Magico S5 mk2

[LVB]

LVB, why do you always suggest to move on when asked to elaborate on questions you have put up yourself?

If you make statements you can't offer any substance to solidify, maybe it would be wiser not to make such statements.

There are quite a few sharks around here who have been around the block a couple of times. Rest assured, no-one makes an investment of 50K into a product like the Vandy 7 mkII, who does not have the experience to justify it.

I guess you are not reading my posts, I suggested a few points only to have Alpinist question my integrity and basically telling me to take a hike, so I am... We know how it all works, I am not about to change minds, nor do I want to, I was just curious to why one would say that the V7 is better than the S5, that is all... I actually thought that FlexibelAuido reply (#347) was a joke, but now I am not so sure

 

[Mike]

I don't think there is any reason to leave. You all are having a constructive conversation. But let's agree that neither speaker is better - they are different. Chocolate vs Strawberry. As for measurements that JA screwed up, that's interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Z]

..I was just curious to why one would say that the V7 is better than the S5, that is all... I actually thought that FlexibelAuido reply (#347) was a joke, but now I am not so sure

No issue with your contributions LVB. As Mike said, Magico and Vandeesteen are very different speakers. But just to clarify, I said the Vandy 7 Mk2 should be better than the S5 Mk2 given reviewer commentary from Munich, reviews & the $24k price difference. Note: I was careful not to say the Vandy 7 Mk2 is better (than the S5 Mk2) since I have not a-b tested both speakers.

With that said, it would be quite an achievement if the Magico's, optimally setup as they were at Axpona with CAT & Kronos, and CES 2014 with Vitus, DCS & Aurender, pipped the Vandy S7 Mk2. But here's the problem; If you got 20 audiophiles in a room and asked thier opinion, you'd probably get 20 different opinions. As Mike said, none of these mighty loudspeakers are going to prevail in this debate as it's Chocolate vs Strawberry. Pick your flavor :satisfying:.

 

[FlexibleAudio]

LVB,

I am serious about my question regarding your logic. I am very familiar with the S5's sound and its measurements. When I look at the the metrics of both speakers I see two exceptionally well designed transducers both of which measure exceptionally. Both sets of measurements are well beyond the threshold necessary to achieve an exceptionally fulfilling acoustical experience on a deeply emotional level. The fact that the S5 has taken FR and other measurements to a level beyond this threshold IMO does not correlate to the depth of this emotional experience for many listeners. I do not understand the logic you employ in concluding that it does. Can you please enlighten me with your reasoning?

I am not sure how you could conclude that the Vandersteen measures exceptionally, far from it (please don't repeat JA finding, he will bend it as he sees fit). Please compare with the S5 measurements here: http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/in...&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153

In terms of empirical performance the S5 trumps the Venderstten in all departments (Of course the V7 with its power subs will go lower if you boost it, but at what cost - time delay, look at the breakups smack in the middle of the midrange only 10 db down in output, sub optimized transition to the mids, look at the suck-out between 100Hz to 500Hz, etc). You can still say that you do not “hear” it like that, and that is just fine, however, like I said before, it has been proven that in blind testing people preferences tend to correlate to good engineered loudspeakers, i.e. those who measures well.

LVB,

No reason to be boogieing dude, I want your perspective. What I tried to ask above (first bold; which I do not feel you answered) is why you think a speaker that measures beyond a base threshold (a level which a preponderance of audiophile agrees is required to make a speaker great) will continue to yield improvements in the psychoacoustic affects realized by a human being. I, and many, feel the contrary may be true (particularly if Magico is a manifestation of this design philosophy).

Also, trying to provide evidence of your view (second bold) by pointing to blind tests which correlate listeners preference to "good engineered products" is specious given the complete lack of such blind testing specifically correlating to the measurements you reference. I am aware of published blind tests which correlate certain products to people's preferences mores so than other products (and it is reasonable to assume these are the better engineered products); but, I have never seen published blind testing that correlates preferences to the measurements you reference when they exceed the threshold I reference. Can you point me to such work or blind testing as they are two very different things.

 

[LVB]

LVB,

No reason to be boogieing dude, I want your perspective. What I tried to ask above (first bold; which I do not feel you answered) is why you think a speaker that measures beyond a base threshold (a level which a preponderance of audiophile agrees is required to make a speaker great) will continue to yield improvements in the psychoacoustic affects realized by a human being. I, and many, feel the contrary may be true (particularly if Magico is a manifestation of this design philosophy).

Also, trying to provide evidence of your view (second bold) by pointing to blind tests which correlate listeners preference to "good engineered products" is specious given the complete lack of such blind testing specifically correlating to the measurements you reference. I am aware of published blind tests which correlate certain products to people's preferences mores so than other products (and it is reasonable to assume these are the better engineered products); but, I have never seen published blind testing that correlates preferences to the measurements you reference when they exceed the threshold I reference. Can you point me to such work or blind testing as they are two very different things.

here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpUDuUtxPM

You may want to read his books, they are much more informative

 

[FlexibleAudio]

LVB,

I am serious about my question regarding your logic. I am very familiar with the S5's sound and its measurements. When I look at the the metrics of both speakers I see two exceptionally well designed transducers both of which measure exceptionally. Both sets of measurements are well beyond the threshold necessary to achieve an exceptionally fulfilling acoustical experience on a deeply emotional level. The fact that the S5 has taken FR and other measurements to a level beyond this threshold IMO does not correlate to the depth of this emotional experience for many listeners. I do not understand the logic you employ in concluding that it does. Can you please enlighten me with your reasoning?

here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpUDuUtxPM

You may want to read his books, they are much more informative

I have seen Floyds work before and I will watch this video in its entirety, but first I would like to make my point again given that its more than an hour in length. Floyd normally goes on about how a flat speaker sounds best and can be recognized as such in blind testing. With this I agree and, as such, this is the point I have made above regarding a minimum threshold of measured performance being met to be preferred in such testing. However, I believe a design philosophy taking the FR measurement to the extreme as Magico has done can do so at the expense of other variables which drive human psychological response.

You have yet to address this point. If the video you reference does, I will stand corrected and thank you for the new information relative to Floyd's work I have seen in the past. If it doesn't I will have spent an hour rehashing that which I have already addressed in my original question to you. So to be specific, does Floyd's new video show blind testing that prefers an FR equal to that of the S5 (which is arguably one of the flattest speaker ever tested) over the FR of the Vandy 7 MKii or is it showing a correlation to flat FR responses generally, the best of which is materially less flat than the S5? The former is what I am asking; the latter is the same old stuff Floyd has been yacking about for a while which few thoughtfully argue against.

 

[Vapor1]

Vandy and Magico couldn't be more differently designed speakers. one is all about first order xovers with time/phase coherancy - other is high order xovers with super flat frequency response. there isn't a "right" answer as they are somewhat different objectives. Perhaps Ryan can comment a bit on this topic of xover design and the choices he has to take.

You talkin to me?

Let's assume you are You're correct, there is no "right", but there can certainly be a "wrong". Wrong often happens when designers try to shove a speaker into their design philosophy, like insisting on low order crossovers when the drivers and design simply aren't conducive to it. In honesty it's a lot easier to get high order networks right than it is low order, more pieces of the puzzle have to be just right for low order to work. But in my experience, low order networks tend to sound more authentic to life than higher order. Of course that's an opinion, and there are no absolutes, but it is an opinion formed after countless designs of both high and low order networks.

I also think most manufacturers opt toward higher order networks because it allows them to take the easy way out with cabinet design and driver selection. You can almost never get away with 1st order networks on a flat baffle, and sloped or stepped baffles are more complex to build. Also 1st order networks requires extremely well behaved drivers both in and out of their pass band, whereas high order networks are used often to hide the sins of raw drivers that can often be avoided by opting for the better (and more expensive typically) driver.

 

[MikeCh]

Man, the last couple pages of posts in this thread have made me realize how much un-fun this hobby can be.

No thanks.

 

[Mike]

Not sure I agree Mike. I'm finding it very interesting reading. Everyone is being very respectful. Two completely different design philosophies and both achieve world class sound.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MikeCh]

I'm not doubting the world class sound from either loudspeaker camp. Both are fantastic examples from what I've heard.

 

[Vapor1]

Not sure I agree Mike. I'm finding it very interesting reading. Everyone is being very respectful. Two completely different design philosophies and both achieve world class sound.

We're firmly in the territory of personal preference, not right or wrong.

I will say that the S5 Mk2 I heard at Axpona (on Sunday) was the first Magico I've ever heard that didn't offend after more than a few tracks. Their new midrange is finally providing some refinement to go with the resolution.

 

[Jack]

I tend to agree with Ryan about 1st order crossover speakers sounding more "authentic" or "more like music." All you have to do is look at the sales figures from Thiel and Vandersteen's original numbered series of speakers to see that a lot of people agree with that philosophy. The Vandersteen 2 series has been in constant production since the mid-70's and still selling strong. Richard and Alon both make world class speakers even though their philosophies about how to get there are as far apart as can be. They both have their own audience and you can chose which side of the curve you fall on. I have my side and you are entitled to yours.

 

[Dpod4]

Interesting thread. Some of the most engaging, emotional and toe tapping sound I have heard came from a pair of Vandersteens. I think they were the 2s or 3As

 

[Tom Z]

Vandy and Magico couldn't be more differently designed speakers. one is all about first order xovers with time/phase coherancy - other is high order xovers with super flat frequency response. there isn't a "right" answer as they are somewhat different objectives. Perhaps Ryan can comment a bit on this topic of xover design and the choices he has to take.

Keith, i'm more familiar with my friend's Magico S5 Mk1 speakers than the newer Mk2's, but from what I understand the S5 Mk1 is perfectly phase coherent in the x-over, and very, but not perfectly time coherent. Whilst Mike commented following his trips to CES and Axpona that the newer Magico S1 Mk2 & S5 Mk2 were "completely and totally seamless". I know Alon focused a lot on driver integration with the new 'Mk2' models. From what I understand, the newer drivers are better behaved across their frequency band which allowed Magico to simplify the x-over (which in turn resulted in a 1db gain in efficiency for the S5 Mk2).

 

[Alpinist]

Keith, i'm more familiar with my friend's Magico S5 Mk1 speakers than the newer Mk2's, but from what I understand the S5 Mk1 is perfectly phase coherent in the x-over, and very, but not perfectly time coherent. Whilst Mike commented following his trips to CES and Axpona that the newer Magico S1 Mk2 & S5 Mk2 were "completely and totally seamless". I know Alon focused a lot on driver integration with the new 'Mk2' models. From what I understand, the newer drivers are better behaved across their frequency band which allowed Magico to simplify the x-over (which in turn resulted in a 1db gain in efficiency for the S5 Mk2).

I've done lengthy auditions of both the Magico S5 Mk1 and the Magico S7. I don't think the word "significant" would even be sufficient to describe the improvements I heard in the following:
1) Treble and midrange ease and musicality
2) Transparency
3) Imaging
4) Linearity
5) Dynamics and scale

I've not heard the S5 Mk2 yet but I'm operating under the assumption that the S7 does everything at least as well or better than the S5 Mk2.

Ken

 

[Mike]

I've not heard the S5 Mk2 yet but I'm operating under the assumption that the S7 does everything at least as well or better than the S5 Mk2.

It does and then some.

 

[FlexibleAudio]

You talkin to me?

Let's assume you are You're correct, there is no "right", but there can certainly be a "wrong". Wrong often happens when designers try to shove a speaker into their design philosophy, like insisting on low order crossovers when the drivers and design simply aren't conducive to it. In honesty it's a lot easier to get high order networks right than it is low order, more pieces of the puzzle have to be just right for low order to work. But in my experience, low order networks tend to sound more authentic to life than higher order. Of course that's an opinion, and there are no absolutes, but it is an opinion formed after countless designs of both high and low order networks.

I also think most manufacturers opt toward higher order networks because it allows them to take the easy way out with cabinet design and driver selection. You can almost never get away with 1st order networks on a flat baffle, and sloped or stepped baffles are more complex to build. Also 1st order networks requires extremely well behaved drivers both in and out of their pass band, whereas high order networks are used often to hide the sins of raw drivers that can often be avoided by opting for the better (and more expensive typically) driver.

What he said!

Or you can take it from Vandersteen himself; both make my point:

"Time and phase, in combination with amplitude, determine what we hear.
Sound is comprised of many different frequencies intermingled and combined to form complex waveforms. A speaker is time an phase correct when all the frequencies arrive at the listener's ears aligned in time and phase so that all the complex waveforms are intact.
The woofer, midrange, and tweeter will all reproduce their portions of the frequencies that make up this waveform. If the speaker is time and phase correct the outputs of the three drivers will add together at the listening position into a very close reproduction of the original waveform.
But if the drivers are not properly aligned, or they are not all connected in positive phase, or if a high-order, steep slope crossover is used, the ouputs from the drivers will arrive at the listening position out-of-step from each other and twisted in phase. Now we have a speaker with flat frequency response that cannot accurately recreate the musical waveforms. Believe it or not, this is exactly to case with the vast majority of loudspeakers.
So, why do most mainstream manufacturers and magazines focus only on the amplitude (frequency) response of speakers and ignore the critical time and phase? We believe this tunnel-vision approach is a direct result of a serious flaw that has affected almost every listening test ever done. The flaw is that they are TESTS.
We enjoy music as an emotional experience. We are drawn into good music, exhilarated by exciting music, relaxed by soothing music, and put-off by bad music. In a listening TEST, people put away their emotions and try to use their analytical mind to evaluate a speaker's performance. It's like trying to evaluate the quality of a classic painting by counting how many different colors are in it. The analytical mind focuses only on the surface, the frequency response, and ignores the reason for music; emotion.
Our opinion is that these evaluations made with the analytical mind have nothing to do with a speaker's true performance on music. They are cited in various circles as proof that time alignment doesn't matter, or that phase doesn't matter, or that all wires sound the same, or that all amps and CD players sound the same, but they all miss the fundamental truth. Listening to music is an emotional event and cannot be accurately evaluated by the analytical mind."

 

[Tom Z]

What he said!

Or you can take it from Vandersteen himself...

Most audiphiles would be aware Richard Vandersteen has been pursuing 1st order crossover design for many years. Magico too have working hard for many years perfecting high order crossovers using proprietory 'Elliptical symmetry crossover' technology, which they say allows them to achieve ideal roll-off characteristics between drivers, using half the number of parts in a normal crossover. Mike's comments however were based on 1st hand listening sessions, not technical white papers or lab tests. His views also parallel what I heard listening to a friend's Vitus/S7/Kronos system over several hours. Just saying it's worthwhile keeping an open mind about high order crossover networks.

 

[KeithR]

Keith, i'm more familiar with my friend's Magico S5 Mk1 speakers than the newer Mk2's, but from what I understand the S5 Mk1 is perfectly phase coherent in the x-over, and very, but not perfectly time coherent. Whilst Mike commented following his trips to CES and Axpona that the newer Magico S1 Mk2 & S5 Mk2 were "completely and totally seamless". I know Alon focused a lot on driver integration with the new 'Mk2' models. From what I understand, the newer drivers are better behaved across their frequency band which allowed Magico to simplify the x-over (which in turn resulted in a 1db gain in efficiency for the S5 Mk2).

There's a difference being phase coherent at just crossover points. If you look at any Magico impedance/phase chart, pretty easy to see that they have phase shifts at varying degrees.

 

[KeithR]

You talkin to me?

Let's assume you are You're correct, there is no "right", but there can certainly be a "wrong". Wrong often happens when designers try to shove a speaker into their design philosophy, like insisting on low order crossovers when the drivers and design simply aren't conducive to it. In honesty it's a lot easier to get high order networks right than it is low order, more pieces of the puzzle have to be just right for low order to work. But in my experience, low order networks tend to sound more authentic to life than higher order. Of course that's an opinion, and there are no absolutes, but it is an opinion formed after countless designs of both high and low order networks.

I also think most manufacturers opt toward higher order networks because it allows them to take the easy way out with cabinet design and driver selection. You can almost never get away with 1st order networks on a flat baffle, and sloped or stepped baffles are more complex to build. Also 1st order networks requires extremely well behaved drivers both in and out of their pass band, whereas high order networks are used often to hide the sins of raw drivers that can often be avoided by opting for the better (and more expensive typically) driver.

Thanks Ryan - your input on the forum is quite valuable.