Magico Q1 Mini-Monitor Exclusive First Review!
Last weekend I traveled to Berkeley, CA, and spent three solid days listening to Magico’s latest aluminum-enclosed speaker, the $25k stand-mounted Q1 mini-monitor. To be honest, though I’d been invited to audition the Q1s several months before, this was a trip I’d decided not to make. The way I saw it, having reviewed the Minis, the M5s, and my current references the Q5s, I’d done enough Magico’ing for awhile. Plus I had my hands full with other loudspeaker-review projects, including the Scaena 3.4 that so impressed me at CES 2011 and the Audio Physic Avantera that had done a bit of the same thing at this year’s Munich show.
However, when my colleague Jim Hannon’s raved about the Q1 in his California Audio Show report, I got curious. Like me Jim is an electrostatic enthusiast—and for the very same reasons that I am. Up until very recently there was simply nothing in a dynamic speaker that could match the transparency, disappearing act, and, with a first-rate source, realism (at least on acoustic music) of a really good electrostat or planar—nothing with multiple cones that could compare to the seamless presentation of a “boxless” Quad or CLX or Sound Lab or Maggie, or equal their transient speed and low-level resolution. True, as I’ve noted before, big multiway cone speakers own the bottom octaves and impact on the loud side of the dynamic spectrum; they also have more three-dimensional “body” than ’stats and, sometimes, tighter image focus and wider soundstages. But, as I’ve also noted before, the price you pay for these things in octave-to-octave coherence, overall neutrality, low-level resolution (particularly at lower volume levels), room interaction, and transparency to sources can be steep—too steep, in fact, to interest a listener like me (until the M5, followed abruptly by the Q5, came a’callin’). No bass is better than lousy bass in my book (yet to be published, BTW). And even if the bass proves passable, hearing different sounds in the low end, the midrange, and the treble from ill-matched drivers in a large noisy enclosure is simply an unacceptable trade-off for an extra octave of bottom end.
Indeed, until about two years ago the only dynamic speakers that passed muster in the Valin house were two-way mini-monitors. Why? Because they sounded more like single-driver electrostats and planars (augmented by some of the virtues of cones).
Of course, it’s a lot easier to design and build a good two-way mini-monitor than it is to design and build a three-and-a-half or four-way or five-way behemoth. First, you only have to deal with two drivers and one crossover—not that this is a snap, but it is certainly simpler than wrestling with five or six drivers and multiple crossovers. Second, you only have to deal with a tiny box. Once again, engineering and constructing a really good tiny box isn’t a walk in the park, but whatever the build-quality it is substantially less difficult to make a small enclosure disappear into the soundfield than it is a large one.
All of which means that minis inherently have a leg up when it comes to driver coherence and enclosure inaudibility. In addition to this, they generally don’t produce much (if any) low bass making them a lot less likely to excite those 60–80Hz room nodes that automatically remind you that you’re listening to a woofer in a cabinet. Their much smaller footprints allow them to be placed farther away from sidewalls and backwalls, further reducing room reflections and allowing them to throw vast, minutely detailed soundstages into which they more or less disappear.
This said, many of the same things that a mini gets right it also gets wrong. First, there is the bass issue. Minis generally don’t have any. From a room-interaction viewpoint, this is great (as noted)—from a musical one, not so much. Electrostatic Quads and CLXes and planar Maggie 3.7s may not plumb the depths below 45-55Hz, but they go down low enough to give you a fair semblance of the sound of bass fiddles, pianos, tubas, contrabassoons, etc. Oh, they may not reproduce the lowest pitches of these instruments (or all the power with which fortes are sounded), but they get the harmonics right and thanks to the way our brains and ears work we supply the missing fundamentals.
Many two-ways, on the other hand, are lucky to make it down to 80–90Hz. They often have a built-in bump at their LF cutoff, intended to give you the impression of deeper-going bass, but (minus the addition of a subwoofer, itself a very iffy proposition) a typical two-way mini-monitor cannot “imply” the bottom octaves or fill in the “power range” from 100Hz to 400Hz the way a good ’stat or planar can and does. As a result, two-ways tend to sound thin in balance, lacking the body and weight and power of the real thing. Of course, this lighter balance also makes them sound nimbler in the midrange and can foster the impression of great transparency and detail, in the same way that certain electronics that are depressed in the mid-to-upper bass and lower mids can sound more transparent and detailed.
Second, there is that soundstage. Because they only have two drivers, a (relatively) simple crossover, and tiny enclosures with much less surface area to reflect/diffract off (and much less mass to resonate), minis, as noted, tend to disappear into the soundfield more completely than any other kind of speaker, including ’stats and planars. However, at the same time that their diminutive enclosures and simple complement of drivers allow them to disappear as sound sources, those selfsame diminutive enclosures and simple complement of drivers are also constantly reminding us of their presence in the thinness of timbre and lack of weight, body, and power that I’ve already mentioned, and the miniaturization of instruments and voices that I haven’t. Detailed a mini’s soundstage certainly is, often vast in width and depth and precise in focus. But realistic image height is almost always a problem. Now it’s true that all loudspeakers have a “size” issue—I’ve never yet heard one capable of reproducing the sheer breadth (and enormous power) of, oh, a drumkit as it is heard in life, much less a symphony orchestra—but when it comes to lifelike imaging mini-monitors typically are worst-case scenarios. They tend to shrink instruments and voices to unusually small dimensions.
Unfortunately, image size isn’t the only thing they shrink. A single 5-7" mid/woofer in a tiny box simply can’t move the amount of air that a big panel or several large woofers in a well-engineered cabinet can move. The result isn’t just a lack of low bass; it is an overall lack of dynamic range and impact on sforzandos and fortissimos and a definite SPL limit at the loud end of the loudness scale. As is the case with ’stats and planars, this dynamic shortfall on the very loud side is compensated for by superior speed of attack and greater delicacy of timbre and texture on the very soft one. Nonetheless, dynamic-range and ultimate-loudness limits are the banes of most minis.
In small rooms on a large slice of acoustic music, mini-monitors can (minus image size) sound very persuasively realistic—and very transparent to sources. But they won’t do the big orchestral stuff—or any power rock—with the verisimilitude of larger dynamic, planar, or electrostatic speakers. It is just the price you pay for what mini-monitors do well.
At least, this was the scenario chez Valin up until the arrival of the Magico Mini and Mini II about four years ago. Thanks to the superior engineering of their cabinets, drivers, crossover, and heroic T6 aluminum-and-birch stands, the Minis (which were rather misleadingly named, in that they were much much larger and more substantial than typical two-ways) began to turn the ship around.
The Minis and Mini IIs had all the virtues of two-ways—the neutrality, the low-level resolution, the coherence, the vast soundstage, the incomparable disappearing act—but they also had three things that other minis did not (or at least not in this abundance): bass, dynamics, and image size. Now when I say the Minis had bass, I don’t mean they plumbed the depths the way the M5s or Q5s do. But their carbon-fiber drivers, massive neodymium magnets, unusually well-engineered spiders and suspensions, and sealed birch-ply-and-T6-aluminum cabinets allowed them to play down into the upper-forties flatly and to roll off below that at 12dB/octave, giving them “usable” response into the mid-to-low forties and upper thirties. Many ’stats, planars, and smaller three-way dynamic speakers would’ve been proud to own the Mini IIs’ bass, for it was not only extended, it was also discriminating—a far cry from the humped-up bass of earlier-gen two-ways.
With this increase in bass extension and resolution came concomitant increases in neutrality through the power region, volume limits, and overall dynamic impact. The Mini IIs could play louder and with greater power than other minis I’d owned or reviewed. And this expansion of dynamic range made them more suitable on a larger variety of music, although they were still far short of the ideal speakers for certain kinds of rock-and-roll, electronica, and very-large-scale classical.
Whether because of their sleek tapered enclosures, their superb stands (which lifted them further from the floor than typical mini stands), their new-tech drivers and crossovers, or the combination of the three, the Minis and Mini IIs were also not “miniaturizing” loudspeakers. They managed to produce closer-to-life-sized voices, violins, even pianos, and they did so without the laser-cut focus of most two-ways. They were larger and more naturally expansive-sounding, without any loss of stage width or depth or inner detail.
As good as the Minis were—and they were the speakers that put Magico on the high-end map—they weren’t perfect. Their tweeter was rather bright and although its out-of-passband breakup modes (and those of the mid/woof) were greatly reduced in the Mini II version of the speaker, the tweet was still vaguely audible on-axis (much less so off-axis). There was also a graininess—not dissimilar to the brushed-snare noise in all but the latest-gen Magneplanars—to the Minis’ soundfield that I assumed came with the cone drivers (particularly the ring-radiator tweeter). In addition, the Minis were not easy to drive. Like all Magico speakers they were a difficult low-sensitivity load that necessitated the use of the best and most powerful amplifiers, tube and solid-state, to get the best sound.
Replacing a classic is never an easy task, but Magico has made a habit of trumping its own best efforts (often with disconcerting rapidity, as in the cases of the Mini I and Mini II and the M5 and the Q5). So when Wolf and Co. showed a mockup of the aluminum-bodied, beryllium-tweetered Q1 at last year’s CES, I was sure that the new speaker would be better. What I didn’t guess was how much better.
As I started off by saying, it took Jim Hannon’s rave write-up to get me interested enough to toy with the idea of paying Magico a visit after all. As was the case with the M5/Q5, I was promised a side-by-side comparison of the Mini II and the Q1, using the same electronics (Solution 700 monoblocks and 720 linestage, with which I am very familiar) and, to further entice me, using the same analog sources—a Clearaudio Innovation Wood turntable, a Graham Phantom II Supreme tonearm, and my current reference mc, the Clearaudio Goldfinger Statement, plus a variety of phonostages from Aesthetix, Soulution, and (the surprise of the bunch) the Tube Preamp from Dan Schmalle of The Tape Project and Bottlehead Electronics. I was told I could bring as many of my own LPs as I could fit in a carry-on suitcase and listen at length to recordings I know by heart through electronics that were until lately my references. (Magico had never showed its gear with vinyl prior to this past Munich High-End Show. Now I’d be surprised if it didn’t. Alon Wolf is nothing if not a true believer and once he finds a “better thing” he goes all out to find the best of breed. The wonder, to me, is that it took him this long to rediscover the joys of LPs, especially since he has thousands of albums in his home and in his showroom.)
Before I cut to the chase, a few words about me and Magico. There are folks out there who seem to think that I only like Magico loudspeakers (and I advise them to read my reviews of the Quad 2905s, the MartinLogan CLXes, the Magneplanar 1.7s and 3.7s, the Morel Fat Ladies, the TAD CR-1 Compact Monitors, the Nola Baby Grands, the MBL X-Tremes, etc.—and also to take a close look at my RMAF and CES show reports). Though I confess to feeling odd about reporting on yet another honest-to-goodness great loudspeaker from this little Berkeley-based company so soon after reviewing its great Q5, what should I do in the face of genuine sonic distinction? Keep mum? Pass on the opportunity? Wait till next time? Before I read Jim’s CAS report, all of these thoughts went through my head. But after reading it, it came to me that my primary job at TAS is to report on cutting-edge excellence, whatever its source. And while Magico is certainly not the only speaker manufacturer at the pointy end of today’s technology, it is one of the foremost. Ergo, this review.
So, to get the sticky part over with, let me just outright say that the Magico Q1 is the highest-fidelity stand-mount two-way I’ve yet heard. It is not just a little better than its predecessor, the Mini II, it is a whole lot better in every sonic regard. Switching from the Mini II to the Q1 (on the same sources with the same electronics) is almost exactly like switching from an LS3/5a to a Quad 57—or for that matter from an M5 to a Q5, only in a couple regards the Q1 is better than the Q5.
I suppose the first thing that stands out about the Q1 is its much lower noise floor—the virtual elimination of the upper-midrange/treble hash and grain of the Mini II. As was the case with the Q5 vis-à-vis the M5, a good deal of this lower distortion has to be attributed to the Q1’s superior, elaborately braced aluminum enclosure, which, unlike the Mini II’s birchply-and-aluminum enclosure, is not storing energy and then playing it back ever-so-faintly in a time-smeared fashion.
But with the Q1 the improvement in the cabinet is only half the story. The other half is the improvement in the blend of its 1" beryllium dome tweeter and its 7" NanoTec carbon-fiber-Rohacell-sandwich mid/bass. It is my understanding that, since the launch of the Q5, Magico has been “working on” its beryllium tweeter and, one assumes, on the crossover between the tweeter and the other drivers. I don’t know precisely what has changed here but I can tell you for a fact that this is the most seamless blend of a beryllium tweeter and a cone mid/woof I’ve heard. As a result, the Q1 come closer to sounding like a single-driver loudspeaker (on-axis) than any loudspeaker Magico has yet made. The effect is magical—like getting a Quad or a CLX (with better bass and large-scale dynamics than either) in a 9" by 14.2" by 14.2" package. Where the Q5 comes very close to this same magical seamlessness (when listened to slightly off-axis), I’m not sure that it fully matches that of the Q1 in the upper-mids and treble, where the little speaker isn’t “virtually” like a ’stat but is “fully” so. In the treble, its low-level resolution is at least as good (if not better) than that of the Q5. In fact, the only area in the upper-mids and highs where the Q5 seemingly exceeds the Q1 is transient speed—and that may be because its slightly “rougher-sounding” (on axis) beryllium tweeter is goosing up attacks. In any event, this is one very neutral, very detailed, very well-integrated, very transparent loudspeaker that not only taught me a few new things about recordings I know well but also taught me a few new things about the Soulution electronics it was being used with (for which, see below).
Let’s turn to the bass and dynamics, as those are the bêtes noires of minis. Magico claims that the Q1 is capable of 32Hz extension +/-3dB and has the measurements to prove it.
While I’m not sure that the Q1 was going quite this low this flatly when I heard it, it was certainly going lower than any other two-way I’ve auditioned—flat at least into the upper 30s. In stand-mounts only the TAD CR-1 equals it in bottom-end extension (and exceeds it in bottom-end clout)—and the TAD CR-1 is a $40k three-way with a separate 8" woofer.
Once again I’m not sure how Magico achieved this legerdemain from such a small box and driver, but musical notes that would’ve been veiled or absent on the Mini II—such as the capering contrabassoon and doublebasses in the Overture of Stravinsky’s Symphony in Three Movements [Decca], the thunderous pedal point of the piano in Paul Dessau’s First Sonata [Nova], and the sharp cracks of the drumkit in Reiner Bredemeyer’s Schlagstück 5 [Nova]—are here reproduced almost in their entirety.
I say “almost” because while the Q1 can supply a low-end clarity and extension that puts other minis to shame, it cannot supply all the power that accompanies these deep notes (where the much larger Q5 can). You simply don’t get the room-shaking power and utterly clear pitch-definition of Tina’s rumbling bass intro on “Take Me To The River” through the Q1s the way you do with the bigger Q5s. Let’s face it: There is a limit to the amount of air a 7" driver can move, although I think you would be surprised, as I was, by how close the Q1 comes to reproducing lifelike bass-range dynamics, particularly in the mid-to-upper bass.
Above the bass range, the Q1 is a dynamic dynamo (as was the Mini II, to be fair), although because of the unusually smooth blend of tweet and mid/woof (and the lower noise of its enclosure) that dynamism has a less roughed-up, lower distortion, more civilized feel. The new Q is also—with the right source components—a paragon of transparency and resolution, reproducing subtleties like Joan Baez’s and Melody Gardot’s tremolo with the clarity, delicacy of timbre and texture, dynamic range, and sheer “in-the-room-with-you” realism of an electrostat, albeit with more body and dimensionality than a ’stat.
Naturally, the Q1’s soundstaging is vast (when the recording permits) and the speaker disappears into the soundfield—as all minis do—so completely that you have little-to-no sense of the sound being projected from or painted on drivers and faceplates. On top of this, the Q1 (like the Mini II before it) does not miniaturize instruments, although it does focus them a bit more crisply than the Mini did. Thus something like the concert grand piano in the aforementioned Dessau LP has the height, volume, and most of the power of a piano reproduced by a much larger multiway loudspeaker.
Now let me say something about this speaker’s transparency to sources. With a couple of the phonostages we used, the Q1s had a sound that I associate with the Soulution 700 monoblock amps and MIT cables—very clear, neutral, and fast on transients but just the slightest bit “overcontrolled,” as if some kind of sonic brake was being applied to the duration of notes after the sounding of the starting transient. This sense of overcontrol or restraint makes music sound slightly less freed-up, slightly less vital and lively than it does through a select few other components. Frankly, I thought this mechanization was due to the very elaborate feedback circuit in the Soulution 700 and to the networking of the MIT cable and interconnect. But, as usual, I was wrong.
When we stuck in a third phonostage at the end of the second day of listening, the Q1s sprang into even more convincing life—transparency, resolution, delicacy of tone and texture, see-through clarity, and above all liveliness markedly increased and the vague sense of mechanization vanished. Clearly it was not the amps or the cables that were causing the problem, such as it was (and you’d have to be familiar with the LPs and certain other very high-quality electronics to be aware of it); it was the other two phonostages. When a loudspeaker can discern this sort of thing, while also reproducing instruments and vocalists with astonishing realism, you have a transducer that will please “fidelity to mastertapes” listeners and “absolute sound” ones equally. And that, folks, is quite an accomplishment.
It goes without saying that I highly recommend the Magico Q1 to all but the hardest of hard-rock music lovers. It is, as I said, the highest-fidelity, fullest-range, most transparent-to-sources two-way I’ve come across (and I’ve heard a few). It is also, in my experience, one of the two finest speakers—the other being my beloved Q5s—that Magico has yet come up with. (I haven’t had enough listening experience with the Q3 to include it in the charmed circle, although by all reports it too may very well belong among the Magico elect.) For listeners in small-to-medium-sized rooms who can’t house (or won’t stand for) big boxes or large panels that clutter up the décor, or for classical/jazz/acoustic-pop music lovers in any size room who want very close to the ultimate in transparency, resolution, and refinement at much less than a Q3/Q5 price, the Q1 would definitely be the Magico ticket I’d ride.
Specs & Pricing
Type: Two-way, stand-mounted mini-monitor in a sealed enclosure
Drivers: One 1" beryllium tweeter, one 7" NanoTec mid/woof
Sensitivity: 86dB/1W/1m
Impedance: 5 ohms (4 ohms minimum)
Frequency response: 32Hz to 50kHz +/-3dB
Recommended amplifier power: 50W
Dimensions: 10" x 44" x 15.2" (on stands)
Weight: 120 lbs. (including stands)
Price: $25,000 (including dedicated stands)
Magico, Inc.
932 Parker Street #2
Berkeley, CA 94710
(510) 653-8802
magico.net
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
Hey brother:
I suspected that it was only a matter of time before you took the Q1 plunge. All this gruff about having reviewed enough of the prolific Mr. Wolf's goodies over the past year never convinced me. The Magico's are simply too good to ignore. I can't wait for a full write-up. Do they pass the sine qua non test?
Amandela77
Hey back at ya, Amandela!
If by the "sine qua non" test you mean "can I live without them?" my answer would be, "Yes, but only because I already have the Q5s as references." If I didn't have the Q5s (and God forbid they go away), then my answer would be, "No, I want a pair of these ASAP." Honestly, the Q1s are extraordinary little speakers with almost unbelievable low-end frequency extension, overall resolution, and dynamic range given their tiny size. As I said in the review, anyone looking for near-Q5-level sound in a much smaller package and for $35k less dough need look no further.
Jon
How would the Q1's sound with a JL Audio 12" Gotham? Any opinion?
"Before I cut to the chase, a few words about me and Magico. There are folks out there who seem to think that I only like Magico loudspeakers (and I advise them to read my reviews of the Quad 2905s, the MartinLogan CLXes, the Magneplanar 1.7s and 3.7s, the Morel Fat Ladies, the TAD CR-1 Compact Monitors, the Nola Baby Grands, the MBL X-Tremes, etc.—and also to take a close look at my RMAF and CES show reports). Though I confess to feeling odd about reporting on yet another honest-to-goodness great loudspeaker from this little Berkeley-based company so soon after reviewing its great Q5, what should I do in the face of genuine sonic distinction? Keep mum? Pass on the opportunity? Wait till next time?... Ergo, this review."
Jon, we all know you like Magico. Also, reading your (and Fremmer's) reviews, we know what Magico sounds like. Considering the improvements of q5 over m5 and Mr. Wolf's passion/ obsession, it doesn't take much imagination to guess that the Q1 sounds much better than the Mini 2...
Personally, I am looking for something fresh from someone with your experience, Jon. When will you be publishing that Scaena blog?
ML,
I probably won't blog about the 3.4, but the review is written and scheduled for Issue 218 (the issue after next).
BTW, the sound of the Q1 is as "fresh" as anyone has ever gotten from a two-way stand-mount.
Jon
Jon,
The reason some may accuse you of being a "Magico lover" is because you are one of the few audio journalists who will say what you really think. Jeff Fritz recently wrote an editorial in Ultra Audio about how too many audio reviewers today sound like politicians. You are not one of them. Please do not change to appease the cynical.
Thank you.
JLeeMD,
Thanks for that link. Interesting argument, but still somewhat "political", IMHO. I guess Jeff Fritz would be even less of a politician if he called for speakers to be reviewed like cars: Get several cars together that are created for the same target market, drive them on the same track and roads, and rate them on several criteria by a panel of reviewers. Although we all have favorites, we as individuals value different things. Just like no car is likely to dominate every criteria it is rated on, no speaker will likely dominate in all criteria. But this will allow the prospective buyer to make a better decision based on what they are looking for.
Personally, I could care less that Jeff Fritz thinks that the q3's are the best at $50K. I have heard them and I respectfully disagree. But I would like to know how they compare against a similarly priced cohort on a variety of criteria, not compared to some $23K speaker no one has ever heard of.
I've been reading Jeff Fritz's writings for about 6 months now and am regularly surprised by his candor. For example, he favorably compared Paradigm Signature S2 speakers to those from YG Acoustics and Wilson Audio (!). Curious, I brought home a pair and listened to them in my 2-channel system (Mark Levinson No.512 SACD/CD player, Bryston 4B SST2 amplifier, Synergistic Research PowerCell 10 Mk2 power conditioner, Audioquest WBY interconnects & Redwood speaker cables) and was genuinely shocked to hear a BIG step up in transparency, dynamics, and timbral accuracy compared with my Dynaudio Confidence C1s. Had I not read his review, I would NEVER have considered "trading down" but I did and could not be happier.
Jon, I have no doubt that they are fresh in that category. So would a baseball player who hit a home run every game. But the reality is that it would not be too much interest to football fans. I don't begrudge you or any one who likes Magico. And I am not suggesting you stop covering Magicos, especially if you have a chance to score an exclusive. However, as popular as Magico is, they seem to appeal to the "fidelity to master-tapes" listeners primarily. What percentage of the audiophile market do you think that is? The rest of us, unfortunately, are not really moved by magicos emotionally (but at times some of use find them intellectually interesting). It's kind of dragging the football fan to a baseball game on Sunday afternoon (there's always alcohol!). I am sure I am not alone in wishing you would provide more thorough analysis and coverage to other brands, especially those that try to emulate a concert in the home. The rest of us also hope to learn something from your expertise.
PS. Did you get to hear those VTL's in the picture? Any thoughts?
I take your point (in fact, I made it myself in my Q5 review). But I'll remind you that the Magicos will also strongly appeal to "absolute sound" listeners. "As you like it" listeners, not so much.
I did hear the VTLs, and they sounded swell.
I think the new 450 is the best amp Luke's made (or at least the best amp he's made that I've heard)--much more transparent, neutral, and high in resolution than previous VTLs.
Thanks, Jon. Would the new VTL be considered "lifelike" or "beautiful sounding", according to your terminology? And how about the old VTL?
Mr. Valin,
I wonder which of the below you would prefer.
A) Lamm ML3 with Nola Baby Grand
B) Audio Research Ref 610T with Magico Q5?
Personally, I would prefer B, but I'm not sure that this is a fair comparison, in that the ML3s, which are recommended for use with speakers of 92dB sensitivity and above, probably do not have enough power for the Nola Baby Grands, which are 4-ohm speakers with a sensitvity of 89dB. A fairer comparison would be both the Nolas and the Q5s with the 610Ts. Thus matched, both speakers would be very attractive. Even though the call would be closer, I'd have to say that for a "fidelity to mastertapes" listener like me the nod would still go the Magicos.
I should point out that the 610T has been discontinued by ARC. I have not heard its replacement yet, but I understand it will offer 750W per side.
Valin keeps extending-out his cone speaker advancements. Many years ago, he said that cones were as good as 'stats (in certain areas) with the Rockport Hyperion, Kharma Reference 1B, Krell LAT-1 and Kharma Ceramique 2.2. Now with *Magico* do cones finally have attributes of stats.
I respect Mr. Valin's descriptions - I just wish I knew when cones overcame their limitations and (finally) sounded like 'stats.....
You have a point.
I've regretted in print the overuse of "electrostatic-like" by audio reviewers (including, especially, me). It has become a cliche, which is unfortunate because in the case of Magico Q5s and Q1s it genuinely applies.
Look, no cone speaker is going to fully match the featherweight membrane of a MartinLogan CLX in low-level resolution. But both Magicos come MIGHTY close; moreover, the Q1s under discussion really do sound like a "single-driver" speaker, with better integration of tweeter (beryllium or what-have-you) and mid/woof than I've heard before from any two-way. The Q5/1s also very nearly (if not fully) equal the astonishing transient speed of a CLX--and kill them on large-scale dynamics, bass, density of tone color, soundstaging, dimensionality, and treble power-handling and extension. Also, as I've pointed out, the Qs are, measurably, at least as low in distortion as 'stats (perhaps lower).
So, yeah, 'stats still have a leg (or ankle) up in fine detail, particularly at low levels. But cones are gaining significantly on them even in this regard, and Magico is one of the brands leading the charge.
Jon:
When will the Q1s be arriving in Cinci, so they can be subjected to the ARC & C-J tube systems?
Mark
Sunday,
I've shot my bolt on Magico Q1s, I'm afraid. I auditioned them at length (almost four entire days and nights of listening) in a room not vastly dissimilar to my own, with first-rate tubes and first-rate solid-state (the latter formerly my reference electronics), three different phonostages (two of which I'm very familiar with and the third shockingly reminiscent of my reference ARC Ref Phono 2), the same cartridge that I use as my reference, and twenty-five or so albums I brought with me and know by heart. So unless things change dramatically, outside of trade show reports I've written all I'm going to write about these marvelous minis.
Jon
Jon, will another TAS reviewer be doing another review of the Q1's in the print edition, or is this it as far as TAS is concerned?
Furthermore, is this the new model for reviewing audio equipment, where you can fly a reviewer in for a day or 2 and lock him in a room to listen to his hearts delight in the manufacturer's quarters? I guess this model would be cheaper than shipping really heavy, expensive gear across the country or the world.
How much additional insight about the Q1 do you think you would have gained if you lived with them for 2-3 months?
Of course this is not the "new model for reviewing audio equipment." But I think you must already know that. I have never done this kind of thing before--and the only reason I did it this time was out of curiosity, spurred by Jim's California Audio Show report and previous experience with the Magico Minis and Mini IIs.
Though I did get nearly four solid days and nights of listening, and thanks to my familiarity with the electronics and the sources (which I brought with me) was able to form a clear impression of what the Q1s are capable of, I do not formally review products (i.e., review them in print) by "long distance." I want to hear them at length, in my room, with my stuff. Further listening would certainly add depth and detail to any review, which is precisely why we do further listening, although I have no doubt that my extremely positive impression of the Q1s, whose virtues will be obvious to all with ears, open minds, and no agendas that involve other loudspeaker they may own, would not change. These are the best two-ways I've heard. And in the blending of their tweeters and mid/woofs are perhaps the most seamlessly 'stat-like of any speaker Magico has yet made.
I rather doubt if any other TAS reviewer will be reviewing the Q1s in print. I think we've done enough Magico for awhile.
JV
Great scoop, JV. I am really pleased that you made the effort to hear these in a good setting and shared your listening experience with us on this blog. Because you have spent so much time with the Mini and Mini II, I think it is very appropriate for you, rather than for some other reviewer, to compare these Magico speakers.
As a Mini II owner, I'm most interested in the comparison. I'm curious how you would compare the Q1 to the TAD CR-1 that you had in your system. You make some quick references above, but which speaker would you rather live with? Given the lower introductory price of the Q1, maybe it's not such a fair comparison and perhaps a future Q2 might be more appropriate competitor. Your comment about the seamless mid/tweeter sounding like a "single-driver" speaker begs the comparison to the TAD concentric mid/tweeter.
I agree with your comment that Magico is "leading the charge". Keep writing it like you hear it. I appreciate your exposure/access to new product, your experience and your writing style.
Peter,
How the Q1s compare to the TAD CR-1s is an interesting question that I can’t answer conclusively because I’ve never compared them side-by-side in my own system. However, I do have some educated guesses.
First, though stand-mounted, the CR-1s are large (larger than the original Mini, actually), three-way, ported loudspeakers, with a concentric 1.4" beryllium tweeter and 6" beryllium midrange and a separate 8" tri-laminate woofer. The Q1s are classic, tiny, two-way, sealed-box mini-monitors, with a 1" beryllium tweeter and a newly developed 7" NanoTec carbon-fiber/Rohacell sandwich mid/woof.
Although I’m not at all sure whether the CR-1 goes deeper into the bottom octaves than the astonishingly deep-reaching Q1 (or goes down there as flatly), it does have more oomph (better power-handling) in the mid-to-low bass than the Qs, but then you would expect that from a loudspeaker that is reproducing the low-frequencies with a separate driver. Typically, port-loaded speakers have an audible plateau in the midbass (followed by a steep roll-off below the port resonance frequency). The CR-1 was extremely well behaved in this regard: In my space, it didn’t lump up the midbass and generate 60-80Hz room resonances as so many ported speakers have done. I attributed this difference to three factors: 1) the CR-1 is an extremely well-engineered loudspeaker (Tad’s Andrew Jones is one very smart cookie); 2) the CR-1’s tri-laminate composite woofer and its aerodynamically designed port are well implemented; 3) though considerably larger and more complex than the Q1s, the stand-mount CR-1s are relatively small and flexible compared to typical three-way floorstanders and because of this size/flexibility advantage they can be placed much farther out into rooms (away from room boundaries, including the floor), just as the Q1s can, greatly reducing room interactions. I would call the bass frequencies of the two speakers a wash: with smooth extension and possibly a jot more resolution and very slightly lower distortion going to the Q1s, and a bit more dynamic range, slightly higher SPL-levels, and a touch more sheer excitement to the CR-1s. Which you’d prefer would depend on you, the music you listen to, the room you listen in, and how loudly you play. Quite honestly, both speakers are unusually good in the bottom octaves (and in the Q’s case, this is miraculous).
Though both the CR-1 and the Q1 use beryllium tweeters, going on memory I wouldn’t say that they sound alike in the upper-mids and treble. Perhaps because of its coincident driver arrangement (and separate midrange driver), the CR-1 focuses instrumental and vocal images a bit more tightly than the Q1 (i.e., it has slightly better definition). However, although it’s not a miniaturizing speaker, I don’t think the CR-1 is quite the Q1’s equal in natural image height, and I would have to say (going on my notes and on memory, again) that its tweeter stands out more than the Q’s does (once again, the blend of tweet/mid drivers in the Q1 is the most seamless I’ve heard in a mini—or any cone speaker). As a result the CR-1 is brighter than the Q1, though let me quickly add that this is not a harsh, aggressive kind of brightness. On the contrary, the CR-1’s little bit of added treble energy makes everything in the upper frequencies sound more sparkly, airy, lit-up, and exciting. Strictly speaking, this is probably a coloration, but it’s a mighty damn appealing and lifelike one. The Q1s treble is, as noted, a tad (excuse the pun) better integrated, smoother, at least as high in resolution (probably higher), and also very dynamic and exciting. Once again, I think which presentation you’d prefer will depend on you and your music. Both are superb in the top end.
In the midband, I would have to give a very slight edge to the Q1, which (once again going on memory and notes) is a bit more neutral (actually, I think it is more neutral top to bottom). By comparison, the CR-1 sounds just a little “darker” in balance. Both are animals when it comes to low-level resolution—you’re not going to miss any timbral or textural details with either speaker. As with the treble and the bass, the CR-1 may be a little bit more exciting—slightly richer in tone color, slightly weightier, and seemingly more dynamic—than the Q1 throughout the midrange, but I can’t honestly say that this added color, weight, and energy makes the CR-1 sound more realistic. On the contrary, the Q1 reproduced Joan Baez’s voice (and other vocalists and instruments) with a delicacy, see-through-transparency, and you-are-there realism that I’ve only heard before through ’stats, the Maggie 3.7s, the Q5s, and in a concert/recital hall. I’m guessing here, but I think the Q1’s aluminum cabinet may be storing a bit less energy than the TAD CR-1’s MDF cabinet, and thus is adding less spurious energy and color to the presentation.
The bottom line here is not a simple one. If you put a premium on loudness, tonal richness, dynamic oomph, image focus, soundstaging, and sheer sonic excitement—and at the same time want a very high degree of detail, transparency to sources, and lifelike realism—the CR-1s are very hard to top in a stand-mount. If, on the other hand, you put a premium on neutrality, detail, transparency to sources, a seamless disappearing act, soundstaging, and lifelike realism—and at the same want a very high degree of excitement, dynamism, and focus, to boot—the Q1s cannot be beat in a two-way package by anything else I’ve auditioned. Obviously I am a big fan of both of these speakers.
The CR-1s are $15k more than the Q1s, if money’s a factor.
Jon
There's truly a renaissance going on in high-end audio as state-of-the art ability to reproduce music goes up and up. Consider developments in the past couple of years, whether speakers, amplification, hi-rez digital, or even something as simple as fuses. The prices are frightening (except for the fuses!), but what incredible dedication, innovation, passion, and persistence by today's top designers.
Questions on the Q1s, if you don't mind. What is the nominal sensitivity; what is the low roll-off like (12 dB?); and where do they fall on the scale of "easy- to hard-to-drive"?
Keep up the great work (if it's that). Besides the most high-end experience among reviewers today, you have the best ability to express the nature of music reproduced by these leading components. Always a pleasure, and always informative.
Dave in Alaska
Stur,
Many thanks for the kind words.
Magico rates the sensitivity of the Q1 at 86dB/1W/1m with a nominal impedance of 5 ohms (4 ohms minumum). I'm always a little suspect of Magico's sensitivity ratings, which tend to be, uh, optimistic. However, I would imagine the Q1s are easier to drive than the Q5s, which aren't. It is always a good idea to bring some power to a Magico (the company's persistent recommendation of 50W of "minimum amplifier power" is, frankly, ridiculous). While I was in Berkeley, Wolf was using a 450W tube amp and a 430W transistor amp (860W into the Q1's 4 ohm load). At home, I've been quite satisfied with the c-j ART driving the Q5s, and the ART is 275W monoblock. Of course, I listen in a moderately sized room.
The Q1's LF roll-off is, indeed, 12dB/octave. It has amazing bass.
Jon
Jon-That looks like an impressive listening room at magico.
How big was that room ? It seems the Q1 will work well in a good sized room, perhaps in a room larger than other small monitors.
Allis,
The Magico "showroom" is 17 x 22 x 10, and the Q1s had no trouble "filling" it on records with expansive soundstages, such as the Reference Recording LP "Your Friendly Neighborhood Big Band" or the Stravinsky Symphony in Three Movements.
Jon
Was that room built to those specs or happened to be in that building like that?
I don't know. I'll ask.
Jon,
Thanks for your insightful review!
Could you please elaborate on the Phonostages that you used? Was the Soulution one of them? Which one was the magical 3rd one?
Cheers,
Marcel
Marcel,
Yes, the Solution 750 (a former reference of mine) was one of them (www.soulution-audio.com/en/serie7/750/index.php). So was another former reference, the Aesthetix Jupiter Series Io Signature Mk II (www.aesthetix.net/jupiter.php). The "ringer" was a hand-made item from Dan Schmalle of The Tube Project and Bottlehead Electronics called the Bottlehead Tube Phono (www.bottlehead.com/store.php) . It's not much to look at--kind of like a Dynakit--but it certainly sounded fantastic. To be fair, all three phonostages sounded great. The Bottlehead one, in this application (using the high-ouput Clearaudio Goldfinger Statement), just sounded a bit more alive and transparent. It was also noticeably noisier, with some tube rush in the right channel.
Part of the difference we heard (the slightly reduced sense of dynamic contrast and the slightly greater sense of mechanization or constraint) was clearly due to the fact that the other two phonostages were set up to load the Clearaudio down considerably; the Bottlehead wasn't.
Jon
Hey Jon,
How long has Magico been using beryllium tweeters? Many years ago I remember talking to a very famous speaker designer and he told me using beryllium was just "marketing mambo jambo" used to create an image of a company on the bleeding edge of design. He said he experimented with beryllium and said it did not sound any better than the standard materials he used. But then big guys like Focals would reply that the small guys just don't know how to get the beryllium thickness right to get it sound good. And round and round these "my engineering idea is better your enginnering idea" arguments go... What's your take on beryllium tweeters?
Also, we now have a couple of speakers (Rockport, KEF) that have side-firing woofers. What is your take on these? Do these actually make the bass sound more accurate or real, or is it just marketing? Will we see Magico using these in their next generation of designs?
Why not start a thread in the speaker forum about beryllium tweeters? It seems to me this thread is about the Magico Q-1s.
"Many years ago I remember talking to a very famous speaker designer and he told me using beryllium was just 'marketing mambo jambo' used to create an image of a company on the bleeding edge of design."
Yeah and a neighbor lady used to tell me that if I swallowed a watermelon seed, a watermelon would grow in my stomach.
As I understand it, beryllium indisputably has considerably faster "sound conduction speed" than other metals. And tweeters made of beryllium have, indeed, always sounded "faster" on transients, more finely detailed, and more extended to me. However, because of this very superiority, they have also often "stuck out" when paired with conventional cone drivers, in much the same way that true ribbon tweeters do with cones or planar-magnetic drivers, making the treble range bright and a bit discontinuous. The Q5, introduced two years ago at CES, was the first Magico speaker with a beryllium tweeter, and the Q5's Be tweet did sound a bit bright on-axis, though nearly perfectly integrated when listened to slightly off-axis (as designed).
Since the introduction of the Q5, Magico has been working on its Be tweeter and the current one (in the Q1) blends more seamlessly with its mid/woof (on-axis or off) than any Be tweeter (or any tweeter) I've heard. This blend and the incredible bass extension are the two great triumphs of the Q1.
The argument in favor of side-firing woofers is more controversial than the use of beryllium tweeters. I have a speaker in-house that uses side-firing woofs (and have heard many others over the years--they are currently quite popular), and frankly I do not hear any inherent advantage to s-f. Some implementations have sounded better than others (the Rockport Hyperions and the MBL X-Tremes were high points), but I wouldn't opt for a speaker that has s-f woofers simply because they are s-f. I very much doubt whether Magico will go the s-f route, as Wolf & Co. seem to feel the sonic disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
JV
Dear Mr. Valin,
Thank you very much for your review of the Q1. I cannot think of anyone more suited to reviewing this speaker in light of your extensive experience with the Mini I and II, the M5 and the Q5. I have been living with the Mini II for the past 2 years and I must say I LOVE this speaker. Having said that, from your review the Q1 seems to be a significant improvement on the Mini II, and I am now toying with the idea of a possible upgrade. One question I have is how power hungry is the Q1 compared to the Mini II? I am currently driving my Mini IIs with ARC Ref 210 which works in my small room, but I worry that the Q1 may tax these amps even more.
Thank you once again for your insights.
AG1,
Trust me: As good as the Mini II is and was (and it is and was great), the Q1 is a significant improvement.
According to Wolf, the Q1 is 3dB higher in sensitivity than the Mini II and a "slightly easier" load to drive--all of which bodes well for your situation. Of course, the proof of this pudding is in the listening. You will certainly want to audition the Q1s before contemplating replacing your Mini IIs.
Jon
JV
I am hoping that I will get to hear one or both the Q1 and Q3 at this years RMAF. Although last year I was not as impressed as were you with the Q5s in the demo room, it could be that a smaller speaker would work better within a similar environment.
Jim
stillone,
I believe you will get your chance to hear both speakers at RMAF.
Jon
Jon, I own the Mini 2 and have heard the both the M5 and the Q5 in different stores. I have to agree with you that the Q series speakers are probably more neutral to the source than the Mini/M5 which have a somewhat warmish character but only in comparison to a speaker as neutral as the Q5. HOWEVER, I personally prefer the tonal balance of the Mini/M5 over the Q5. The Q5 that I auditioned seemed to have a juiced up top end that despite several months of break in never seemed to fully settle and integrate with the midband. Again, with perfectly top notch recordings, the Q's would probably top the older birch/aluminum constructed speakers. But since we do not live in a perfect world, I have to give my vote to the older models and their somewhat more forgiving nature. And I'm sure many people out there will agree that the unique physical appearance and stature of the Mini makes it one of the prettiest speakers ever produced.
dafos,
I don't disagree with most of what you said. The Magico M Series speakers are warmer and more forgiving than the Q Series speakers (but also less neutral and transparent, more noisy, and lower in resolution). Like you I also think that the Mini II is high among the most beautiful speaker Magico has made, and that stand...!
I've commented (repeatedly) on the Q5's beryllium tweeter, which can blend nearly seamlessly with its midrange and bass when the speaker is listened to slightly off-axis as intended and which can stick out a wee bit if the speaker is listened to directly on-axis. (BTW, this was also the case with the Mini II's ring-radiator tweeter.) However, the Q1's beryllum tweeter is seamlessly integrated whether the speaker is listened to on-axis or off. It is the smoothest blend of a cone tweeter and cone midrange driver I've yet heard.
Give the Q1 a listen. You may be surprised by the treble; I was. And you will certainly be surprised by the bass. This is not a speaker built solely for reviewers or "fidelity to mastertapes" listeners, although it will certainly appeal to them, too. I'm not sure that any Magico speaker could fairly be called purely analytical. There is always something gemutlich about them.
Jon
Dear JV,
Thanks once again for the insightful and helpful comments. I will have the chance to listen to the Q5 and Q3 shortly. This will give me some idea of the character of the Q series. But as you say, the ultimate test will be an audition at home.
Regards,
AG
This is an incredibly comprehensive article detailing your experiences and decisions.
There is always going to be something new and you seem too know more than most in this area. Thank you.
Graham
Dieses Online-Casino gehört zu denen, die von vielen Spielern wegen ihres Angebots an tollen Spielen immer wieder oft und gerne besucht werden.
Thanks JV for your quick and thoughtful replies to comments and questions on this blog. I have another observation for you: I own the Mini II and am very happy with its sound and aesthetics. However, your response to dafos above really has piqued my interest in the Q1. My fear is that as I save to upgrade to the Q1 at $25,000, I will be slammed by the inevitable price increase of the Q1 to $30,000. It will be justified by the performance, I'm sure, but by then, the Mini II will be fetching $15K on the used market and that will be an expensive upgrade. And then there may be a Q2 right around the corner offering even more performance for $35,000. As pleased as I am with the Mini II and the prospects of even better small Magicos, these upgrade scenarios have my head spinning. Keep up the great reporting.
JV:
Please accept a little ribbing this fine evening.
For the duration of your career as a reviewer...will you publish a single review of speaker, and amp, or a source component (which you rarely do these days) without mentioning Alon Wolf or Magico? I counted back and I believe you mentioned Magico in every published piece since your Mini review.
Well, Magico speakers have been my references for four years! And I try to make it a habit to compare loudspeakers to my previous references (and to other speakers I've liked), and if I'm reviewing electronics and sources it's kinda hard not to talk about the speakers that they're hooked up to and what the presentation is like. But...you gotta point.
I hear ya. Just keeping you on your toes...haha.
Just a quick counter point: Fremer does not mention his Maxx3's or Dave Wilson in every review...but to be fair he does a lot more
source components than you...
I'm still waitin' for a digital review from you...you did a fine job on the ARC disc players.
Hey, I still spin reel to reels here and there, but digital file playback, even Redbook files, is astonishingly good these days.
Well, Fremer's not me.
I will have some comments on digital playback in Issue 218.
"I will have some comments on digital playback in Issue 218.
Jon, have you been playing around with High-Res?
Yup.
Wayyyyy cool.
I understand HP is going to evaluate the Bryston BDP-1 file player.
It is frankly the most distortion free, highest resolution source component I have heard, bar none. To illustrate, YG Acoustics used it as their source at Newport with the dCS stack, their 65K speakers, and 40K Tenor electronics. The BDP-1 is $2195.
A 2K source component in a system costing almost 200K.
I will be very interested to see what HP comes up with in his write up, and in a perfect world, I would love a follow up by you, like with the Maggies.
(Yes, I know, the BDP-1 was officially reviewed by TAS last issue, but HPs essays are always informative)
Jon, a Q1 dynamics question for you. Unless I have previously glossed over this stuff before, I have never heard anyone analyze the speaker dynamics by breaking dynamics into the bass and "above bass" regions. You mention the ability to move a lot of air as the factor responsible for dynamics bass in the "bass" region. But what about the "above bass region"? How and why is that region important, and how is it different than the "bass region" to setting the foundation of the music? Do bigger speakers still do "above the bass" dynamics better or just the bass dynamics better and is it due to their larger size? How does the clx compare in "above bass" dynamics?
Did Magico give you the option of using sub-woofers when you visited? Do they believe in subwoofers improving the sound?
ML,
Their are two components to large-scale dynamics--speed and power.
Even for bass instruments, the speed parts, transients, mainly reside in the upper mids and lower treble (well above the low frequencies). But for lower-pitched instruments, lifelike pitch-definition, power, and authority live in the 40-400Hz range (i.e., the low-to-midbass, the upper bass, and the lower midrange). "Moving air" via a loudspeaker the way such low-pitched instruments move air in life is highly dependent on the size and number of bass drivers, how linear and low in distortion they are, how they are loaded in their cabinets (and how low their cabinets are in resonance), and, of course, how unproblematically they couple to the room.
The Q1s have the speed part of large-scale dynamics in the bass down pat (they also have standard-setting low-frequency extension and bass-range pitch-definition for a two-way). What their 7-inch mid/woof drivers don't have is the ability to move air the way, oh, the Q5s' three nine-inchers do. That ability to move air (in a linear, low-distortion way) is what you're paying for in large expensive floorstanding speakers.
No, I was not given the option of subwoofers. Magico doesn't believe in their efficacy, and neither do I. On acoustic music, I doubt if you will miss much of anything with the Q1s, save for the last word in low-to-midbass power delivery on big fortissimos.
JV
Just got the Oct issue.
Can you give us just a morsel...a crumb...of your early impressions
of your Mac Mini, Wavelength, and Berkeley set up?
Also, will a full Q1 review be appearing in print? It is listed in FutureTas. Or is this blog the extent of the evaluation, which is pretty damn thorough btw.
QB
Jonathan, I have been wondering about your comment regarding Soulution and Magico:
"very clear, neutral, and fast on transients but just the slightest bit “overcontrolled,"
Every time I heard Magico/Soulution, this is always one of my biggest complaint. I heard 700/Q5 and 710/Q3 a few time. The source was always either Soulution CD player or Soulution 720 built in phono with TW Acustic/Reed/Miyajima. I always thought that no tympani or drums in real life starts or stop this quickly or is this tight. I always thought that it was the incredibly high damping factor of Soulution amps that gave me this impression. 2 Phonos gave you the same impression and one was just right. Presumably digital source also gave you the same impression. Could it be that that particular phono was doing something to the speed, may be slow it down just a touch to balance out the system properly? I certainly never thought of my Q3 as being too controlled or too tight in the bass with my Lamm pre/power and Lamm or Aesthetix phono.
Also forgot to mention that I heard V3 with Spectral and Aesthetix electronic and M5 with Krell Evo 1/2 that also did not exhibit this trait.
Suteetat,
I hear what you write and agree. I heard the following combinations: the M5 with Solution, Q3 with Boulder and the V2 with Spectral. I have not heard the Solution/Q combination yet but can imagine what you describe. I personally find my Mini IIs have just the right balance with Pass XA.5 amps, though many would find this combination too warm and slow. I find it very interesting that Magico used to show their speakers with custom - can't obtain - digital files on servers. They now often include a turntable at demonstrations. When I heard the Q3 the best sound was with 45 RPMs on a Basis turntable. It just sounded more natural than Redbook and Hi Rez files. It's all about finding the balance that sounds best to you and I think Magico is now realizing that the added information and warmth of analog sounds very good with their high resolution and transparent speakers.
Amen. A long, long time ago, Martin Logan figured out that if they showed their highly transparent speakers with Krell or Bryston, only a small fraction of people would be interested in them. So if you catch Martin Logan at shows, they frequently display with Mac or something equally warm. And a lot of their customers like to pair Logans with warm tube amps like old CJ or old Arc. I guess Magico is starting to figure out that they also can sell more speakers if they appeal to folks beyond the small minority interested in the "precise reproduction of the recording". One day they too will be demoing with "fat", "slow", "musical" tube amps...
Can't improve on what Peter just wrote.
Mr. Valin,
Do you think this amp will provide enough power for the Q5?
http://www.extravaganzi.com/pivetta-opera-one-the-worlds-ultimate-and-most-expensive-amplifier/
I guess you wont be reviewing it.
Uh, you guess right.
Any thoughts on how this speaker performed at low volumes? Many who are interested in mini-monitors are thinking about smaller rooms, which often means apartments, which often means less than "realistic" volumes, especially for those late night listening sessions. My brief audition of the Mini II left me feeling that their magic really happens only once they get a bit of volume, leading me to stay with my Quad 988. Can the Q1 bring the goosebumps at quieter levels?
flo,
A very good question, to which the answer is: "Yes! This Magico can make magic at lower volume levels." (So, BTW, can the Q5.)
You are right about the Mini and Mini II. They did need to be played "louder" to sound their best. But the change in the Q1's enclosure, drivers, and crossover has so dramatically lowered noise (and raised resolution) vis-a-vis the original Minis that low-level listening no longer entails a sacrifice in excitement.
Jon
Magico Mini, Mini II, Q1 - all 2-way overachieving bookshelf speakers, each newer version significantly better than the older, each for $25K the pair. At this level you are looking at a $100K system easily and you still ain't in the big boy league because the big boys spend that much just for speakers.
This fills my mind with nagging questions. Is there really such a thing as high-end or should it be more aptly called no end? If I had money coming out of my ears should I just indulge my every craving in these hard times? I think there is a threshold between personal reward and spiritual transgression.
We all love our music and agree that it is food for the soul. We need to understand better what the soul really is especially to those where more is given. If more of them understood no doubt they will be making this world a much better place.
I've spent some time in the sweet spot of the Q5s driven by Chord monoblocks, Levinson monoblocks and the new MAC 601s. I liked everything I heard with the exception of the Berrylium tweeters. I found them fatiguing on all three amps. And Jon....legerdemain?..really? It must be difficult holding up that Thesaurus and typing with your free hand :-)
So much music...so little time.
I had the pleasure of hearing, on the same day, 2 systems based around Magico speakers: The first system was Q3, ARC reference amplification, SME Turntable, and the second system was Magico Q5, ARC reference amplification (including Ref 40), SME 30/12 and top of the range Meitner player. Needless to say both systems were fantastic, and a significant improvement over the old Magico M line (although of course they exhibit the family traits of the Magico sound). I must admit there was no hint of fatigue regarding the tweeters, and actually I found them extremely smooth (better than my Mini II) and better integrated into the whole. An interesting aside is that the Q3 was tried on a secondary system driven by Chord electronics but the results were not as good as with the ARC/SME/Meitner gear.
Why, of course you did, es--you having repeatedly proven yourself to be such an objective observer when it comes to Magico speakers. As for the old slight of hand "legerdemain," it's scarely a reach for the thesaurus. So much music...such limited vocabulary.
..and I quote: ...."be such an objective observer when it comes to Magico speakers"....????? Wow now THERE is the perfect example of the pot calling the kettle....priceless! (smiley face)
So much music...so little time.
Just for the record, this quote from RH's review of the Q5s...."elsewhere in the audioband, I never wanted more of anything, though a little less in the upper octaves might have produced a more accurate balance..." I too felt the upper octaves were too dominate and I blame it on the new tweeter.
So much music...so little time.
Isn't es347 a Von Schweikert owner?
Who knows? He ain't saying.
He's on the VS forum on Audio Circle.
Ah ha!
.
So much music...so little time.
Why yes SundayViagra, I am a VSA owner and yes, I frequent the VSA circle....just as you used to do. I recall you stopping by and posting the occasional negative post. Nice seeing you here though big fella.
So much music...so little time.
I am also a VS fan and still visit the VS forum. It's a shame that you didn't tell JV yourself.
Yes, shameful...absolutely. Twenty lashes with a Shunyata PC...whatchathink?
So much music...so little time.
How about telling JV about your VR-5s?
Mr Jonathan, when you said you can live without the Q1s but only because you already have the Q5s as references do you mean you have acquired them or are they on long-term loan? And what does long-term mean in this case?
I am still dickering with Magico about purchasing them.
Jon, Would you say there is more of a sonic gap between the Q3 and the Q5 or between the Q3 and the Q1? It does not seem as though the relationship is as straight as one would presume. I'm reminded of the SME 30, 20 and 10. Some described the old 20 as a scaled down 30 while others wrote that it really sounded more like the 10. (The new 20/3 seems more like the 30 now).
I think you've commented that the Q1 tweeter is an advancement over that in the Q3 and Q5. It being more seamless with the rest of the speaker and able to be listened to on axis. Also, that the Q3 is overall a bit warmer than the other two (if I'm not mistaken). I know you have not had the smaller two at your place, but I would like to read your overall assessment of the three in relation to each other. I'm curious about how you regard the bass region of each and which speaker may be considered the best value. I also continue to be surprised that your room can handle the bigger speakers. It must quite well if you are considering buying the Q5. I hope you and Magico come to some agreement.
Peter,
With one exception, I have not had a problem with large (even gigantic speakers) in my room. It is odd, I admit, but the construction of this old building, with its ultra-thick, multi-layer brick exterior walls, the plaster-and-lath interior walls, the hard-pine floors, the 2x16 hardwood joists, and the tall plastered ceilings, obviously plays a part. As a result, the Q5s (and before them the M5s, the huge MBL 101 X-Tremes, the equally huge Panoramas, etc.) sound terrific.
As for the "performance gap" among the three Magico speakers, I am unable to comment in detail since I haven't heard two of the three in my own digs with my own reference gear. However, from what I've heard at shows (and in Berkeley), I would say that the Q5 remains the highest-fidelity of the three (and of any floorstanding dynamic speaker I've yet heard) and the best buy in an ultra-high-end loudspeaker. This does not mean that the other two speakers (or several competitive speakers) don't have their own virtues and in some areas outdo the Q5s.
As I said in my review above, the Q1 has the most seamless blend of a tweeter and mid/woofer I've ever heard in a cone speaker. As I've noted in show reports, the Q3 does appear to be warmer and more gemutlich in overall balance than the Q5 and for some listeners this might count as a point of superiority or, at least, an added attraction.The Q5 remains the most colorless, highest resolution, widest dynamic range, most sensationally realistic cone speaker I've had in house. The gap in performance between the three is, I think, pretty fairly represented by their respective prices (although the Q1 is a special case, being a mini-monitor with a mini's virtues and some, albeit considerably fewer in this instance, of its drawbacks).
Jon
"joices",,,,uh, try "joists"...damn those limited vocabularies! (smiley face)
So much music...so little time.
You are right, of course. I will correct it.
Why the fascination with my speakers MondayViagra? As a self-proclaimed VSA fan, surely you know enough about my VR5 Anniversaries to detail Jon. Or maybe Jon could simply get a pair and review them.
So much music...so little time.
Awwwwwww, c'mon man, you seem like such an authority, that I wouldn't want to be accused of peeing on your parade. I'm reasonably sure Jon would like to hear about your VR-5s, so why not tell him?
You're starting to sound a bit obsessive SV. What's there to tell about the VR5s that Jon doesn't already know? After all, he heard them in Room 2000 over the weekend.
So much music...so little time.
..and SV, regarding peeing on someone's parade....that would require standing to urinate, something you likely have yet to master.
So much music...so little time.
C'mon man, tell us about your VR-5s and stop evading the issue. I'll set up a thread in the speaker forum.
Deal viagra. What exactly would you like to know about 'em? Specs? Here ya go my compulsive buddy: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue40/vr5_anniversary.htm. How do they sound you ask? That's one you'll have to answer by auditioning. Anything else?
So much music...so little time.
Very weak response! Tell us about your VR-5s.
OK....here goes. They are better than what you listen to...now my work is done here and am heading out. You can post the usual lame reply but it will go unread. Happy listening.
So much music...so little time.
It's all ready for you, c'mon man, fess up! http://www.avguide.com/forums/von-schweikert-vr-5-anniverseries
I have reviewed VSA speakers. The UniField 3s in Issue 198 (www.avguide.com/review/von-schweikert-audio-unifield-model-three-loudspeaker-tas-198). Of course, I wasn't using Chord monoblocks, or Levinson (Class D?) monoblocks, or McIntosh electronics. I was stuck with Soulution 700s and ARC 610Ts and Techniical Brain TBP Zero v2s and BAlabo BP-1 Mk IIs and, you know, crap like that.
The UniField 3s sounded very much the way they measured in my RTA (see my review), which is to say, they were a little tipped up in the bass, considerably sucked out in the presence range (where they crossed over to their ribbon tweeters), but very smooth in the power range and the midband and quite attractively musical overall. I liked them. They were an excellent example of what I would call an "as you like it" loudspeaker, especially well suited to a smallish room, though at $15k they were a little pricey.
Let me repeat that I don't have an argument with other people's taste in loudpeakers. What I do have an argument with is calling something that isn't transparent to sources a "high-fidelity" component.
So Jon, did you ever get a chance to visit the Totem room even though, as you said, they are substantially below the price point that you normally review.
So much music...so little time.
Nope.
So Jon, would you mind providing us with the transaction details once you're done "dickering with Magico about purchasing" the Q5? I'm sure many here would be interested.
If and when I actually buy 'em, I'll let you know. Until then...they are on loan.
Jon, did anything at RMAF flap your shutters? I thought there was more bad sound than good.
So much music...so little time.
"I thought there was more bad sound than good."
Agreed, although "bad" is probably too strong a word. I thought most of the exhibits at the show sounded "dark and pretty," only rarely "lifelike" or "transparent to sources."
I will be posting a show report on speakers priced at $20k and up very soon. In the nonce, if any of you would care to look at high-res photos of the speakers I will be discussing, go to: jlvalin.zenfolio.com/p980229970
Hello Jonathan,
Have you read the StereoMogo report from RMAF in which they state that the Evolution Acoustics MMOne (?) for about $2500 sounded much better than Q1? In fact, they were quite negative on the Magico. I was not there, and this is certainly possible as others have also commented on these two speakers and how they compare, but I'm just curious about what your take was. Did you hear the Evolution speaker and how did it compare to the Q1 under those show conditions? The price difference is huge. Are the two speakers in the same league and competition for each other? Thanks.