of the speakers. The tweeter probably 5 or 6 feet below the sound. Amazing.

 

[u-sound]

not really sure wich driver goes how low and high but it looks the 6"mid is supported by large low mid drivers.

 

[mdp632]

I'm glad products like the M9 exist

The trickle-down technology form these "flagship" speakers will be make their debut in more "accessible" products.

I'm guessing that the new S Mark 3 or Gen 3 line , will be a showcase of many technologies that made their debut in the M9.

 

[Bart001]

I'm in the camp of, "Why do people who spend money to acquire one level of luxury goods criticize those who market and those who buy a different level of luxury goods?"

People who are happy with using their phone to tell time wonder why anyone needs a Casio G-Shock. Casio G-Shock wearers wonder why anyone needs a Tudor. Tudor wearers wonder why anyone needs a Breitling. Breitling wearers wonder why anyone needs a Rolex. "Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera."

 

[Mike]

First owner of M9’s in HK. SN001/002.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[steve59]

For some reason I don't think the typical M9 customers are the type to have to work overtime or pick up a couple side jobs whenever the upgrade itch comes along. Protecting that kind of money has to be a 24/7 job

 

[brodricj]

Hong Kong. Of Course. Radar sell more Magico speakers in Hong Kong than any other market in the world. Apparently they sold 7 pairs out of only 50 M-Project speakers built.

 

[BlueFox]

First owner of M9’s in HK. SN001/002.

Needs some carpet.

 

[brodricj]

Needs some carpet.

It does. But carpet isn't a "thing" in Hong Kong, Macau or China. 99.999% of residences have ceramic tiled or timber parquetry floors. I don't ever recall seeing an apartment in any of those places with carpet. And I've lived in that part of the world for quite a few years.

 

[BlueFox]

It does. But carpet isn't a "thing" in Hong Kong, Macau or China. 99.999% of residences have ceramic tiled or timber parquetry floors. I don't ever recall seeing an apartment in any of those places with carpet. And I've lived in that part of the world for quite a few years.

Interesting. Learn something new everyday.

 

[mdp632]

It will be interesting to read ( I hope) a future interview with Mr. Wolf regarding the design of the M9.

Specifically, the decision to go for a two tower flagship rather the 4 column super-speakers that others use in their flagships.

I'm speculating that given the sealed cabinet plus extreme LF driver design of the M9s, adding two bass towers was a moot point.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

It will be interesting to read ( I hope) a future interview with Mr. Wolf regarding the design of the M9.

Specifically, the decision to go for a two tower flagship rather the 4 column super-speakers that others use in their flagships.

I'm speculating that given the sealed cabinet plus extreme LF driver design of the M9s, adding two bass towers was a moot point.

i think when you consider the intended customers for a WAMM or M9, you would unduly restrict the buyers with mandatory twin towers. either of those choices can be used in an elegant living space, not only in an all out dedicated hifi only room. especially the M9 can be viewed as art (much less so the WAMM), and single tower is the design ethos of Magico. it's their aesthetic approach. every model at all price points has that look and feel. their flagship needs to be the most "Magico"......Magico.

owning twin tower speakers no doubt i realize the advantages of perfect integration and the value performance wise of the additional driver surface of twin towers. at the end of the day, there is no replacement for displacement. but i'm not a candidate for 3/4 of a million dollar speakers. so i don't have a vote.

 

[Henry303]

...

owning twin tower speakers no doubt i realize the advantages of perfect integration and the value performance wise of the additional driver surface of twin towers. at the end of the day, there is no replacement for displacement. but i'm not a candidate for 3/4 of a million dollar speakers. so i don't have a vote.

Apples and oranges, most of the twin tower designs, including your MM7, are full range, typically a 3-way, in one tower, and subs in the other.
The Magico M9 (and the WAMM) are a 4-way loudspeaker. The bass drivers are doing much more than just covering the low bass. As such, not conducive to a separate enclosure. If needed, M9/WAMM owners can add as many subs as they want.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Apples and oranges, most of the twin tower designs, including your MM7, are full range, typically a 3-way, in one tower, and subs in the other.
The Magico M9 (and the WAMM) are a 4-way loudspeaker. The bass drivers are doing much more than just covering the low bass. As such, not conducive to a separate enclosure. If needed, M9/WAMM owners can add as many subs as they want.

know ahead of time that i have much respect for both the M9 and WAMM, but that nothing is perfect. design compromises are part of any speaker.

Henry, are you claiming that integration of (X) amount of subs to an M9 or WAMM will be 'as integrated' as my MM7's are integrated? and you would know that how?

i don't personally know the process for adding OEM subwoofers to the M9 or WAMM; so the following is a guess as to how this might look. if i've missed it here then please set me right.

one advantage my MM7's have over either the M9 or WAMM is lot's more driver surface in the mid-bass, and more efficient to boot than either of those so an easier load for an amp. my MM7's have '4' 11" woofers per side covering from 40hz to 250hz. that can be done since the bottom octave is covered by the active subwoofer tower. and i have zero crossover in the mid-bass which is the power range of lots of music. my passive tower cannot be used as a stand alone speaker, as it's rolled off to perfectly integrate with the sub tower. OTOH with the M9 or WAMM you are having to somehow throttle the main speaker back to avoid doubling frequencies in the bottom octave. not exactly a fully integrated ground up approach. then there is the coherent wave launch issue. the MM7's use a first order crossover and are phase and time aligned. i have my towers equa-distant from my ears.

then there is the amplifier coherence issue. the MM7 sub towers take their signal from the speaker cable input to the passive towers, so they get the signature of the main amps into the sub input, keeping things 'of a piece'. the M9 or WAMM will typically use a different amp with the M9 or WAMM than the sub's. and the subs will not get their signal from the speaker cable terminal; it will come from an outboard crossover.

all the added subs in the world won't solve the integration issue. would anyone notice the integration limitations of adding subs to a full range M9 or WAMM; maybe not unless they directly compared it to my MM7's.

at the end of the day likely the integration of the M9 and WAMM and the full blown OEM sub approach is probably 'good enough' to pass muster. but.......if they started out as a twin tower speaker from the ground up no holds bared, no doubt they would be better even. and that is the point i am making. "integrated" comes by degrees. and fully means fully.

 

[Henry303]

know ahead of time that i have much respect for both the M9 and WAMM, but that nothing is perfect. design compromises are part of any speaker.

Henry, are you claiming that integration of (X) amount of subs to an M9 or WAMM will be 'as integrated' as my MM7's are integrated? and you would know that how?

i don't personally know the process for adding OEM subwoofers to the M9 or WAMM; so the following is a guess as to how this might look. if i've missed it here then please set me right.

one advantage my MM7's have over either the M9 or WAMM is lot's more driver surface in the mid-bass, and more efficient to boot than either of those so an easier load for an amp. my MM7's have '4' 11" woofers per side covering from 40hz to 250hz. that can be done since the bottom octave is covered by the active subwoofer tower. and i have zero crossover in the mid-bass which is the power range of lots of music. my passive tower cannot be used as a stand alone speaker, as it's rolled off to perfectly integrate with the sub tower. OTOH with the M9 or WAMM you are having to somehow throttle the main speaker back to avoid doubling frequencies in the bottom octave. not exactly a fully integrated ground up approach. then there is the coherent wave launch issue. the MM7's use a first order crossover and are phase and time aligned. i have my towers equa-distant from my ears.

then there is the amplifier coherence issue. the MM7 sub towers take their signal from the speaker cable input to the passive towers, so they get the signature of the main amps into the sub input, keeping things 'of a piece'. the M9 or WAMM will typically use a different amp with the M9 or WAMM than the sub's. and the subs will not get their signal from the speaker cable terminal; it will come from an outboard crossover.

all the added subs in the world won't solve the integration issue. would anyone notice the integration limitations of adding subs to a full range M9 or WAMM; maybe not unless they directly compared it to my MM7's.

at the end of the day likely the integration of the M9 and WAMM and the full blown OEM sub approach is probably 'good enough' to pass muster. but.......if they started out as a twin tower speaker from the ground up no holds bared, no doubt they would be better even. and that is the point i am making. "integrated" comes by degrees. and fully means fully.

That extra column of yours is just a sub, no need to make of it more than it is. The M9, from what I hear, does not even need a sub (I personally never heard a sub I liked). BTW, the 15"s on the M9 are going up into the mid 100's; you can do the math in terms of actual displacement. Add the superiority of the drivers, enclosure, and the fact that it is all actively XO (analog), I think it would be safe to say the M9 owners have not much to worry about :lol:

I am sure your speakers are amazing, I just don't see why you would insist of showing 'superiority' when heavy hitters like Wilson and Magico are concerned. It is all good, I can't afford a Ferrari either, that does not mean that my very good MB is better, although it has more cargo space. Like you said, nothing is perfect

 

[Mike Lavigne]

That extra column of yours is just a sub, no need to make of it more than it is. The M9, from what I hear, does not even need a sub (I personally never heard a sub I liked). BTW, the 15"s on the M9 are going up into the mid 100's; you can do the math in terms of actual displacement. Add the superiority of the drivers, enclosure, and the fact that it is all actively XO (analog), I think it would be safe to say the M9 owners have not much to worry about :lol:

i do not necessarily agree with any technical superiority of the M9 over my speakers, but you could be right about that and it could be the case. would even agree that most readers would agree with you about that. never been in love with a Magico system, but also never heard a mature system with Magico's......so my mind is open. as far as my sub towers as being 'just a sub' you obviously ignored the finer points of what i wrote and just made up your mind. so why bother to even engage with you?

I am sure your speakers are amazing, I just don't see why you would insist of showing 'superiority' when heavy hitters like Wilson and Magico are concerned. It is all good, I can't afford a Ferrari either, that does not mean that my very good MB is better, although it has more cargo space. Like you said, nothing is perfect

i was only responding to mdp632's post (below......you read that? right? or just read my response without the context of what i responded to) about the decision by Mr. Wolf to be single tower a side verses twin towers. as a twin tower owner i fully appreciate that attribute so felt qualified to chime in. the subject of twin towers is a big one for me, understand the benefits, and i have strong opinions about it.

It will be interesting to read ( I hope) a future interview with Mr. Wolf regarding the design of the M9.

Specifically, the decision to go for a two tower flagship rather the 4 column super-speakers that others use in their flagships.

I'm speculating that given the sealed cabinet plus extreme LF driver design of the M9s, adding two bass towers was a moot point.

as far as feelings of 'superiority', i never said that at all. the case i made was about the advantages of twin towers properly executed over single towers. i stepped through where the twin tower approach does bring much to the table.

as far as how my speakers might stack up to the M9; i would say that the system and room and set-up person around each speaker would be a larger factor than the differences between the speakers. plunk the M9 in any old room with the typical M9 pairing solid state amp and i would likely prefer what i hear in my room to that. just my amps alone would play a big part in the differences. OTOH put the M9 in my room with my signal path and 6 months to fine tune it and likely the M9 has a higher ceiling. how much higher ceiling? i don't know but i do respect it as likely more capable. if i heard the M9 i could comment further. maybe i would not like it? or maybe i would be head over heels for it? i'm sure it's amazing. so are my MM7's. $$$'s and new and shiny are not the final arbiter. Magico Nation is not always objective.

please view my posts here as twin tower verses single tower, and not my speakers verses the M9.

 

[mep]

i do not necessarily agree with any technical superiority of the M9 over my speakers, but you could be right about that and it could be the case. would even agree that most readers would agree with you about that. never been in love with a Magico system, but also never heard a mature system with Magico's......so my mind is open. as far as my sub towers as being 'just a sub' you obviously ignored the finer points of what i wrote and just made up your mind. so why bother to even engage with you?



i was only responding to mdp632's post (below......you read that? right? or just read my response without the context of what i responded to) about the decision by Mr. Wolf to be single tower a side verses twin towers. as a twin tower owner i fully appreciate that attribute so felt qualified to chime in. the subject of twin towers is a big one for me, understand the benefits, and i have strong opinions about it.



as far as feelings of 'superiority', i never said that at all. the case i made was about the advantages of twin towers properly executed over single towers. i stepped through where the twin tower approach does bring much to the table.

as far as how my speakers might stack up to the M9; i would say that the system and room and set-up person around each speaker would be a larger factor than the differences between the speakers. plunk the M9 in any old room with the typical M9 pairing solid state amp and i would likely prefer what i hear in my room to that. just my amps alone would play a big part in the differences. OTOH put the M9 in my room with my signal path and 6 months to fine tune it and likely the M9 has a higher ceiling. how much higher ceiling? i don't know but i do respect it as likely more capable. if i heard the M9 i could comment further. maybe i would not like it? or maybe i would be head over heels for it? i'm sure it's amazing. so are my MM7's. $$$'s and new and shiny are not the final arbiter. Magico Nation is not always objective.

please view my posts here as twin tower verses single tower, and not my speakers verses the M9.

You already made it all about your speakers vs. the M9.

one advantage my MM7's have over either the M9 or WAMM is lot's more driver surface in the mid-bass, and more efficient to boot than either of those so an easier load for an amp. my MM7's have '4' 11" woofers per side covering from 40hz to 250hz. that can be done since the bottom octave is covered by the active subwoofer tower. and i have zero crossover in the mid-bass which is the power range of lots of music. my passive tower cannot be used as a stand alone speaker, as it's rolled off to perfectly integrate with the sub tower. OTOH with the M9 or WAMM you are having to somehow throttle the main speaker back to avoid doubling frequencies in the bottom octave. not exactly a fully integrated ground up approach. then there is the coherent wave launch issue. the MM7's use a first order crossover and are phase and time aligned. i have my towers equa-distant from my ears.

then there is the amplifier coherence issue. the MM7 sub towers take their signal from the speaker cable input to the passive towers, so they get the signature of the main amps into the sub input, keeping things 'of a piece'. the M9 or WAMM will typically use a different amp with the M9 or WAMM than the sub's. and the subs will not get their signal from the speaker cable terminal; it will come from an outboard crossover.

all the added subs in the world won't solve the integration issue. would anyone notice the integration limitations of adding subs to a full range M9 or WAMM; maybe not unless they directly compared it to my MM7's.