Magico S3 mk2

That is quite normal in hi-end audio. The actual depreciation depends on when on the product lifecycle you buy the product. If just after the introduction it would probably not depreciate more than 30%. If at the end of its lifecycle, after the replacement is introduced - 50% is possible.

You may want to wait a bit (1-2 years) and get them used. This way someone else will take the hit. The S5 mk 2 are already 1 year old design and first examples should start showing on a S/H market in not too distant future.
 
Elberoth said:
That is quite normal in hi-end audio. The actual depreciation depends on when on the product lifecycle you buy the product. If just after the introduction it would probably not depreciate more than 30%. If at the end of its lifecycle, after the replacement is introduced - 50% is possible.

You may want to wait a bit (1-2 years) and get them used. This way someone else will take the hit. The S5 mk 2 are already 1 year old design and first examples should start showing on a S/H market in not too distant future.
Click to expand...
+ 1. Good points. The only thing to keep in mind when buying 2nd hand (atleast within the first 1-2 years from release) is there is no guarantee you will find the color you want when you're in the market (if that is important to you). And there is also the possibility of nicks, though given the 2nd hand discount most folks are prepared to accept a minor nick or two. Otherwise as long you know the seller's reputation & do the normal checks, that can be a good option to defray inevitable depreciation.

As for me, I bought my S5 Mk2's new, but on pre-order, so I got an extra break which helps. But my view is/was the S5 Mk 2's are a significant upgrade from the S5 Mk1 (as Mike noted earlier) and are good enough to be my long-term reference speakers (especially with the S Pods). So I can just keep building my system around the speakers. If you take a long-term view, then buying new is completely kosher in my books! :). You might have picked up i'm a happy camper? :satisfying::yahoo1:
 
Last edited:
brodricj said:
Is there a consensus of opinion that S3Mk2 has higher pedigree than Q3?

The upgrade path options for me, from least to most expensive:

1. Put my S3 on SPOD;
2. Sell S3 and buy used Q3;
3. Sell S3 and buy new S3Mk2.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you might want to listen to all of them first before making any decision? Mike says that the S3 Mk2 is an evolution of the S3 Mk 1, not a revolutionary change. As Adam says, there may even be S5 Mk 2s coming to the market in the near future.

The opinions to date are that the highs/mids on the S3 Mk2 are better but the bass on the Q3 is better. Pity Magico does not provide an option to upgrade the tweeter and midrange of the Q3 (like the Q7 to Q7 Mk2). Then again, who knows what 05.2017 may bring [emoji848] even if a Q3 Mk2 seems unlikely.

For a contrarian view, my dealer still prefers the Q3 (and the Q series sound generally) to even the S5 Mk 2. He has on demo Q3, Q5 & Q7, S1 Mk 2 and S5 Mk 2 and sold Q1s, S7s, M3s and M Pros (even running a pair in for a customer waiting for his house to be built), and says that those who like the Q sound still prefer it while those who are moving from other brands find the S sound more acceptable. Otoh, he does like the M3 and will take them over the Q3.

The caveat is that he has not taken delivery of the S3 Mk 2 yet and has not heard them, when I asked about the pre-owned Q3 vs S3 Mk 2 (similar damage to the pocket) about two weeks back. So, his position may yet change.
 
nicoludio said:
Mike says that the S3 Mk2 is an evolution of the S3 Mk 1, not a revolutionary change...
Click to expand...

On paper, the changes to the S3 Mk2 will be just as significant as the changes to the S5 Mk2, and then some (Graphene bass).
 
LVB said:
On paper, the changes to the S3 Mk2 will be just as significant as the changes to the S5 Mk2, and then some (Graphene bass).
Click to expand...
I disagree, and share Mike and Adam's view as previously stated. But I agree the S3 Mk2 is a great package.
 
LVB said:
You disagree about the facts?
Click to expand...
Imho the level of improvement from the S5 Mk1 to the Mk2 is greater than that of the S3 Mk1 to Mk2 as Mike described. For example;

• The S5 Mk2 went from an S-series Carbon-Nano Tec midrange (Mk1) to the same midrange driver used in the M3.
• The S5 Mk2 went from a conventional sloped aluminium midrange enclosure with mo parallel sides to a computer-modeled polymer midrange enclosure (first introduced in the S3 Mk1)
• The S5 Mk2 went from conventional 3-point spiked feet to comprehensive 4-point outriggers.
• The S5 Mk2 went from S series bass units front to back (S5 Mk1) to basically Q series technology with a lighter alu diaphragm and graphene dust cap (best of both worlds).

Conclusion: Its just a bigger quantum than the S3 Mk2.

I also subscribe to Adam's view that a graphene diaphragm is less important in a bass driver application per a full range 3-way speaker than a midrange or bass-midrange. At the end of the day however, the only test that matters is the listening test.
 
Melbguy1 said:
I also subscribe to Adam's view that a graphene diaphragm is less important in a bass driver application per a full range 3-way speaker than a midrange or bass-midrange.
Click to expand...

Sure but that was before we have discovered that the new S3 mk 2 driver is more than just a new diaphragm - it is a completely different design (Morel based).

You would need to listen or best - measure both speakers to see what the new bass driver have brought to the table. The change might be as significant as the other changes you have mentioned.
 
Elberoth said:
Sure but that was before we have discovered that the new S3 mk 2 driver is more than just a new diaphragm - it is a completely different design (Morel based).

You would need to listen or best - measure both speakers to see what the new bass driver have brought to the table. The change might be as significant as the other changes you have mentioned.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, though if I recall the S5 Mk1's bass units use Morel baskets and magnet systems, as well as parts from other suppliers like Scan Speak, whilst the S5 Mi2's bass units are also completely new & bare a close resemblance to Q series technology behind the cone.

But putting diaphragm technology aside for a moment, ultimately the listening test would have to decide each driver's relative merits, and even then that has to be considered in the context of the speaker as a whole, and how it couples to the room. Then you have the fact that each speaker will work best in different size rooms :panic:.
 
Melbguy1 said:
Fair enough, though if I recall the S5 Mk1's bass units use Morel baskets and magnet systems, as well as parts from other suppliers like Scan Speak, whilst the S5 Mi2's bass units are also completely new & bare a close resemblance behind the cone to Q series technology.
Click to expand...

The S5 mk 1 bass driver was also Scan Speak based, not Morel.

Here you can see both the S5 mk 1 and S7 bass drivers.

yjskqupcormb.jpg


S5 woofer (right) is Scan Speak based
S7 woofer (left) is Seas based

Here is the standard Scan Speak model they have based their S5 bass driver design on:
scan-speak-26w-4558t00.jpg

scan-speak-26w-4558t00.jpg

I'm not sure what modifications thay have comissioned for this model (apart from that CF dust cap), but the end result thay got was simply phenomenal - bass reaching to almost 20Hz in room with impulse response close to 0.5.

I'm not sure about the S5 mk 2. I don't have the speakers on hand.

But looking at this pic:
6d423d3fdbcc4264270c323d44f1e37d.jpg


I think that might have adopted the S7 bass drivers (Seas based) as the basket is clearly different. Maybe someone will be able to post the pics showing the details of hole undercuts - then we will be able to tell more.
 
Adam, your post helps clarify the origin of the S5 Mk1's bass units, but doesn't change my view the quantum between the S5 Mk1 and Mk2 is larger than the S3 Mk1 > Mk2.

I will I'll try to find the video of Alon describing the S5 Mk2's bass driver technology tomorrow & update the thread.
 
OK, just to clarify:

S3 mk 2 (vs mk 1)

- new tweeter
- new mid
- new bass driver design
- new graphene reinforced CF bass driver cone
- new concave top

S5 mk 2 (vs mk 1)

- new tweeter
- new mid
- new bass driver
- outriggers
- new eliptical mid sub-enclosure
- new concave top

I don't really believe outriggest brought in any performance benefit - they are for look mostly.

So that leaves us at new eliptical mid sub-enclosure vs new graphene reinforced CF cone (with a different bass driver design). It is a toss, really.
 
Why doesn't someone who has a dog in this fight ask Alon to come over and clear up the confusion and put an end to the arguments on woofer size and who the birth parents are?
 
mep said:
Why doesn't someone who has a dog in this fight ask Alon to come over and clear up the confusion and put an end to the arguments on woofer size and who the birth parents are?
Click to expand...

The woofers debate has been settled - they are both the same size.
 
I asked Magico the question about S3Mk2 and Q3, and the response was, the 3-axis internal support frame in Q-series allows the signal from the transducers to be much more refined. My reading of it was a recommendation of Q3 over S3Mk2.
 
This is the manufacturer talking about a design aspect of his more complex and expensive product line. I seem to recall that when the S product line came out (maybe the S5), several critics/reviewers stated a preference for the S line, saying that while not as technically perfect as the earlier Q line, the S speakers were more musical and likely to appeal to a wider audience.... and not just because they were priced lower. I think that eventually Magico was was able to carry this quality forward into the late model Q7 Mk2.
Your mileage may vary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top