Magico S5 mk2

FlexibleAudio said:
Respectfully, LVB I don't understand why you continue to make such claims and are unwilling to provide any logical explanation supporting your supposition. I would only presume you are either seriously not reading the posts made to you or you are just yanking peoples chains for sport. Please allow me to make my point on last time and I will try to do so as simply as possible to facilitate things.

Where I agree
Clearly Toole has shown a positive correlation coefficient between blind testing and measurements. One of those measurements is FR.

Where I disagree
However, I have never seen any credible empirical evidence related to blind testing, or other wise, making a definitive determination that optimization of FR is superior to time response. I have also never seen such evidence confirm that the correlation coefficient between positive blind test results and FR remains positive beyond a base level acceptable to the human ear. I, in fact, have questioned whether the correlation coefficient turns negative if FR is taken to an extreme. The O'tool work in no way shape or form draws such conclusions and doing so rings hallow. You are the only one I recall making such a claim so conclusively and yet you will not address the question at hand yet you keep repeating your belief. Why not do a fellow Shark a solid and help us get as smart as you.
Click to expand...

Paul,

It will be a much more constructive discussion if you try and tame your condescending tone. It does not go well with your “presume” attempt to learn.
Toole has shown clearly in his research that the only correlation between people preferences and perception of sound quality in loudspeakers derive from frequency response related behavior and not time/phase ones. Already in the 60’s the BBC have found no correlation between time coherency and “good” sound, and that is why most British loudspeakers (still) use high-order XO slops (Go and read Alan Shaw of Harbeth take on the subject - http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/...erence-A-Desirable-Attribute-In-A-Loudspeaker). It is all out there, you just need to make the effort and read the materials (but you didn’t even bother to watch the video I sent you, it is a lot easier just to harass me on-line).
 
LVB said:
Never mind, we move on (-;

I was explaining why there are no simple time-coherent XO, but really, who cares...
Click to expand...
If you're hinting at that being a complex crossover, it's not. What I see are a lot of paralleled components and bypass capacitors to raise the parts count.

LVB said:
Paul,

It will be a much more constructive discussion if you try and tame your condescending tone. It does not go well with your “presume” attempt to learn.
Toole has shown clearly in his research that the only correlation between people preferences and perception of sound quality in loudspeakers derive from frequency response related behavior and not time/phase ones. Already in the 60’s the BBC have found no correlation between time coherency and “good” sound, and that is why most British loudspeakers (still) use high-order XO slops (Go and read Alan Shaw of Harbeth take on the subject - http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/...erence-A-Desirable-Attribute-In-A-Loudspeaker). It is all out there, you just need to make the effort and read the materials (but you didn’t even bother to watch the video I sent you, it is a lot easier just to harass me on-line).
Click to expand...
Just imagine it's his avatar speaking when reading his posts. :D
 
Face said:
If you're hinting at that being a complex crossover, it's not. What I see are a lot of paralleled components and bypass capacitors to raise the parts count.
Click to expand...

Look again, carefully, these are impedance traps...
 
LVB said:
Paul,

It will be a much more constructive discussion if you try and tame your condescending tone. It does not go well with your “presume” attempt to learn.
Toole has shown clearly in his research that the only correlation between people preferences and perception of sound quality in loudspeakers derive from frequency response related behavior and not time/phase ones. Already in the 60’s the BBC have found no correlation between time coherency and “good” sound, and that is why most British loudspeakers (still) use high-order XO slops (Go and read Alan Shaw of Harbeth take on the subject - http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/...erence-A-Desirable-Attribute-In-A-Loudspeaker). It is all out there, you just need to make the effort and read the materials (but you didn’t even bother to watch the video I sent you, it is a lot easier just to harass me on-line).
Click to expand...

First please allow me to apologize for being condescending. I will try not to do that anymore. I also apologize for harassing you. I guess I did that too. I watched the video in its entirety (it is consistent with my past knowledge of his work) and I have owned British speakers for 30 years.

I appreciate you giving me more clarity on your position and I think now where we differ on the FR versus time/phase issue relates to my view of "credible empirical evidence." Statistically speaking, there are no where near enough degrees of freedom in Toole's work to draw any reliable conclusions. The .83 correlation coefficient done by the Harmon internal studies reports no statistical significance and the only work with a decent number of degrees of freedom (the 350 person listing tests) shows fair to poor predictability by all but 12 of the participants.

Also, your reference to the "British sound" is a perfect example of the flaw in your argument. Are you meaning to say that a statistically significant blind sampling across a spectrum of well designed speakers that follow the "British sound" design philosophy will prevail statistically over a sampling of well designed speakers that do not follow the "British sound" design philosophy. Maybe you are correct but I know many audiophiles that have never warmed (pun intended) to the British thing. Regardless, I now understand the basis of your observation and will simply disagree on this point as said.

Regarding the occurrence of negative correlation between SQ and extreme FR due to compromise required to achieve such extremely flat FR (which was my initial question), I still would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

 
This , In a nutshell ..... :)


"P.S. As Dudley Harwood (Harbeth's founder, ex-BBC research engineer) is reported to have replied to someone who asked him about the technical core of his speaker design philosophy .... "You just fiddle about until they sound right". The truest words spoken on the subject of loudspeaker design - by someone who really did know the subject inside out!"​

Alan A. Shaw
Designer, owner
Harbeth Audio UK
​
 
FlexibleAudio said:
First please allow me to apologize for being condescending. I will try not to do that anymore. I also apologize for harassing you. I guess I did that too. I watched the video in its entirety (it is consistent with my past knowledge of his work) and I have owned British speakers for 30 years.

I appreciate you giving me more clarity on your position and I think now where we differ on the FR versus time/phase issue relates to my view of "credible empirical evidence." Statistically speaking, there are no where near enough degrees of freedom in Toole's work to draw any reliable conclusions. The .83 correlation coefficient done by the Harmon internal studies reports no statistical significance and the only work with a decent number of degrees of freedom (the 350 person listing tests) shows fair to poor predictability by all but 12 of the participants.

Also, your reference to the "British sound" is a perfect example of the flaw in your argument. Are you meaning to say that a statistically significant blind sampling across a spectrum of well designed speakers that follow the "British sound" design philosophy will prevail statistically over a sampling of well designed speakers that do not follow the "British sound" design philosophy. Maybe you are correct but I know many audiophiles that have never warmed (pun intended) to the British thing. Regardless, I now understand the basis of your observation and will simply disagree on this point as said.

Regarding the occurrence of negative correlation between SQ and extreme FR due to compromise required to achieve such extremely flat FR (which was my initial question), I still would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.
Click to expand...

It is not flat FR, never has been, nor will be, it is smooth, even, on and off axis, response. More difficult to do achieve, much more so then just flat on-axis response that can sound like crap for all sorts of reasons.
 
Ok and the difference between flat and smooth is simply resolution but I take your point. So at your defined resolution I should have used smooth. I stand corrected also.

That said, I surrender. Thanks for our enlightening chat. Maybe we can do it again soon. Oops, sarcasm again; sorry about that.
 
LVB said:
Look again, carefully, these are impedance traps...
Click to expand...

Ya know, not every LCR is an impedance trap.

At most one impedance trap would be needed, on the bottom of the tweeter. And these days there are plenty of tweeters available that can cross at 2500hz @ 6db and not need a trap at all.
 
LVB said:
It is not flat FR, never has been, nor will be, it is smooth, even, on and off axis, response. More difficult to do achieve, much more so then just flat on-axis response that can sound like crap for all sorts of reasons.
Click to expand...

Well, you're not getting a flat power response without a flat on-axis FR as well. So yes, it is also flat on-axis response. And like I said before, even power response is nothing more than proper design.

The truth is Toole and Geddes' work didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. It was valuable work in that it made those things more paramount in buyers and designers minds, but not revelatory by any means.
 
Vapor1 said:
Ya know, not every LCR is an impedance trap.

At most one impedance trap would be needed, on the bottom of the tweeter. And these days there are plenty of tweeters available that can cross at 2500hz @ 6db and not need a trap at all.
Click to expand...

My 3 favorite tweeters, all entirely different designs, each with outstanding sonic results. No coincidence that I have/will own all three of these speakers. A smooth yet detailed tweeter that blends seamlessly with the midrange is of utmost importance to me.

1) Vandersteen 7 Carbon-Balsa Sandwich Tweeter (Made from exactly the same materials as the midrange and lower mid/upper bass drivers provides a seamless transition from treble to midrange. The ease of this tweeter is simply stunning).
2) Raidho Diamond Series Ribbon Tweeter (Tremendous detail. Amazing how seamlessly this tweeter blends with Raidho's diamond-carbonite midrange. The higher breakup frequency of this midrange driver enables the tweeter to crossover at a higher frequency than the C Series).
3) Revel Ultima Series Beryllium Tweeter (My favorite Beryllium tweeter. Terrific Revel custom designed waveguide. Sounds best on the Salon 2 because its extra upper midrange speaker enables the tweeter to crossover at a higher frequency than the Studio 2).

Best,
Ken
 
Alpinist said:
My 3 favorite tweeters, all entirely different designs, each with outstanding sonic results. No coincidence that I have/will own all three of these speakers. A smooth yet detailed tweeter that blends seamlessly with the midrange is of utmost importance to me.

1) Vandersteen 7 Carbon-Balsa Sandwich Tweeter (Made from exactly the same materials as the midrange and lower mid/upper bass drivers provides a seamless transition from treble to midrange. The ease of this tweeter is simply stunning).
2) Raidho Diamond Series Ribbon Tweeter (Tremendous detail. Amazing how seamlessly this tweeter blends with Raidho's diamond-carbonite midrange. The higher breakup frequency of this midrange driver enables the tweeter to crossover at a higher frequency than the C Series).
3) Revel Ultima Series Beryllium Tweeter (My favorite Beryllium tweeter. Terrific Revel custom designed waveguide. Sounds best on the Salon 2 because its extra upper midrange speaker enables the tweeter to crossover at a higher frequency than the Studio 2).

Best,
Ken
Click to expand...
Hi Ken,

Thanks for your interesting views on tweeters. I'm just wondering if you've had the change to listen to the Magico S7 or S5 Mk2's modified diamond-coated BE tweeter? And if so, how did it rate against the other tweeters you mentioned?
Btw, slightly :offtopic:, but from my auditions of various high end speakers over the years, this would be my list of the best tweeters i've ever heard -

1/ Acapella High Violin which uses a horn-loaded Ion tweeter with no mass. Incredibly fast with seemingly unlimited dynamics. It is the best tweeter i've ever heard, and blended well with the horn-loaded midrange. Thought it should be noted the High Violins had bass integration issues due to the incredibly fast tweeter & midrange.
2/ Crystal Arabesque which uses a custom version of the superb RAAL 140-15D ribbon tweeter. This tweeter sounds incredibly natural, smooth, fast and has wide bandwidth & excellent off-axis response. Gabi has also done a great job of integrating the RAAl tweeter with the custom Scan-Speak Illuminator bass/midrange drivers
3/ Magico S7's which use a MBD26 diamond-coated BE tweeter. Combined with the new 6" graphene-carbon Nanotube midrange & integrated midrange enclosure; the sound is completely seamless as Mike described, with excellent resolution, balance & sense of 'ease' which allows the music to flow. The S5 Mk2's MB7 diamond-coated BE tweeter should have similar performance.
4/ Infinity High Energy Emit which is a planar-magnetic ribbon tweeter. This newer tweeter was used in the classic Renaissance 80 & 90, IRS-Sigma, Omega & Epsilon models. Having heard my friend's Ren 90's, I was amazed how fast, smooth & resolving this tweeter was & how well it blended with the High Energy Emim midrange. In particular the Ren 90's had excellent off-axis performance & threw a wide, holographic soundstage.

Side note: I would expect the 28mm Diamond-coated BE tweeter used in the Magico M Project & Q7 MkII to be better than the S5 Mk2 & S7, and likely one of the best tweeters in the world, but I haven't heard those models.

Cheers,
Tom
 
Vapor1 said:
Ya know, not every LCR is an impedance trap.

At most one impedance trap would be needed, on the bottom of the tweeter. And these days there are plenty of tweeters available that can cross at 2500hz @ 6db and not need a trap at all.
Click to expand...

Yes but the thd would be higher ( audible) especially at elevated levels ..
 
Since English is not my first language, it is impossible for me to put into words how much fun this Magico S5 mk2 discussion is. Wow. So much. Fun. Like a diamond made out of fun. So much fun under tons of pressure to create the flawless diamond fun we witness here. Wow. If I am allowed to follow only one forum discussion until I die, this would be it. This is all I need. Better than overdose on LSD. Thank you Magico S5 mk2 discussion.
 
parkcaka said:
Since English is not my first language, it is impossible for me to put into words how much fun this Magico S5 mk2 discussion is. Wow. So much. Fun. Like a diamond made out of fun. So much fun under tons of pressure to create the flawless diamond fun we witness here. Wow. If I am allowed to follow only one forum discussion until I die, this would be it. This is all I need. Better than overdose on LSD. Thank you Magico S5 mk2 discussion.
Click to expand...
Diamonds are a boy's best friend..

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 7e3ca1ce3c24b43dbbf3fd33c54949bb.jpg
    7e3ca1ce3c24b43dbbf3fd33c54949bb.jpg
    642.1 KB · Views: 108
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top