The Best Loudspeaker I’ve Heard? The Magico Q5
OK. I’m fully aware that I’m going to stir up a storm of criticism from Wilson owners, Rockport owners, TAD owners, Nola owners, Vandersteen owners, Focal owners, Hansen owners, Scaena owners, YG owners, Magnepan owners, Quad owners, MBL owners, MartinLogan owners, Kharma owners, Marten owners, et al.—not to mention infuriate almost every single one of the guys who make these terrific loudspeakers (and a myriad worthy others). I also know that I’m going to reignite the ridiculous canard that I’m somehow in Magico’s pay or pocket, which, BTW, is one reason why I’ve taken my own sweet time about getting around to writing about this loudspeaker, letting others in the critical fraternity have first say in print. And I also know that I’m going to catch hell from the “b-word” contingent which pretends to think that I call anything I like “the b**t” (even with a question mark, which I will explain)—funny how much less vocal some in this group are when they sell/manufacture something I commend). And I also know that I’m going to be accused of hypocrisy or stupidity or deafness or willful inconsistency or some combination of these things (and worse) for using the “b-word” about the Magico Q5 after having spent some ten pages eighteen months ago explaining why I used the “b-word” about its predecessor, the Magico M5. (And, I fear, I’m going to be pilloried by those readers who bought the M5s in part because of my rave review.)
My loins are girded. I’ll take it—and give it back, if need be. But first a word or two of preface.
The main reason I haven’t written about the Q5s until now is that I wasn’t at all sure they were great when I heard them at last year’s CES—and I expressed these reservations in my show report. While I wouldn’t have gone anywhere near as far as my colleague Alan Taffel did, when he told me in passing that he thought the Q5s were “awful” after he heard them in The Venetian, I did think they had…problems. Not all of their own making.
First and foremost, the gigantic room they were being shown in wasn’t doing them any favors. It had a huge built-in resonance around 60-80Hz that, apparently, couldn’t be fixed—no matter what Magico’s Alon Wolf and Yair Tammam tried. Second, no single stereo pair of speakers I’ve heard could have adequately filled a space that size, no matter how physically large, full-range, or fundamentally excellent they were (just think of the way big MBLs, Wilsons, Focals, German Physiks, and YGs, among many others, have sometimes sounded at loud levels in morasses half the size of this one). Third, although I didn’t know this at the time, the pair of Q5s being shown were prototypes that did not use some of the parts spec’d for them because those parts weren’t available at show time. Since CES, something like 60% of the passive components in the Q5 have been replaced in current production models with these custom-made parts. Fourth, the Q5s were being driven by my favorite solid-state electronics, the Technical Brain TBP Zero v2 amps and TBC Zero preamp, which, though more colorless and higher in resolution and dynamic range than any other solid-state electronics I’ve auditioned, aren’t inherently warm, sweet, “liquid,” “beautiful,” or gemütlich in tonal balance; nor are they big-sounding in the bass, like some of the other electronics that Magico has favored. With sealed-box speakers in a gigantic room, a little added warmth and heft, particularly on the bottom, is not an altogether bad thing; the TB gear doesn’t supply this.
Then there is this: When I went to CES, I had just got done calling the Q5s predecessor, the M5, the “best speaker I’d heard in my home.” At the time I wrote the M5 review—and for the year-or-so I spent listening to the M5s and blogging about them before writing the review—Magico had, uh, failed to inform me that their replacement was in the works. Somehow Magico also failed to inform me that their replacement was going to cost $30,000 less than the M5s did, and that it was designed to outdo them in every single parameter of performance! (Those who think I’m “in Magico’s pocket” please take note of this.)
Finally, if I were completely honest, I’d have to admit that when I went to CES I wasn’t so much rooting against the Q5s as I was rooting for the M5s—partly out of pride and partly out of long affectionate experience with the latter. Not that I thought the M5s were perfect.
Rather than make you re-read my entire M5 review, let me recap why I thought the M5s were the best big dynamic speakers I’d heard, and also where I thought certain others speakers bettered them in spite of their overall superiority.
First, why the M5s were (and are) great. As I said, at the beginning of the M5 review, IMO the only reasons to buy big multiway dynamic speakers are loudness and bass. The problem is that while the ability to go louder more cleanly may allow you to play back large-scale music at more lifelike levels (and, in some cases, to expand the soundstage to fill larger spaces), higher less distorted SPLs (all by themselves) don’t necessarily guarantee superior dynamic range and scaling. The ability to play very loudly accurately doesn’t entail the equal ability to play very softly accurately, and dynamic range depends just as much (and with some music entirely) on the ability to reproduce low-level dynamics, textures, and timbres as it does on the ability to blast you out of your listening chair on fff tuttis.
Just as “iffy” with big dynamic loudspeakers is the issue of coherence in the bass (and of coherence overall). Because of their large woofer(s), big multiways do tend to go lower (or at least to give the impression of going lower with greater authority) in the bass than smaller speakers with smaller drivers, but they also (almost invariably) exact a price for that low bass (or the impression of same). As I said in my M5 review, it is rare to hear a big speaker that does not sound grossly discontinuous in the bottom octaves—to hear a big speaker in which the bass driver doesn’t sound as if it is playing at a slightly (or markedly) different tempo and with slightly (or markedly) different timbre and resolution than the other drivers it is mated to. To my ear, big speakers always sound a little like hybrids. (Subwoofed systems almost always sound this way to me, too, as do literal “hybrids” that attempt to pair electrostatic or ribbon or horn drivers with cones.) Big dynamic speakers also tend to sound as if their enclosures are playing along with their woofers, storing and releasing their own low-frequency information, which adds thickness, blurring, and confusion to bass notes, peaks up the midbass, further excites room nodes, and makes the loudspeaker enclosure itself far more audible as a sound source, fatally compromising the speaker’s “disappearing act.”
There is this, as well. Some big speakers with vaunted “low” bass don’t really go that low. Certain (not all) ported speakers, in particular, can give the impression of tremendous low-end slam and extension, even though they aren’t really outputting much bass below 35-40Hz. What they are doing—and I have to admit that it can be a VERY realistic and exciting effect, particularly with rock music—is adding port, enclosure, and driver energy in the mid-and-upper bass, where things like Fender bass and toms and kick drums live. Since this is also the spot where most room resonances live, the blessing can be very mixed in many rooms—once again, reminding you (unmistakably) that you are listening to a loudspeaker in which some octaves are being selectively reinforced by room, driver, and cabinet noise.
What made (and makes) the Magico M5 so special was that it was the first big multiway dynamic in which, to quote my wise friend Andre Jennings, “the box didn’t seem to be playing along with the bass.” Here, for once, was a Big Boy that sounded like one thing from top to bottom—that wasn’t shelved in the bass or treble, like drawers that have been left partly open. On top of this, its drivers were audibly (and measurably) lower in THD at average and very loud levels, bespeaking unusually low levels of cone coloration. At the right volume, the M5 was the first big speaker I’d heard that disappeared as a sound source the way a really well-engineered little speaker does. In fact, the M5 sounded very much like an overgrown, much fuller-range, lower-in-distortion Magico Mini II, one not just with more extended bass but with higher resolution midrange and treble, to boot.
There were all sorts of other reasons why I loved the M5s. But its disappearing act and its (in my experience) unparalleled seamless coherence in the bass (and everywhere else) were primary. HOWEVER, there were some things that the M5s didn’t do as well as other speakers. I’m not going to list them all—for that you’ll have to read the entire review at www.avguide.com/review/tas-196-magico-m5-loudspeaker, where I devote a page or so to this very subject—but I am going to talk about two of them.
First, there was the issue of grain or opacity. As I noted in my review, it is our custom to compare speakers that sound like “one thing” to those paragons of speakers that “sound like one thing,” electrostats, which have a single driver (or a single kind of driver). The M5s came closer to the electrostatic/single-driver ideal than any big speaker I’d yet heard. Still and all, and here I’ll quote myself: “Cones aren’t quite as high in resolution and low in grain as ’stats; even the [Magico] Nano-Tec drivers add just the slightest overlay of texture to foregrounds and backgrounds, making the difference between listening to M5s and CLXes rather like the difference between viewing a slide enlarged and projected on a screen by a Leitz projector and viewing the same slide on a light table with a loupe. The CLXes will tell you a bit more about how a record or CD has been recorded and engineered.” In other words, electrostats (and certain planars) had slightly lower noise and higher low-level resolution than the M5s.
Though I didn’t realize it at the time, I now think that the overlay of texture or graininess that I heard with the M5s (and didn’t hear with CLXes or Quads) was also at least partly responsible for my other chief reservation about the big Magicos: their inability to fully strut their stuff at low volume levels. I mentioned this very subject a few paragraphs ago. The ability to play loudly convincingly does not guarantee the ability to play softly with equal realism. Although the M5s were and are anything but lacking in inner detail at the right volume, you had to play them a bit louder than mezzoforte to kick them into fullest life and fullest resolution. What this meant was that you never really got a true pianissimo from the M5s. By turning up the volume to the speakers’ SPL comfort point, you literally raised the level of very quiet passages (while also, simultaneously, raising the volume of very loud passages). Though the ratio between loud and soft was sensationally realistic, the level at which the softest passages were being played back wasn’t. It was as if you were losing a “p” at the soft end and adding an “f” at the loud one. Understand that this is not a drawback unique to M5s. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that it is the rule with dynamic loudspeakers and also with many planar-magnetic speakers. Indeed, the only speakers in my experience that play true pianissimos clearly and realistically at true pianissimo levels are electrostats (and a very small number of horn loudspeakers, although horns tend to have problems blending their drivers, which ’stats don’t). Unfortunately, what dynamic speakers do to pianissimos, electrostats tend to do to fortissimos. They take an “f” or two away from the loudest passages, while preserving ppp’s at precisely the right SPLs.
Now I didn’t know what to attribute this grain/opacity/low-level resolution problem to other than the fact that the M5 was a big dynamic loudspeaker and such problems (usually to a much more marked extent) come with the greater mass of the drivers, the more complex crossovers, and the larger enclosures of this kind of speaker. To give him his considerable due, it was Andy Payor of Rockport (none too pleased by my rave review of the M5s, BTW) who first pointed out precisely what it was that I was hearing as grain and opacity and a slight low-volume-level limiting of dynamics and resolution: the M5’s squared-off, birch-ply-and-aluminum enclosure. I didn’t buy Andy’s argument at the time—and I owe him an apology for that—but, after all, the M5’s had the best disappearing act I’d ever heard from a large dynamic loudspeaker, and I couldn’t see (or, rather, understand) how a speaker that disappeared so completely into the soundfield and played so non-resonantly in the bass could also be being hamstrung in certain ways by its otherwise invisible/inaudible box. In fact, I thought its box was one of its glories—and, in terms of its bass coherence and disappearing act, still do.
What I didn’t understand then was that what the box was taking away with one hand it was also, apparently, ladling out with the other. The M5’s slight overall graininess and opacity were, in fact, largely being caused by the admixture of energy stored and released (after a short delay) by the wooden enclosure. This was not a big resonant signature, mind you. (The M5 actually measures quite well in waterfall plots.) But it was enough of one to add a little Kersey-like texture to the soundfield.
How do I know this? Well…last weekend I spent three days in Berkeley listening to my own music through production model Q5s powered by two of my reference components, the Soulution 700s and 720. And, a bit to my surprise given CES and a couple of biases I will discuss in a moment, the Q5s had none of the slight grainy texture and opacity of the M5s; nor did they have the M5s’ problems with low-volume-level dynamic scaling and resolution. In fact, the Q5s managed to sound almost exactly like a Quad 2805/2905 electrostats, with slightly richer timbre (yes, richer timbre than Quads), much more extended, linear, and powerful bass, considerably sweeter and more extended treble, dynamic range and three-dimensionality that Quads can only dream about, and the kind of low-level resolution (even at low volumes) I’ve only heard before from the MartinLogan CLXes! Even a long-time Quad owner like our publisher Jim Hannon, who joined me for one of the listening sessions, was overwhelmed. “I think this might be the best speaker I’ve ever heard,” said he. Which made two of us (three, if you count Alan Sircom, editor of our sister magazine HiFi+, who is already on record calling the Q5 “the best speaker in the world,” for which go to www.avguide.com/review/magico-q5-loudspeaker-hi-fi-74).
So what changed between CES and last weekend? Well, as I already noted, almost 60% of the passive parts in the production Q5s (including several very critical, bespoke resistors designed exclusively for the Qs) are different than the parts in the prototypes Magico showed at CES 2010. And, of course, the room I listened in in Berkeley was much smaller (close to the size of room I have) and much more carefully treated than the Venetian echo chamber. The amps and preamp were also different.
But I’ve got the distinct feeling that it wasn’t so much all that changed that made the dramatic difference in the Q5s’ showing, although I’m sure these changes played their parts. It was, I think, all that the Q5s had going for them to begin with—but didn’t get a fair chance to show in Vegas because of show conditions. And what they had going for them from go was a much quieter enclosure and a far superior tweeter, although it took my trip to Berkeley to prove this to me.
As you undoubtedly already know, the Q5 uses a box constructed entirely of 6061-T aluminum panels, which are CNC-milled and gorgeously finished in Magico’s own machine shop in San Jose, CA. So by the way is the elaborate interior bracing of the new cabinet—for which see the photo. I will have a good deal more to say about the science behind this enclosure, the bracing, the way these things are fitted together and damped, and other niceties of construction and parts selection when I formally review the Q5s. But now let me confess to two biases that kind of set me against the Q5s even before I heard them in Vegas.
First, aluminum may be a swell material from a stiffness viewpoint, but it’s not so great from a damping one (which is why combining it with stacked birch plywood boxes seemed like such a nifty idea). Undamped aluminum tends to ring like a bell when excited by acoustic energy. At least, that has been my past experience with speakers with aluminum enclosures—and I’ve reviewed and heard a few.
Second, beryllium may have the highest acoustic transmission speed of any metal, but until I heard the TAD CR-1 (one of the truly great loudspeakers, by the bye) I’d never met a beryllium tweeter I really liked—and the Q5s use a beryllium tweeter. It’s not that that these things aren’t marvels of speed and extension and energy transmission and low distortion; it’s that, the CR-1 excepted, they always stick out like marvels of speed and extension and energy transmission and low distortion, the way Magnepan’s “true” ribbon tweeter sticks out from its quasi-ribbon and/or planar-magnetic brethren. Their very superiority makes them sound different than the more conventional drivers they are mated with, which tends to spoil the “single-driver” effect (which, as I’ve noted before, is as close as speakers come to a “no-driver” effect).
When I went to CES, I confess that I had both of these biases in mind, and while I can’t honestly say that I heard the beryllium tweeter or the aluminum enclosures adding metallic zip and coloration/ringing to the sound in Vegas, I secretly thought they may have played some part in the Q5s’ less-than-stellar showing. In fact, I was rather expecting to hear these metallic colorations on my visit to Berkeley, where the far less resonant, far less bass-boomy environs of Alon Wolf’s listening room would allow the Q5s’ “true” character to show much more plainly.
It is abundantly clear, now, that I was wrong. The Q5 have no metallic coloration that I can detect—in the treble or anywhere else. In fact, as I just got done saying, the Q5 seems to have less coloration (driver, enclosure, crossover) than any dynamic speaker I’ve ever auditioned, and appears to be fully equal (or damn close to fully equal) to the finest electrostats in this regard. Its resolution is phenomenal. (I played a cut from Sound The All-Clear that I’ve been listening to regularly on my home system for weeks and heard so many details I simply hadn’t picked up before that I lost count.) Its timbre is gorgeous, top to bottom. Its dynamic range is almost horn-like, going from whispery pianissimo to thunderous fortissimo and all stops between without any of the M5s’ slight dynamic-compression of lower-volume-level passages. Its bass is just right, IMO, although I can see where rocknrollas might miss some of the added midbass slam that really good ported speakers supply. (The quality of sealed box bass versus the quality of ported bass will always make for a sticking point for some listeners and some music. Nonetheless, I predict that most classical, folk, and jazz aficionados will be in bass heaven with the Q5.) Its new tweeter is a marvel of speed, detail, and (to my amazement) utter unfailing sweetness, making for some of the most gorgeous string and wind tone I’ve heard on a stereo system. Its imaging is more precise than that of the M5s, its staging every bit as vast, and its disappearing act even better.
So why did I put that question mark after “The Best Speaker I’ve Heard?” Well…I listened to the Q5s closely for the better part of three days, but I still haven’t heard them in my room, with my components, and my sources. Until I do, we’ll have to wait and see whether that question mark stays or goes. There is this, as well. As I said at the close of my M5 review, there are other speakers on the horizon—from Rockport, YG, TAD, Wilson, and others—that may prove competitive. Some of them I will audition at RMAF. Some I will hear at friends and colleagues’ homes. Some I may review. As I also said at the end of my M5 review, there is room for more than one “best” in high-end audio, and I have the distinct feeling that we will soon be hearing about other nominees.
That said, if I were a betting man (and I am), I’d wager that that question mark goes—and the Q5s stay (for a long long time) as my references.
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
Excellent write up. You have me drooling, but perhaps not as much as I normally would...
I'm working on the Q5's high efficiency clone, the Coincident Pure Reference Extremes. Ceramic drivers, fast as a rabbit, you are there imaging. Stuff like that. I'll post up a preview. I gotta tell ya though, the Q5s were extraordinary at the Overture Audio seminar this year.
Thanks, Peter.
Perhaps you can play switch with RH's new best as wel! that would make interesting reading.
"if I had to choose,right now, a single loudspeaker to spend the rest of my life with, it would be the Vandersteen Model 7." this months TAS just came out.
if all these new speakers are the cutting edge of the audio art then you all should have the opportunity to educate your ears as well as the readers ..no?
I plan to visit Robert soon after CES to do this very comparison. And, I hope, he will visit me in return.
Me thinks that would make interesting reading Jon. I can hear the dueling banjo's :)
Elliot:
How'd I know you'd be right in the middle of this? (VBG)
NOt me I just asked a legit question
Elliot:
How'd I know you'd be right in the middle of this? (VBG)
Oh man! Thanks JV! Let the games begin! I cannot wait fo the impending shit storm!!!!
Woo Hoo! Its going to be an exciting last part of the year!
Specific to the cabinet, you would say this is the LEAST colored and resonant enclosure you have ever heard?
QB
JV: Did you listen to digital or vinyl at demo?
Quiffl,
Well...I can wait.
As for your question about whether the Q5's enclosure is the least colored and least resonant I've heard, the answer is I don't know. It is unquestionably lower in coloration and resonance than the M5's enclosure--I heard this plainly for myself in Berkeley, without seeing or taking any cumulative spectral decay or impulse measurements. And the M5's enclosure was (minus the weaknesses I've discussed in the blog) the least audible I'd heard in a big speaker in my listening room.
Although I hadn't intended to go into the technical side of Magico's design at this early stage of the review process, I can--thanks to Mr. Wolf--actually show you the differences between the "cumulative spectral decay" of the M5's aluminum and birch-ply cabinet, of an undamped aluminum cabinet, of a phenolic-resin cabinet, of an MDF cabinet, and of the the Q5s heavily braced and damped aluminum cabinet. UNDERSTAND THAT I DID NOT TAKE THESE MEASUREMENTS (although I will be taking my own set of measurements when the Q5s finally arrive here in Cincy--Magico is so backordered on the Q5 that it is taking longer than usual to free one up as a review sample). Also understand that, like beauty, measurement results are to a certain extent dependent on the eye of the beholder (or the measurer). i can, for instance, come up with substantially different RTA curves by moving my test microphone a millimeter or two to the right or left or up or down. So, taken with a grain or an entire box of salt, here is what Mr. Wolf has measured with his gear and a systematic testing regimen. The first graph is a cumulative spectral decay plot of an MDF enclosure; the second, of a phenolic-resin enclosure; the third, of an undamped aluminum enclosure; the fourth, of the M5's aluminum-and-birch-ply enclosure; and the fifth and last, of the Q5's heavily braced and damped aluminum enclosure.
Keep in mind that reading these graphs is an art unto itself: The "Q" of the resonances (the steepness and thinness or relative flatness and broadness of the ridges that represent energy being stored and released by the enclosure) is as important as the sheer number of resonances and their distribution over frequency and duration over time.
Quiffl,
I listened strictly to digital uploaded to a custom server equipped with a $6000 Swiss soundcard (!) and connected to a Pacific Microsonics DAC. Mr. Wolf doesn't presently have an analog source, although that may soon change. It certainly ought to, IMO.
Jon
JV: Thanks for measurements, very interesting indeed. Very thorough.
I guess your initial experience can only tell you so much, and when you get these puppies delivered, there will be time enough to evaluate what, if anything the cabinets are contributing.
Mikey Fremer has completed a review of the Q5 and I think it will be in the November issue of SPhile. Your review should be even more interestiing as you will have the ability to compare it directly to the M5 and Mini II. Very much looking forward to it.
I also find it facinating that you have such a postive intital impression of the Q5 despite having to endure what is clearly your second choice of source material, digital. Dare I say that, unlike someone else, ahem, you feel digital has its strengths and not strictly the doman of tin eared, neanderthals ?
Berkeley is a great town by the way. Blondie's Pizza rules!
Quiffl,
I'm pretty well married to vinyl myself, I'm afraid. But lifelike sound is lifelike sound, no matter what its source, and Mr. Wolf's digital setup is pretty damn lifelike. It's a shame that the Pacific Microsonics DAC is no longer around (although, as I understand it, it literally couldn't be built any more because some of its key parts are no longer being made). If ever I heard a digital "classic," this is it. Wolf's servers, particularly the one with the ultra-expensive Swiss soundcard, were also impressive--unusually lively and open.
You are right about Berkeley. It is a great town. The whole Bay Area is terrific. I didn't get to Blondie's Pizza, but I did have an absolutely delicious pizza and salad at my friends', Wayne Garcia and Sher Rogat's wonderful little restaurant Pizzetta (soon to become a wonderful big restaurant) on the San Franisco side of the bay in Outer Richmond. The food was outstanding and so was the wine.
Jon
The Berkeley alpha DAC is made by some of the same guys who made pacific microsonics model two. Spectral audio's designer was also one of them. Robert Harley calls the alpha DAC as reference quality and one of the best sounding digital he's heard. It should share similar characteristics as model two.
Oh, I am well aware your preference is vinyl. Understood. But there are other reviewers that write about digital as if they just bit into a lemon. As you just said, good sound is good sound. Honestly, in most cases, a bad sounding cd, LP, or download is often the result of incredibely bad production choices and heavy handed engineers. I love analog, but for me that means reel to reel tapes. And music recorded during the analog era tranferred to digtial by the best in the business in 96/24 resolution is truly amazing. (BTW, your impression of the Beatles CD's, if you have heard them?)
I live not far from Mr. Harley actually. We actually have some interesing companies based here. Acoustic Zen, Harmonic Tech, Audience, PBN, McCormack, and a few others. And FYI, when I first moved here they I saw posts online from jaded residents calling San Diego a "dining wasteland". BS. I have never, ever, eaten this well. And I don't do chains or fast food.
The Bay Area really is stunning, my uncle, grandma, and cousins live there.
Quiffl,
Although I've spent a lot of time in LA and San Francisco, I've never been to the San Diego area, but I hope to go there at the beginning of the year to visit Robert. i certainly agree with you about reel-to-reel tapes, the best of which are about as close to the absolute sound as I've been able to get! I also agree that bad sound is less a matter of format and more a matter of "bad production choices and heavy handed engineers," as you said. If you want to hear a good CD/LP, pick up Christopher Campbell's Sound the All-Clear on the Innova label. The music is a little odd, but the sound is very good.
Jon
I moved here 7 years ago from New Yawk and never looked back. I probably added 5 years to my life due the weather and lower
stress levels, and actual breathable air. I humbly offer you any assistance when you decide to visit...dining suggestions, tips, dealer intros,
etc, We also have one very cool Hifi shop/ used record store. The vinyl people I know go there once a week to pillage.
Thanks, Quiffl. I'll get in touch when we come to San Diego.
Oh boy, $30k less, better sounding and a replacement within a year. That hurts. Although for people shopping at that level it must be pocket change or not something to worry about too much. I'm sure Linzy Lohan or Paris Hilton dont worry about things they spend on. More is always on the way. Looking forward to the review. As u say the best is always a moving target and these days quickly. That can be a good thing for competition for the best.
Sam,
Yeah. There is another "b-word" that could be associated with the Q5, and that is "bargain." Offering a better speaker for $30k less than Magico's previous "best" is quite an accomplishment, especially when you consider the league speakers like these are playing in.
Jon
Thank you JV for the wonderful writeup.
I have listened to the Q5 twice now. First time, I was rather disappointed that I had to ask the dealer to setup with different electronics so I could try them again. The first time, was an FM Acoustics setup, which was lifeless, closed in and was just plain boring. I did not know I dislike FM Acoustics that much.
Second time I heard with with the current Spectral Reference. Spectral has always been a champion in resolution (whether the resolution is 'natural' or not is debatable), and the Q5 came alive.
If there is one word I would use to describe the Q5, it's that they are very very well balanced. Nothing draws attention to itself, and everything shares the same sonic signature... the texture you get in the midrange you also find in the bass.
Truly remarkable indeed. They are also quite 'small' and the fit n finish is truly top notch. Even though, I do wonder if a cabinet with so many parts may simply imply more potential issues in the long run.
I recall shortly after your Mini review, the Mini II came out. Now shortly after the M5 review, the Q5, at a lower price point, came out and seem to be trumping the M5 in many, if not most, areas. Magico is giving you quite a challenge as a reviewer. =)
"Now shortly after the M5 review, the Q5, at a lower price point, came out and seem to be trumping the M5 in many, if not most, areas. Magico is giving you quite a challenge as a reviewer."
WSLam,
TELL ME ABOUT IT!!!!
It is a delight to hear from you again, WSlam. I think your description of the Q5s is (as has been the case with your descriptions in the past) exact. The speakers are, indeed, "very well balanced" and you do get the same "sonic signature in the midrange...{and] the bass," although I frankly felt this way about the M5s and Mini IIs, too. Near seamless octave-to-octave balance is one of the hallmarks of Magico loudspeakers; it is part of what makes them seem to "disappear" more completely as sound sources than some other multiway dynamic speakers.
You are correct, as well, about their relatively demure size and build-quality. (At a later point, I will be writing about the Magico manufacturing and assembly facilities in TAS and, possibly, on-line.) Externally, the Q5s are 30% smaller than the M5s; interestingly, however, their internal volume is 26% larger than that of the M5s. This is because the enclosure walls of the M5s are two-inch-thick birch; the walls of the Q5 are 0.5 inch aluminum.
Jon
I should elaborate a bit more... when I said the equalness in texture in the midrange and bass, for example, I really meant 'equal in everything'. Texture being just one example. e.g., with the Mini II, using texture as example again, they do of course share the same 'signature', but imho, the Mini II does lack authority in the last octave and a half... so even if the texture remains the same, the perception is that something is 'reduced'. Whereas, to me, the Q5 was totally 'balanced' (IMHO Balanced and Natural are the two ultimate qualities for speakers). Q5 has the exact same texture, resolution, authority, musical grip from top to bottom, no exception.
But interestingly, the first time we heard the Q5, neither of us was impressed. I think this just goes on to tell you how important system matching is for the Q5. Possibly more so than most speakers.
Do you know if they are difficult to drive? How low does the impedance drop to?
WSLam,
You're raising a VERY interesting point--not just about the Q5s but about Magico loudspeakers in general. I think one of the things that has been held against Magico speakers--perhaps rightly--is the amount of sheer power/current it takes to get them going (particularly in the bass). Without it, they can sound a little lifeless and compressed (precisely like Maggies can).
It's not that the M5 and the Q5 (and other Magicos) are "difficult loads" per se; they aren't. (Take a look at the Wilson Sasha if you want to see a tough load! And I'm not knocking the sound of the Sashas, BTW, which I think are the best-sounding w/p speakers Wilson has ever made.) Nor are Magicos particularly low in sensitivity. The Q5's sensitivity is said to be a bit higher than that of the M5, which Magico rated at 89dB--which, of course, is deceptive because the measurement was taken at 4 ohms, meaning that the speaker's "real" sensitivity is something like 86dB).
Now you're not going to drive a 86-86.5dB-sensitivity speaker with a LAMM ML-3 (alas); you're going to need more watts and volts and amps. Still, the Q5 isn't an 82-83dB-sensitive speaker like the Vandy 7 (and, once again, I'm not knocking the Vandy 7, which I think is far and away the best-sounding speaker Richard has ever made), so you might think that you wouldn't need a TREMENDOUS amount of power. But, unless you have a particularly smallish room, you'd be wrong.
The "trouble," if you want to call it that, with Magico speakers is that they use sealed-box woofers in enclosures that are unusually non-resonant. In other words, you're not going to get any "help" from the enclosure (or from a port a la the Sasha or a powered subwoofer a la the Vandy 7) when it comes to getting Magico bass "out of the box." In my experience, this means that you're going to need an amp with a LOT more peak power/current-delivery in the low end than you might expect, judging solely from Magico's impedance/sensitivity figures.
I think what I'm trying to say here is that you not only need a goodly amount of the highest-quality power/current you can get with Magico speakers;, you also need power/current of a certain kind, particularly in the bottom octaves, where power/current-delivery become more critical than it would be with a ported speaker or a sealed-enclosure speaker with a less rigid and non-resonant cabinet.
Curiously (or not), in my experience an amp like the ARC 610T also sounds terrific with Magicos. Although it doesn't have the grip or the current-delivery or the bandwidth of a Soulution, a BAlabo, or a Technical Brain, it has terrific color and weight and authority on the bottom (and LOTs of watts), which ends up having much the same effect on Magico bass (minus a little bottom-octaves transient speed and grip) that the high power/current solid-state amps have.
Jon
Hi Jon,
I see this as the current trend... difficult loads, probably due to highly complex, computer-optimized crossovers?
People tend to say 'Power is cheap' nowadays, but I would argue, you can have power cheap, but GOOD power is still very expensive!
My only objection to these 'difficult loads' is that it does limit the choice of amplifiers, and the worst part is that once you 'save' 30k in buying the Q5 over the M5, the next step is to find a competent amplifier to mate with them... but these amps will not be cheap and is the 'hidden cost' of owning speakers that are difficult to drive. All of a sudden, the total cost of ownership skyrockets. Not everyone has the money for Soulution (and frankly, I don't think the sound is for everyone either) after purchasing a pair of Q5!
In the HK dealership I have listened to ARC 610T (they no longer carry ARC), driving Magico, also, FM Acoustics (my least fav), Spectral, and Balabo. The scary thing with Magico is that they make the differences of these amps very very apparent. Very remarkable indeed.
Please do.
Question for you JV: Is the lead graphic an actual picture of the listening
room you were in? Did you take the pic?
QM
QM,
Yes. The room pictured is, indeed, where I did my listening. It is Alon's "listening room" in Berkeley, which is part of the facility in which all Magico speakers are assembled and Alon has his business offices. I took the picture and also the picture of the Q5.
Jon
So what about the people who have spent $80k for speakers that have now been bettered by speakers that sell for $30k less?
Mark
SundayNiagra, did you spend $80K on those speakers?
Did you buy a VPI table?
Well, Mark, you kinda put your finger on it. And it wasn't $80k; it was $90k.
Here is what I would say to M5 owners (and what, in fact, I have said to myself): The M5s are TRULY great loudspeakers. Nothing can change this. At the time I wrote my review they were the best multiway dynamic speakers on the market, IMO, and certainly the best I'd heard in my room, with my gear and my music.
While I didn't mention this in my blog, Alon actually had the M5s--the very pair I spent almost two years listening to--set up in the listening room when I arrived at his facility, so that I could audition them before listening to the Q5s. Given my affection and esteem for these speakers, this was bold of him, but Wolf is nothing if not bold. I spent two hours listening to a variety of my own music on the M5s before Wolf swapped them out for the Q5s. I then, immediately, listened to the same music on the Q5s via the same electronics and sources.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't LOVE the sound of music through the M5s, which reminded me in Berkeley (as they did in my home) of the very best Magnepan planars you can imagine in their extraordinary coherence, resolution, and neutrality (but also, to be fair, in their larger, less focused imaging and very slight hint of foreground/background sandiness). I could've (and would've, had they not been called back) lived with the M5s utterly contented. Like the best Maggies, they simply sound like the real thing.
However, from the very first note, the Q5s clearly sounded lower in distortion and higher in resolution than my beloved M5s. Instrumental and vocal mages were more focused, dynamics and harmonics were more audible at lower volume levels (and, frankly, at higher ones), timbres were richer (gorgeous, actually), treble was much more extended and sweeter, transients seemed quicker and cleaner top to bottom, inner details that were a bit harder to hear (or downright inaudible) through the M5s were perfectly clear through the Q5s, and the Maggie-like foreground/background grain simply vanished. Instead of sounding like Magnepans, the Q5s sounded almost exactly like Quads (but with all the advantages of dynamic range, frequency extension, and dimensionality that come with cones).
Let me give you one example that can kind of stand in for the difference between the Q5s and the M5s (and other dynamic speakers I've listened to). Toward the start of "Sound the All-Clear," a woman's soft voice starts counting amid a fortissimo of percussive instruments: "One, two, three, four, FIVE." Through the M5s (and every other dynamic speaker I have in my house, save for the TAD CR-1s), all you can clearly hear without straining is "Five." Through the Q5s, every single number that she utters was as clear as day, no matter how loudly the surrounding instruments were playing. As noted, the Q5s are simply lower in noise and higher in resoiution, which wouldn't really matter over much to me if they weren't ALSO so much richer in timbre, finer in texture, quicker in transient response, seamless in top-to-bottom balance, and (so important to me) superb in dynamic scale and range from very soft passages to very loud ones AND to very soft passages AMID very loud ones (such as the example I just gave).
I don't know what more to say except what I've said. If I owned M5s I would live with them without looking back and without remorse. If, on the basis of what I heard in Berkeley (remember I haven't heard them in my home yet), I had to choose between M5s and Q5s, I would choose Q5s. The M5s are great, the Q5s just a bit greater.
Jon
This is a great comparison.
I also felt that the M5 sound a tad more laid back then the Q5. I heard them in the same dealership, but diff rooms. The M5s gave me the feeling that they were just a tad more polite (not that they could not go wild) than the Q5. Maybe it was the different setup/room, but I do feel that the Q5 is more neutral of the two.
Jon,
We met last year at RMAF and in the Magico room at CES the year the M5's were launched. As you may recall I own the M5's and full Spectral electronics. I thought I would respond from a M5 "owners" perspective. I am extremely pleased with my M5's and am glad that the Q5's are in existence so that more folks can afford this level of sound. Oh and BTW $80k is a lot of money to me even though I could afford it it was not without great hesitation that I spent that much on a pair of speakers. But I will not look back and will not be upgrading for years to come as I am perfectly content with the sound I am hearing. I do not look at the Q5's as devaluing my M5's (although they have) because it is not a loss until you sell and I do not see that happening anytime soon. One thing I think we tend to forget is that at this level the law of diminishing returns has really kicked in and how truly small some of these "improvements" are. I may be the exception but I only listen in serious audiophile mode perhaps 25% of the time. The rest of the time I am working, checking email, editing photographs, perusing my music collection, sharing a glass of wine with my wife etc... and while the music is much more than background music I am not listening to every little nuance. I love the sound of the M5's, they are extremely musical, full spectrum and are capable of melting the days tensions away, so why would want anything else? Good for Alon and his crew, as the more success they have the more secure my investment is over the long haul. Again nice job on the review and glad Alon gave you the chance to hear the M5's and Q5's in the same setting as that was important.
jfkbike
JeffK, very nice post. I am glad that you are enjoying the product that you have invested in and that you look at it with an audiophile perspective. Had you thought It was foolish to spend $80K on speakers or to risk your financial future you probably wouldn't have invested in it. After a long time Ive heard from a true audiophile. Your comment about magicos success and now the potential ability of more folks to be able to enjoy the kind of stuff only a few can enjoy reveals your passion of music. Thanks for your investment in the M5's, which most likely helped Magico continue in their quest for the best, and soon hopefully a lot more "True" audiophiles can enjoy the great music. It's nice to know that there are people in this hobby that are not just collecting boxes and Products, are not all arrogant, or running after the best gadgets all the time rather than are more concerned about enjoying music from their investment year after year. Can you please list all the components in your system, room dimensions and what kind of music you listen to most? Best wishes!
Sam,
Thanks for the kind words. My room is on the small side but well built for audio with dedicated power etc... It is approx. 15'w x ~14'd x 11'h but there are two foot deep cubicles on the back wall (for albums & CD's) that act like a bass trap and a whole lot of ASC room treatments as well as some entryways. Electronics are latest Spectral for pre, amp and CD player, Basis Inspiration table, MySonic Labs Ultra cart.,Pass phono stage, Ayre QB9 DAC w/ Mac Powerbook Pro and Drobo S for the music server and all top of the line MIT cables. The ASC stuff has made a huge improvement in the room and room acoustics are so important.
jfkbike
One more question. When you were researching/auditioning the spectral gear, did you get a chance to compare the DMC30ss to the DMC15ss pre amp? If you have any info on how these two preamps are similar or differ(other than volume/remote control), please share your experience and knowlege. There arent too many people out there with spectral gear and not much info is available on the DMC15ss preamp.
Sam,
No I did not compare. I went around the country (tagging onto business trips) and listened to all the speakers I could. I was originally in the under $30k range as a target but once I decided on the dealer, Overture and the speakers Magico I pretty much decided to go all in. Once you are spending close to $80k on speakers (I bought them before price increase) it did not make sense to skimp elsewhere. The other side of the coin is I had to buy some things unheard and had to trust my dealer. Terry at Overture was great to deal with and has not disappointed me with his advice. I think the Spectral stuff is really special and a very good value. I was able to compare the Spectral to ARC and Krell and a few others with the same speakers and the Spectral always sounded best to me. That being said if the DMC15 is in your wheelhouse go for it as I think their stuff is as good a value as you will get in hi end audio. Call Terry and ask his opinion and he will be honest in my experience.
jfkbike
Mr. Valin,
This is an excellent blog post in terms of both content and writing. (Who were some of the authors that influenced your writing style?) Some "investigative journalism" to explain Mr. Wolf's creative process and story may be helpful to help shed more light on this.
I was wondering if you could please expand on the timing of these speakers being released vs. the M's. What is the inside story of Alon Wolf tinkering with the enclosures/ cabinets and component parts to get it right "in his garage"? Why did he release the M5 first? Was he not able to get the metal-enclosed speaker to sound right? Or were there parts that were not quite working out?
From an economic perspective, was he aware of the controversy he would cause with many people purchasing the M5 only to find out the Q was better? (Many people do not understand that the so called "rich" have budgets and make tradeoffs just like the rest of us. And $90K is a lot of money even for the "rich"!) Does he care about this, or does he abandon economic considerations in pursuing the "absolute sound"?
Finally, if this speaker is so great, can it be mass produced and be sold at a fraction of its price? Can Alon Wolf design a speaker that would become the Model T of audio? That would truly be REVOLUTIONARY.
curious,
First, thank you for the kind words. I was a moderately successful novelist before I started editing and writing for this rag, so the primary influences on my writing are other novelists rather than other writers on hi-fi. That said, Harry Pearson and J. Gordon Holt are the best writers on high fidelity that I've read, and they were the main influences on this part of my career.
As for your question about the timing of the Q5, Wolf has always preferred aluminum enclosures (e.g., the M6s and a whole slew of "boutique" loudspeakers he built before Magico become a "real" company). The trouble with aluminum enclosures, however, was their cost. Since Wolf did not have his own machine shop equipped with CNC milling machines, he had to blueprint his enclosures and "job" their construction out, and since he is among the most perfectionist of speaker manufacturers, nothing but the very best materials and build-quality would do.
Since jobbing out an all-aluminum enclosure for the M5 would have substantially raised the price of the speaker to consumers, Wolf decided on the birchwood-ply and aluminum boxes he'd used (so successfully) in the Mini II. However, some time early last year a remarkable thing happened: The machine shop that had constructed the aluminum boxes for the M6 and milled the aluminum parts for Magico’s other speakers came up for sale. Taking the plunge, Wolf and his partner Yair Tammam bought the shop and its four CNC machines and retained the highly skilled staff that managed and ran it. It was a huge investment in Magico's future, and a risk, of course, because of the amount of money involved. Nonetheless, Wolf went ahead, largely because he is almost literally driven to compete at the highest levels of high-end audio.
With Magico’s own machine shop, a skilled staff, and four state-of-the-art CNC machines at Wolf’s disposal, building all-aluminum enclosures at less-than-exorbitant prices suddenly became do-able. Thus, the Q5.
I freely admit that the timing is hard on M5 owners, although as I said in my reply to Mark (SundayNiagra) above, if I were fortunate enough to have M5s in my listening room I wouldn’t think twice about the Q5. The M5 was, is, and will always remain a great loudspeaker—and sooner or later something a bit better always seems to come along. That’s just the way the world works, although I have to admit that this was a lot “sooner” than “later,” and I’m sure it took M5 owners as much by surprise as it did me.
As for a bargain-priced Magico, while I don't rule out smaller, less expensive "Q" Series models--indeed, I expect them--I kinda doubt whether Magico will ever market what you could call a "budget line." Magico speakers are designed to be the best that Wolf and Tammam can come up with, and, I'm afraid, they will always be priced well beyond my means--and that of most other audiophiles. OTOH, offering a speaker as great as the Q5 for under $60k—and for $30k less than your previous “best”--isn’t anything to sneeze at. I’ve heard and reviewed speakers that cost four-to-six times this amount that aren’t as good.
Jon
Excellent pictures. Very professional. Witth your 7D I would guess.
We should all have a listening room so nice.
I just ordered a Canon DSLR for my self.
QM,
Thank you!
FYI, the pix were taken on Kodak Tri-X 320 film with a Toyo 45A II VIEW CAMERA and Rodenstock Sironar-N II 90mm f6.8 (Alon's listening room) and Schneider Apo Symmar 210mm f5.6 (the Q5s) lenses. After development, the negatives were scanned to digital on a Epson V750 Pro-M scanner at 2400dpi (making for images that are roughly equivalent to 80-100mp) and then post-processed digitally in Lightroom 3.
You can see how "analog" I am.
I gotta admit that it sure would've been simpler to use the 7D and the results would've been excellent. I just like the look of film (like I like the sound of LPs). If you'd like to see more 4x5 scans, go to http://jlvalin.zenfolio.com/p33799404.
Jon
Shit! I would have guessed the 7D. Yes, you are VERY analog! But i know exactly what film can do. My dad was an avid photgrapher and i STILL have his mint Zeiss Ikon Contarex Super. I have been oferred 5 grand for it.
Thank you very much for all the technical details on the photos. As with any thing else, if you want to do something that turns out great, it takes ALOT of work.
Well done. I actually passed over the pictures initially as t thought they were "stock". photos.
"STILL have his mint Zeiss Ikon Contarex Super"
THAT is a helluva camera! With a 50mm f2 Planar?
JV, Can you comment on the placement of the speakers in Alons room? How big is his room? Spealer distance apart and distance from speakers to listening position? Thanks.
Cyrus,
Alon's room is 17' x 21.5' x 9'. The speakers are 11.5' from the listening seat, about 10' apart, 5.8' from the rear wall, and 3.5-4 feet from the sidewalls.
Jon
Jonathan - I presume you meant 5.8' from the front wall. In the review, pray tell what the devil is the "b" word?
I generally use "rear wall" to refer to the wall behind the speakers, although it is the front wall from the listener's position.
The "b" word is "best," for the use of which I've taken some (not entirely unjustified) heat.
Please ask Alon why the center spot light is not centered! ARGHH! haha Looks like a track light?! Center it!
I'm guessing M5 will be replaced by the Q5. But has it been confirmed for sure that M5 will be discontinued?
Sam,
I think your guess is probably right. But as far as I know there has been no official word on the future of the M5 (or the other wood/aluminum bodied Magicos).
Jon
Here's a Q5/M5 analogy: an all aluminum Q2 replacing the Mini II for 60% of the cost with better sound. Now that speaker at $20K would surely hit the high-end by storm. How about a Q3 to compete with the TAD CR-1?
You got a point, Peter!
It would take a helluva Q3, however, to best the TAD CR-1. THAT is one terrific loudspeaker, IMO.
Jon
How do the Mini 2 compare to the CR1?
Pretty damn well, I'd say.
Of course, it's hard to make a detailed comparison without having both speakers in my room (I haven't had the Minis in my system--they were returned to Magico--in better than two years), plus the CR-1s are three-ways, the Minis two-ways. However, going on (wonderful) memories of the Mini/Mini II, I can say in general that the CR-1s seem to go deeper in the bass (or at least play in the midbass with more overall authority), although I wouldn't want to bet against the Minis when it comes to low-end transient response--I won't soon forget the pistol-crack timp strike toward the close of the Mercury “Firebird,” which not only made me jump but made Lloyd Walker and Fred Law come out of their chairs. I'd also say that the CR-1s’ coincident beryllium tweeter/midrange is the best implementation of this kind of driver I've ever heard; its treble is wonderfully detailed, fast, delicate, and lifelike. If you're waiting for a shoe to drop, it ain't going to happen in the midrange. The CR-1s’ midrange is very, very realistic—in-the-room-with-you realistic on voices, violins, winds, guitars, etc. Its soundstaging is vast. Its imaging is a bit more precise than the Minis, though images may be somewhat smaller, and the CR-1s "disappear" into the soundfield as completely as the Minis do. Do the two sound alike? In soundstaging and disappearing act, yes. In other respects, not really.
I think the main difference I hear is the sound of the drivers (or maybe the material the drivers are made of). If you come up close to the CR-1s--and I mean ear to the drivers--you can easily hear how different the beryllium cones/dome sound than the "tri-laminate" woofer. They have different "signatures." The funny thing, however, is that if you step back from the speaker--and I mean only a few inches--those obviously different signatures simply disappear and you hear one utterly coherent thing. If you get up close to the Minis, the drivers don't sound as different as the CR-1s’ do, although you do hear the rising response of the Mini's tweeter.
As for enclosures, the Minis’ magnificent birch/aluminum sealed box is just not there as a physical object, although (in light of the Q5 experience) I think it may be adding a touch of the same grain I hear with the M5s (with the same effect on resolution and dynamic scaling at low volumes); the CR-1s’ ported box ( a cabinet of CNC-machined birch with a laminated MDF cladding and a thick aluminum base) is also, surprisingly, just as invisible (the CR-1s’ “aerodynamic” port is really, really well done), although I think it (or it in combination with the drivers) may be adding a touch of brilliance to the overall sound.
In the listening I’d have to say that the CR-1s are a tad (sorry) more immediate, a little more forward and present, more focused and a bit scaled down in image size, more neutral, sparkling, and extended in the treble, richer in color and more authoritative in the mid-to-low bass, somewhat more articulate at very low volume levels, and somewhat more transparent to sources (a step closer to the fidelity-to-mastertape school of listener, without losing their solid footing in the absolute sound school). The Minis are bigger in imaging and (maybe) soundstaging, more neutral, forgiving, and less analytic in presentation (save for the topmost treble), a touch warmer and just as natural in timbre and texture in the midrange and upper bass (at moderate volumes and up), and arguably a step closer to the absolute sound school in overall presentation (with one or two toes in the “as you like it” school). Both are exceptionally fast on transients and powerful on large-scale dynamics. Both come incredibly close to the sound of the real thing.
JV,
Thanks for this comparison between the Mini II and the CR-1. I own the former and heard the latter sounding tremendous at RMAF. I hesitate to form a stronger opinion of the CR-1 until when or if I'm fortunate enough to hear it in my own system. I have a small room and now more fully appreciate the importance of room/speaker matching. I look forward to reading if you have more to say about these speakers after you spend more time with the CR-1 in your listening room. Both are very special speakers, though unfortunately, they are priced beyond the reach of most music lovers. Perhaps Magico will bring the sound of the Q5, scaled down of course, to new smaller all aluminum speakers in the future.
Wow, that is one beautiful speaker!
Yeah. It is.
Yes Sir:
With a box full of original accessories to boot. Changeable backs, original case. If when you come, you want to see it, you will not believe the condition of the camera, purchased in 1967 from 47th St Photo.
That is so cool. Don't sell it, QM.
Jon
I must admit, been tempted to. But turned down multiple offers. Just holding it in my hands reminds me of a bygone era.
I'm glad to see you took me up on my suggestion to get a 4x5 Toyo view camera and Schneider lenses. I know you will enjoy them - and your photography - immensely.
Audiophilesavant,
You were, indeed, the inspiration! And I thank you.
I just couldn't resist. And I LOVE the results.
Jon
WSLam : The first time, was an FM Acoustics setup, which was *lifeless, closed in and was just plain boring. I did not know I dislike FM Acoustics that much.
Way off descriptions of FM Acoustics sound, in the twenty or so years living with, and hearing them in countless different set-ups, they are anything *BUT. If so, then the synergy must be amiss, somehow.
Simply not my cup of tea. I have listened to my share of equipment, despite their price tag and their supposed 'prestige', I was truly bored.
I'm sure you have. As for 'personal' taste and being bored whatsoever, understandable. But still, an inaccurate and misleading descriptions.
How can you say that it is an "inaccurate and misleading description" when I was saying I was bored?! I am not saying FM sounds boring. I was simply not 'involved' when the FM was playing. A purely subjective description of *my state/feeling*
*lifeless, Closed in
Why are you arguing with what I heard?
JV,
Thanks for the advance notice of the q5's! And while its kind of a spoiler upon the Fat ladys upcoming review- its obviously no where near these, I'm glad to know right now.
Two questions. Since we're talking ultimate's here what about Alons thoughts about the "ultimate" use and need for horn to get everything right? Are added horns the way forward? Last, in terms of materials it is clear that the right lay up of Carbon Fiber is much stiffer and less resonant than even Aluminum, as such does Alon prove that such characteristics- though admirable- are simply unnecessary in getting the sound humans are capable of hearing? J
jl123,
The Fat Ladies are $32k; the Q's are $60k. Unless something is really wrong at Magico Central, the Qs ought to sound better (although better than the $90k M5s came, to this listener, as a shocking surprise).
Let me also remind everyone that the Fat Ladies are Morel's first effort at a flagship. The fact that they may not outperform the Q5s (Magico's third or fourth, if you count the Ultimates, flagship following a long history of statement-grade "one-ofs") should scarcely be held against them. The Ladies are a terrific debut product.
I don't know the answers to your two questions. It certainly seems as if Wolf and Tammam think well-executed horns are the "ultimate"; OTOH, no one can build a company solely on the sales of a half-million dollar speaker that weighs a couple of tons, is bigger than most living rooms, and takes six months to manufacture. The M and the Q are "real-world" alternatives to the Ultimate (at least they are if your "real world" includes a safe deposit box full of Krugerrands and bearer bonds).
When it comes to carbon fiber versus aluminum, I don't know what Wolf thinks. However, there are three requirements for the material used in a loudspeaker enclosure: stiffness, damping, and the one you've left out--mass.
Jon
My experience with Carbon cabinets (i.e. Wilson Benesch) has not been very positive. The carbon fiber cabinets tend to store too much energy, resulting in imho, a slight 'smear' to the sound. But that could be WB, may not be applicable to all CB cabinets.
WSLam- looks like you're using Automachina speakers, how do they compare to the Q5s?
BTW- If anyone is going to RMAF and wants to hear a high performance speaker that doesn't follow the "current trend... difficult loads, probably due to highly complex, computer-optimized crossovers," check out the GMA Calypso HDs in Room 1130.
Yes, I have a pair of Audiomachina Maestro Ti-200. Don't know if they will be at RMAF or not, but if they are, do check them out. This is the second revision of the speakers and I think Audiomachina has achieved something very special here. I am writing up a review of them. They are indeed one of the reasons why I have not put down money for a pair of Q5 yet. They are very different for sure, but both are truly SOTA.
Hi Jonathan, Great write-up on the Q5's. I heard them at the Overture open house last spring and the sound was fantastic. I thought it was better than the M5's I heard there previously. You and Robert should go to Overture now to do some side by side comparisons of some great speakers. Besides the Q5's they have the Focal Maestro Utopia, and the Vivid G1Giya. That would be a good review and you could switch out the speakers and hear each under the exact same conditions. I think they still have the M5 pair so that would add to the fun.
As good as those speakers sounded at Overture, as far as I'm concerned the ultimate is my friend Mike Malinowski's system with the Wison Alexandra X2's. Was there last night and the sound was life like. We also had some fun switching out his Walker phono preamp with my AR PH7. You don't see many reviews of the Walker phono but it produced a lot more 3 dimensional soundstage than the PH7. Of course it is over double the price.
take care, John
JV - tell your moving guys to start eating extra oats. i have the Q5 and live at the top of a 4 floor walk up in NYC. after moving the soulution 700's and some other heavy equipment, my contractor (was finishing a renovation) called mercy and opted to take the Q5's up by a crane. (not as wasteful as it sounds as we were also brining up a big range and refrigerators). i am loving the Q5 on a similar set up to what Wolf has (although i do have analogue) and am enjoying every minute of it.
What shocked me was how good they sounded out of the crates, i have about 75 hours on them now, they are getting better with time, but they were really good from the get go.
bh,
If the Elam Bros. could carry the MBL X-Tremes up to my listening room, they can carry the Q5s. I'm not saying it'll be easy, but they haven't flinched at anything yet. I'll post photos when the Q5s arrive. (I wouldn't mind seeing your setup, BTW.)
Speaking of which...I'm jealous. You got a pair of Q5s, and I'm still waitin'. Of course, I'd imagine that you PAID for your pair, which do make a difference. When it comes to hi-fi products for review, the Valin philosophy can be summed up quite simply. To quote my friend and TAS Music Editor Mark Lehman: "As long as Jon's not paying, price is no object."
Mark is one to talk. Whenever we go out to dinner and I volunteer to pay for his meal (which I do on occasion), he always reminds me: "Remember, I'm a big tipper!"
Jon
JV - did Wolf say why he did not set the Q5 up for Bi-Amping? i thought someone mentioned that the protype at CES was set for bi-amping and was surprised when i opened the crates to find out otherwise.
bherlihy,
The pair of Q5s I heard in Berkeley was also set up for bi-amping/bi-wiring. But I think this configuration is a special-order option with the Q5s, where it was standard equipment with the M5s.
Jon
Jon,
Just let me reiterate something I've said about you on these forums several years running; that your the best reviewer I have read. With that said I think your statement here about carbon fiber not being having mass- and this somehow makes carbon materials off the mark for enclosures, seems wrong and a bit to quickly dismisive of a very promising set of materials.
Of course carbon can be incorporated with other materials to have as much mass as one would want. I'm sure Alon-right at this time, would not admit or want to speak about this as he is literally all into AL now; but I'm sure there are many who could articulate a thoughtful view (not me granted) as to the viability of using carbon based enclosures vs al. Indeed there is a very strong probability that carbon materials and composites will be utilized and will surpass metals at some point for most areas or speaker design; indeed taking nothing away from the achievment of what Magico has done in probably making the best speakers as of now. Please though, lets not dismiss other means of speaker design out of hand or too simply. thanks, J
J,
First, thank you. I mean it.
Second, I didn't mean to sound as if I were dismissing your point of view or dissing carbon-fiber or carbon-based enclosures. I really wasn't speaking on behalf of Wolf or aluminum enclosures; I was just pointing out that, in so far as I understand the physics of enclosure-making (and I'm anything but an engineer so I'm merely parroting what I've been told) you have to balance three elements that kind of fight against each other: stiffness (to push the enclosure's resonance frequency as high as possible); mass (to dampen this higher-frequency resonance); and damping (to further reduce the resonance and reduce its Q).
You are certainly right about the future of carbon materials. I was just reading about graphene (the strongest, thinnest material on earth), the discoverers of which won this year's Nobel Prize in Physics. I can see the day when graphene is used in everything from computers to cars to bridges to, yes, loudspeaker enclosures and drivers.
Jon
Heard the Q5 recently with Soulution and top MIT. Probably the best sound I have ever heard! Bass is not earthshattering but it is tight, tight and tight. Great review JV. You know what really makes me jealous? The picture on top! Wow that listening room looks awesome!
Simply the best speaker and sound I've heard. Soulution, Magico, MIT. I haven't heard them with the Soulution monoblocks yet but I suspect it will be even better!! Never have I heard the virtues of the Soulution amps being highlighted so well! Heard 'em with Spectral too but it's just not as good as the Soulutions. The Q5 is Ultra transparent. A true magnifying glass on your equipment and their virtues and also their shortcomings. Spectral gets sketchy when there's a lot of things going on the Soulution places everything perfectly with the impression that it's not even trying. It doesn't add spectacle when it's not there it which the Spectral does and thus making it more 'hifi' in my experience. I traded my 30-SS right there with the the Soulution pre haha. Even on the Spectral power amps the Soulution pre is clearly much more musical, neutral, energetic and capable.
Coming back on the Q5. It's one of the few 'big' speakers that sound amazing when played at quiet volumes. It's sooo damn realistic. I've never heard a cello sound so spookingly realistic. Voices sounded like nothing I've ever heard before. Full of texture and realism. It's soo highly resolving that you will not believe it. Bass is not thumping but more than satisfying and very very musical and organic. And then there's absolute silence.. This speaker brung me the closest to a live experience ever! Indeed this speaker is the bridge between electrostats and dynamic speakers! Wow is all I can say!
Silence is Music
Still think it's strange Alon uses MIT Magnum MA cables on his Q5's and not the Oracle MA-X...
Silence is Music
SlickenSmooth,
He used the MAs at CES when he introduced the M5s, too. I guess he must like the way they sound with Soulution gear and his speakers.
Jon
JV,
Did you listen to the Q5 with any of the Spectral gear in the photo above?
JV,
One observation:
You mentioned an "opacity" you hear with the Magico speakers that feature wood as part of the cabinet construction. I too have heard this "opacity", but I like to call it haze because it sounds to me as if the speakers are playing through a haze, there's a lack of definition, low level resolution is obscured, which seems to affect soundstaging, specifically the delineation and palpability of imaging. (I know the room greatly affects this attribute of a loudspeaker, but I've heard them in several rooms with similar results and on different electronics).
Your conclusion is the wood cabinet causes this smearing, opacity, haziness; however, I have a feeling there's another culprit after my audition of all the Magicos and the new Q5... Perhaps Magico's custom, built in house drivers are part of the cause? After listening to the Q5, it's obvious the cabinet is SOTA, there really is no energy lost to the cabinet, and I don't hear the cabinet singing along in any way which really allows everything to be pushed out and heard by the listener. That being said, I'm still hearing a haze, reduced, but it's there.
Are you sure Magico's "opacity" is completely gone? Are you sure the cabinet is the ONLY offender for this characteristic that has plagued all Magico speakers in the past? I know the Magico drivers are cutting edge, but let's face it, they are the oldest part of the Magico puzzle (5 years old?), maybe technology can bring fruther refinements to the driver's materials or engineering? Perhaps losing the magnets in favor of electrified field coils would be a fun experiment? Raise the efficiency, much greater control over the drivers, less magnetic loss over time, etc.? Or perhaps a better surround for the woofers? Or perhaps all beryllium drivers since Magico is enamoured with the material for their tweeters?
I hope my point is clear and invokes discussion and open minds...
hce4,
I think this is an exceptionally interesting and thoughtful post. (I've been at RMAF, which is why I haven't answered it sooner.)
In Berkeley, with my own music and Soulution electronics, I concluded on direct comparison of the M5s to the Q5s that the M5's cabinet--in spite of its amazing disappearing act as a physical object--wasn't disappearing as completely as an "acoustic object" as the Q5’s cabinet was. (I reached this conclusion long before I saw any comparative cumulative spectral decay plots—the difference in low-level resolution at low levels was just plain audible.)
Before the Berkeley shootout, I originally thought, as you do, that it was the drivers that were causing the slight veiling of low-level detail with the Q5s--not because of anything about their material construction or their magnetics but because, compared to something like the membrane-driver of the CLX or Quad (which actually weighs less that the volume of air that it moves), the Magico NanoTec drivers had much greater moving mass and inertia. I also thought that, as WSlam brilliantly opined, the latest complex CAD-designed crossovers, which use so many (superb) large caps and inductors, might have been slightly bollixing the amps, adding to the problem of getting music "out of the boxes" without some losses at low voltages and helping to create this impression of a very slight veiling of low-level detail and dynamics at low volumes. (Anyone who has ever played with SETs knows that high sensitivity is only half the battle when it comes to getting such amps to deliver their power to drivers; complex crossovers are just as likely to suck the life out of them.)
Having heard the Q5s in Denver, about which I will blog about tomorrow, I'm even more certain that the Q5's heavily braced and damped aluminum box is superior to the birch-and-aluminum box of the M5, but I’m far less sure about the driver and/or XO issues. Here's the thing: When playing back the "Nojima Plays Liszt" mastertape--one of RR's truly great recordings, musically and sonically--through an absolutely superb souped-up Nagra reel-to-reel and Spectral electronics, the Q5s produced the most realistic illusion of a grand piano I’ve yet heard from any loudspeaker. On the basis of this demo alone, they were (almost by consensus) the Best Sound of RMAF 2010.
HOWEVER, when playing back several of my 44/16 CDs (which the folks in the room kindly allowed me to do on the second day of the show) I thought I heard some of the very slight graininess and, on the positively thunderous “International” soundtrack, a slight touch of the dynamic constriction that I heard with the M5s (although the sound overall was considerably less veiled than that of the M5s at all levels). This was odd, because I did not hear any grain or constriction in Berkeley. The differences in Denver, of course, were the room (which was just plain awful, and not just for Magico but for everyone at the show) and the amplification.
On reflection what I think I was hearing wasn’t anything inherent to the speakers (although once again, I haven’t heard them in my home yet so I can’t say with confidence that this is the case), but the tiny room (particularly in the bass, which in this case, and in MANY other rooms at the show, greatly leaned down the lower octaves) combined with the characteristic "signature" of the Spectral amplification . With the mastertape, the source was so overwhelmingly superior that I simply didn’t focus on the “Spectral” sound (although I WAS vaguely aware of it). On lesser sources through a lesser front end, I did. To my ear, Spectral, for all its virtues, has always sounded just a little threadbare in timbre, a little bright in the top octaves, a little surgical in texture, and a little too tightly controlled in the bass and overall. I heard all these things more plainly with my own source material.
Having said this, the Q5’s presentation was still spectacularly lifelike—and thrillingly exciting. And to be honest, better this slightly cool and clinical neutrality than the Flowers By Wire color and perfume of some of the other speaker/electronic combos I heard at RMAF. These last may be “gorgeous” (in fact, they are in the short term), but the truth is that they tend to make EVERYTHING sound gorgeous—and gorgeous in precisely the same slightly cloying, bouquet-arranged-in-a-vase kind of way. To some—maybe many listeners—this would be a huge plus (for awhile at least). To me, it is only an unmitigated plus if the recording itself (e.g., the “Nojima Plays Liszt”) is inherently beautiful.
I think what I’m trying to say here is that I came away from RMAF even MORE impressed with the Q5s, even though they didn’t sound, the Nojima aside, quite as consistently spectacular (and super-Quad-like) as they did with Soulution’s superb electronics. I say this because I’m guessing—guessing, mind you--that they were telling me the truth about what was upstream of them in the way of source, front end, electronics, and room—in other words, I think they were being extraordinarily transparent to sources and to environs. They certainly weren’t making ANYTHING sound painful or unlistenable; they were just being honest (maybe even a touch analytical, thanks to the Spectral) to an extent that even the very revealing M5s couldn’t quite match.
I do have questions about drivability, about bass, and about any vestiges of coloration. But I’m unable to answer them definitively at this point. I’m still guessing about these things on the basis of shows and manufacturer showroom demos, although I know I'm not kidding myself about the superiority of these speakers. I will address all of these issues more conclusively when I have experience with the Q5s in my own room, with my own sources, and my own LPs.
Jon
hce4, which speaker totally lacks this opacity in your opinion? I must say that I heard no haze whatsoever; however, you cán hear that it is a closed system. Maybe that is what you're hearing?
nordha,
I agree.
I think all cones speakers have this issue, to greater or less extents. The Q5 to a MUCH lesser extent, at least on the limited basis of my experience.
Jon
JV - if you are ever in NYC let me know. i think i have some of your favorites:
- Q5
- Soutluion 700 and 721
- ARC Phono 2
- dCS Scarlati (no transport, run off mini mac)
- Da Vinci AAS Gabriel MkII and Gabriel 12" tonearm
- airtight PC-1 supreme
- Kubala Sosna Elation cabling throughout
Nirodha,
I'm not trying to start anything, merely asking JV to consider and comment on the possibility of more sources of "opacity" in Magico speakers than just the cabinets.
Personally I hear less haze in the Wilson Maxx III when they are set up to a T. That being said, I have never heard a speaker that does not possess a defining "house" sound characteristic. With SOTA speakers, it can be difficult to pinpoint what exactly is their character, but after enough supporting equipment changes, a common theme always surfaces...
hce4, cannot agree with you more.
When it comes to the Wilson MAXX IIIs and the Q5s, I'm afraid I cannot agree with either of you less.
Jay Vee:
I just read Mikey Fremers full review of the Q5. Very interesting. He mirrors
much of what you say.
His only sticking points...the bass and realistic impact of certain musical events.
He said it sets new standards in several parameters.
Biggest plus: ZERO box colorations. I mean zilch.
Jay Vee:
I just read Mikey Fremers full review of the Q5. Very interesting. He mirrors
much of what you say.
His only sticking points...the bass and realistic impact of certain musical events.
He said it sets new standards in several parameters.
Biggest plus: ZERO box colorations. I mean zilch.
QuiffMcBain,
I haven't read Michael's review--and won't until after I write my own. And I know he didn't read my blog. So he wasn't "mirroring" what I said, except in the sense that we may independently agree on some aspects of the Q5's sound.
BTW, I can see where Michael might have had reservations about the Q5's mid-to-upper bass. In fact, I believe I predicted that this very area would be an issue for some listeners, particularly rocknrollers (but others as well). Well-designed ported speakers simply deliver more (with some instruments, more realistic or, at least, more exciting) slam in this region (and also, sometimes, add more color in the upper bass) than most (not all) sealed enclosure speakers. However, I personally don't think this added slam should be confused with true low-bass extension, bass linearity, or bass-range distortion. Since I listen, with some exceptions, to classical and acoustic music, "slam" is less a matter of concern for me than it might be for Michael. But let me note again: I haven't read what he wrote. And let me also emphasize that Michael's got the incomparable and indisputable advantage of having lived with these speakers for several months in his own listening room, with this own gear and his own sources. I've only heard them briefly in Berkeley and Denver.
Jon
JayVee:
I think your answer and approach is spot on. I will not go into any further details in his review except to say he concludes fans
of acoustic music would soil them selves due the q5's over all performance. I won't say more except that you made very
good guesses above.
I very much look forward to your initial impression when they are installed. For the record, Alon W did personally attend to
Fremers set up in Joisy.
May I ask what amplifiers you will be using during the review? That "neutral" Swiss stuff (er, pun intended...) and the Mighty 610?
QB
Quiff,
If everything works out as I hope, I will be using solid-state amplification and preamplification from Soulution, BAlabo, Technical Brain, and (possibly) DartZeel. In tubes I will most certainly be using amplification and preamplification from Audio Research (the 610Ts and the Ref 40). My analog sources will be Walker, Da Vinci, and the United Home Audio Tape player (with tapes from The Tape Project and UHA). Cartridges from Benz Micro, Da Vinci, Ortofon, and Clearaudio. Digital is still a little up in the air but I'm working on it. Cables and interconnects will be from Synergistic Research, Tara Lab, and MIT. Power cords and conditioning from the same, plus Shunyata.
Jon
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=critics&m=52100
Oy Vey. JV, some No Life is at it again. He is protecting us from you, the big bad, worthless Audio Reviewer. Oh Gawd! Next
thing you know he will call you an anti business Socialist with debatable citizenship.
What else is new?
Mr. Valin,
Regarding the bass issue, can one really judge rock bass vs. acoustic bass, since the rock bass is frequently "manufactured" or mixed/ enhanced?
My VTL/ Soundlab combo may not have the most slam out there, but it sure sounds a lot like the double bass I hear at the Green Mill during a jazz performance. But the bass at a rock show is another beast altogether. With a small adjustment, these guys can equalize the music just about any way they want. But if Mr. Fremer attends a lot of rock shows, maybe he has that "reference rock bass" in his head to judge against. And with a rock cd????
Could it also be an issue of 2 speaker designers just having different ideas of the ideal bass, kind of like one artist wanting to paint Kim Kardashian/ Arnold Schwartzennegger vs. Paris Hilton/ Mark Anthony, as the ideal human specimen?
I am thinking that unless one records the bass, listens to it continuously until he memorizes the sound, and then replays the bass on both speakers, it would be really difficult to tell which designer/ speaker is right.
curious,
This is (to my way of thinking) an extremely intelligent post.
Let me ask you (and by "you," I mean “all of you”) this: What does a Fender bass sound like?
Well, if you unplug it, it sounds like a tinkertoy with strings. A Fender bass (or any amplified instrument) really doesn't have a sound apart from the amp and speakers it is being played through. (Wasn't it Jimi Hendrix who said: "I don't play guitar; I play amplifier?")
Now, amps can be turned up (even as far as "11," I believe) to achieve higher SPLs, to provide more impact, and to accenutate the bass line (or the rhythm line or the lead line) as the music demands. Conductors do the same thing with sections or soloists of the orchestra. Every time you see a conductor making that familiar come-hither beckoning gesture toward the doublebasses and cellos, he's asking them to "play out"--to play louder because forte or fortissimo is what the score (and his own sense of the blend of the orchestra in the hall) calls for in a given passage. (He does just the opposite--that familiar "down-Boy" gesture--when he wants them to play piano or pianissimo.)
My point is that changes in intensity (and the effect that greater or lesser intensities have) aren't just sonic things that give us pleasure to hear; they are MUSICAL things that intentionally make individual lines and colors stand out from wholes (or make them recede and blend into wholes). That is why dynamics or intensities are so critical to realistic playback of ANY kind of music, and why our sense of the impact or slam or relative presence of the instrument or instruments that are playing louder or softer are critical to hearing the music as it was intended to be heard.
Now, let me ask a second question. Let’s say that a bass player turns up her amp and plays loudly—like Tina Weymouth does at the start of “Take Me to the River” on “Stop Making Sense”—to get our feet tapping to the rhythm (and literally thrill us with the power, solidity, and timbre of her instrument against a sharp, skittering background of percussion). We want to hear that power, solidity, and timbre, do we not, as we were intended to hear it? We want the sonic thrill and the musical thrill.
Now let’s consider what happens to that musical and sonic moment as it is played back through two speakers, A and B. A is a ported speaker with a sizable rise or plateau in the mid-to-upper bass, right in the area that Tina’s instrument (and toms and kickdrums) is playing. B is a sealed-enclosure speaker with flat response through the area in which Tina’s instrument is playing. Which will more accurately reproduce Tina’s bass—both its dynamics and its color—AND its dynamic relationship to the rest of the instruments in the band AS THEY WERE BEING PLAYED IN LIFE?
I would argue that the added ten or twelve dB that are “built into” speaker A’s bass actually distorts dynamics and color—makes them louder and MORE prominent than they really are (or were). With speaker A, Tina’s bass doesn’t sound like it is playing at “11,” which is the way it was actually being played; it is effectively playing at “21.” It is, I admit, a thrilling effect. But it does AUTOMATICALLY screw up dynamic scale and range (at least in music where dynamic scale and range are important) in a way that speaker B, with flat bass, does not.
The problem with my argument is that most electric rock music is MEANT to be played loud. It IS played loud in life and doesn’t have dynamic range outside of loud, louder, and even louder. So, even if you turn up the volume on speaker A to achieve greater clarity in the mids and treble against the backdrop of more thunderous and impactful bass, you may end up making the entire band sound more the way it would in a club or stadium through massive Marshall stacks and mixers, even though you are literally distorting dynamic relationships and instrumental timbres.
This is not the case with acoustic music, where an automatic 10 to 12dB rise in the mid-to-upper bass is a catastrophe that will do anything but make instruments sound more like they would in a concert or recital hall—or music sound the way it was intended to sound in life. This is because (and don’t jump on me because it’s only the truth) acoustic music, be it classical, folk, rock, or jazz, has REAL dynamic range that goes from very soft to very loud—and all stops in between. Automatically elevating anything that plays in the mid-to-upper bass means that you also automatically destroy true pianissimo or piano or or even mezzopiano passages played by instruments with fundamentals in this range—unless you turn the volume down, and as soon as you do that you simultaneously reduce the intensity and change the timbre of every other instrument that is playing alongside those in the mid-to-upper bass.
Taken all in all, I prefer to sacrifice some of the added slam and glamour that you get with the elevated mid-to-upper bass of the ported speaker for the truer representation of dynamic range that you get with the sealed-enclosure speaker. (You also generally get the added bonus of deeper-reaching and lower distortion bass with the sealed-enclosure speaker.) But then I prefer acoustic music to electric music.
Jon
Jon and the Asound staff,
First, is there any way you might be able to keep this thread running longer. It seems like there's quite a bit here to cover with new takes and thoughts coming by the day. As usually it seems that when a particular blog entry has left the front page of the site it goes into internet space. Is there any way around this problem?
As such I'd like to bring up another- to my mind - very interesting area; and that is in light of what Mr. Valin has said in his rather revelatory comments on the technical brain amplifiers. That in some ways this japanese technology has moved the field on quite a bit, so naturally one would ask with gains in technology by Magico now obviously raising the absolute sound in an equal or similar amount to what the technical brain's did, how do the two technologies meet each other? Do they support or indeed do they negate the other? Does the new Magico system with all its new found ability any longer need technical brain electronics to help peeling away the layers? thanks, JL
JL,
I will have more to say on this very subject when I actually get the speakers (and the "new" Technical Brain stuff) in my system. But, in general, I think there is no question that distortion has been lowered across-the-board in present-day audio gear. In fact, it has been lowered so much that you don't need a spectrum analyzer to detect it. You can HEAR it--in speakers, sources, electronics. It makes reviewing a little harder because some (not all) of the colorations that we've grown used to hearing and talking about are no longer there (or not there in the same abundance).
Here's an example. The Audio Research Reference 5 (my reference until recently) had 0.01% THD at 2V out, which is good for a tube preamp. The new Audio Research 40th Anniversary Edition Reference preamp has 0.0006% THD at 2V out. That is approaching Soulution territory--in a tube preamp! And brother can you hear the difference.
For high-end audiophiles there has never been a more exciting time since the early 70s.
Jon
Dear Jonathan Valin;
In retrospect how would you overall compare mbl 101 extremes to the Magico M5, and, I totally understand there is no direct comparison, to your experince with the Q5.
From what I have pieced together, the mbls was not so transparent to sources. Would the coherency and tone across the entire freq spectrum compare in your experience to the Q5?
Room size: 19 w x 12 h x 27 ... so this represents a larger listening environ than what you review in ... correct?
Thanks, GL
GL,
Before I start making comparisons with ANY loudspeakers that i've reviewed, I gotta get the Q5s in my listening room, which isn't in my control.
Indeed, your room is MUCH larger than mine, which also presents a problem when it comes to comparisons. Plus it is tricky to compare omnis to direct radiators in some respects. However, when and if I get the Q5s, I'll talk about how the Magicos compare in timbre, dynamics, imaging, coherence, soundstaging, and imaging to ALL the speakers i've reviewed (including the 101 Es and Xes).
Jon
Jon,
I suppose what I'm saying is that it would be revealing to hear how the M5's with the technical brain sound VS the solution with the Q5's- this would tell us a lot about what amplifcation does vs what speakers can do- especially if each pair winds up doing the some important things similarly. j
J,
I hear ya. But you (and I) got to wait until I actually have this stuff in house. Let me say this: Lower distortion in certain significant areas isn't necessarily a good thing if it is accompanied by higher distortion in other significant areas. (This, in fact, was the very problem with early-generation Japanese solid-state gear, which had astonishingly low harmonic distortion but astonishingly high transient intermodulation distortion). What's happening now, I think, is that many folks are figuring out how to throw out the bathwater without throwing out the baby.
What doesn't seem to have changed as markedly are differences in timbre, texture, and dimensionality. I don't think anyone would easily mistake the Soulution amp, the BAlabo amp, the Technical Brain amp, or the ARC amp for one another. In spite of the significant lowering of distortions in all four of these stellar products, they still sound...different.
You could chalk this up to speaker/amp interface issues, as "all-amps-sound-the-same" engineering types typically do. But all amps manifestly don't sound the same, even when they measure close to the same in bandwidth, output, THD, IM, TID, SID, etc.. It's just part of the sport of this hobby.
Jon
Awesome. And makes perfect sense, since you know the sonic signatures of those components very well.
I am betting you are excited.
BTW, do you like the newest Shunyata stuff?
Quiff,
I've always been a fan of Shunyata's power cords. The latest I've heard are fully competitive with the best.
Jon
Jonathon:
Some questions:
First, are you ever going to write another Harry Stoner mystery novel? I think I have them all, and I miss them.
Second, I thought I saw an interview with Alan Wolf recently (sorry, can't remember where) where he said that a combination of aluminum (to connect the speaker cones to) and wood was the best cabinet combination. Now the aluminum shop comes up for sale, he buys it, and makes an all aluminum speaker cabinet. Huh?
Third, I think that anyone in the position to buy a top of the line speaker, and enjoy it for a year or two, shouldn't complain if something cheaper comes along. After all, they have had the enjoyment of the speaker for that time (instead, I suppose, a lesser speaker [or other component]). Do you agree?
Thanks,
VanLH
VanLH,
Ah, yes. Harry Stoner. Well, I'd like to write another Stoner novel, but I can't at the moment because this job is incredibly demanding. I think a lot of folks think that all that Robert and I and Neil do is sit around and play with expensive toys. They couldn't be more wrong. I literally have to fight for the time to listen; I am that burdened with editing, proofing, blogging, and reviewing. Don't get me wrong: As jobs go, this one is a peach. But it is very time-consuming, and writing novels takes huge chunks of free time; it also takes your fullest concentration. I will write another novel before last call--whether it is a Stoner or something else. But for the time being, I'm booked. Thanks for asking, though.
I can't speak for Wolf, but I believe that he always thought that aluminum cabinets (when they are properly braced and damped and engineered) are superior to enclosures made of other materials or combinations of materials. Before he started Magico, he used to make one-of speakers using aluminum cabinets, and one of his first Magico products--the M6--had a massive all-aluminum cabinet. I think he once told me that the only material that would be superior to aluminum for an enclosure is titanium (but the cost of building such a thing would be astronomical).
I'd like to believe your argument about the M5 versus the Q5, but frankly I'd be pissed off that Magico came up with a $30k cheaper speaker that outdoes the one I just bought a year ago--with no upgrade path. It's not good business, IMO. That said, the M5 is, as I've noted, a great loudspeaker in its own right, and the Q5 doesn't change that.
Jon
JV,
i appreciate your entry on 10/19 regarding ported vs sealed speakers. from my experience with the Q5, i agree with this assessment.
The truer representation has a down-side, as has been pointed out before, namely, it highlights a bad recording. with my Q5's, i will admit that i am realizing that my library is filled with more bad recordings than i previously realized, particularly in the rock genre. I think the Q5s are definitely influencing my listening patterns.
One observation, is that i think the ported speakers mid-to-upper bass glam can help mask a bad recording. to me this is similar to the Pepsi vs Coke challenge some 20 years ago. Pepsi was winning the Challenge because it is sweeter, therefore a small dixi cup was appetizing. however, most people preferred coke on a constant basis. to me, truer representation, would be the Coke, i.e. it might not win a shoot out if someone had 15 minutes to listen to it and the recording was not excellent. anyway, i would rather change my listening pattern than miss that great recording on a true to source system.
on another site, someone suggested that the quality of the recording is actually the most important component in any system over the room, speakers, etc. I think this is true, your example above captures the essence of the emotion that can be delivered with the right recording.
BH
bherlihy,
Great post. I like your point about high quality recordings being an important component in the system. At the Golden Ear Club meeting at RMAF, one of the TAS reviewers, I think Chris Marten?, said that "software trumps hardware". I think that was his point too.
Bherlihy,
You have an excellent system! What are you using to feed your Scarlatti DAC?
I am not sure I agree with you that changing your listening patterns is a good thing. Obviously, anything recorded by Telarc in DSD will sound sublime. But, if you are a music lover, you may want to hear the genius of Rachmaninoff playing Rachmaninoff! and Memphis Slim and Willie Dixon jamming together in the 60's in a Paris club, no matter how much musical information may be missing from the CD. If you reduce your listening collection, you will surely miss out on some musical gems.
I have owned electrostats all of my life, so I know very well what brutal honesty is all about. The way I have compensated for it is by choosing slightly more forgiving equipment. My CJ Act 2.2 does a great job of polishing those turd recordings as well as anything (and of course it sounds amazing with great recordings). The CJ lets me suspend the disbelief and just sounds like real music to my ears.
Mr. Valin do you have any further thoughts on this? Thanks
Thanks
curious,
Although the party line is that everything in a system should be "neutral," the truth is that most audiophiles compensate for weaknesses in their systems by adding things that produce more of what they think is missing (and subtracting things that are overabundant). I've had systems that are dead-neutral and "clear as glass," For instance, the CLXes with the MBL 6010D preamp and the Soulution 710 amps was as colorless as any system I've ever heard in my home and higher in resolution than any system I've ever heard in my home (at least where it played). It was a fascinating experience because it revealed so much about a record's engineering that was simply hidden by the relative opacity of other (really good) systems.
Whether I could have lived long-term with such a transparent-to-sources speaker is an interesting question. I know that when I owned CLSes (particularly the first version of the CLS) I got worn down by the sterility of the presentation (and the CLSes lack of color in the power range). To compensate, I did exactly what you've done: I used c-j electronics to inject some warmth in the upper bass and lower mids, take some of the sting out of the upper mids, and add some body to what was a very clear but very cold sound.
Of course, that was almost twenty years ago, when most electronics and speakers weren't as low in distortion and coloration as they are today. And I was a different kind of listener then. Although I've always gravitated toward transparency and realism, back then I was also looking for a "sounds good to me" kind of presentation. Today, I've come to feel that using equipment that makes everything sound "beautiful" is wrong for me. I want things to sound realistic and beautiful when they have been recorded with beauty and realism, but I don't want to add virtual tone controls that turn every sow's ear into a silk purse.
This doesn't keep me from wholeheartedly agreeing with you about "missing out" on musical gems that don't sound great, BTW. I once wrote an article in TAS on this very subject, using a reissue of a dreadful-sounding mono recording of a Szigeti recital in the Frick Collection to make the point that, while great sound (however you define it) undoubtedly increases enjoyment, we're not listening to sound only. We're listening to music and music-makers. And somehow these things survive even gross defects in the presentation. The fact that, when I was a kid, I once watched "The Wild Bunch" in pan-and-scan on a 13" black-and-white TV didn't keep me from thinking that "The Wild Bunch" was a great movie.
Somewhere else on this blog somebody quotes Chris to the effect that software trumps hardware. I'd go farther. I think artistry trumps everything. In the best of worlds, great artists would get the great sound that they deserve. But they often don't. (Just listen to virtually any Heifetz and many Rubinstein recordings on Living Stereo, where spotlighting and excessive brightness and, in Rubinstein's case, bottom-octave weakness distort the way these great performers famously sounded in real life.) It matters, of course, because guys like us appreciate great sound. But it also doesn't matter, because some guys like us also appreciate great artistry and great music. This is part of what is so annoying about "Best Recordings" lists in this magazine and others, where sound so often does trump taste and artistry. But don't get me started on this sore subject.
Jon
Hi Peter,
I agree, i think Chris has more elegantly captured what I am trying to say
JV
After reading your praise of Q5 I was looking forward to hearing them at RMAF this past weekend. I understand one should never base a purchasing decision on hearing gear at a show but the Magico's would not even make the cut list for a top notch speaker based upon what I heard in Denver. The system there overwhelmed the room and yes individual notes were articulated and clear but there was no life, no pace to the music.
stillone,
Good heavens! You must not have been listening to the same system that Robert and I were listening to, because we both thought the Q5 was the highpoint of the show. And as for the speaker lacking life or pace, the "Nojima Plays Liszt" tape played back through the Q5s was the most realistic sounding piano Robert and I heard at RMAF (not counting Robert Silverstein playing a real grand in the Tower Lobby).
I thought the room/CD player/electronics were a little bright on 44/16 fare, but then all of the smaller rooms at the Marriott sounded a little bright to me. (The larger rooms had different problems.)
BTW, I'm scarcely the only guy who's written enthusiastically about the Q5s.
JV
JV
Even with my limited interaction with others who attended the show, I was far from the only person who was less than impressed by the Q5's.
I am not saying with the right gear and set-up in a better room they would not make most owners very happy.
Jim
What associated equipment were they being played with at rmaf?
stillone,
I'm certainly not trying to argue with you about what you (and others) heard. I'm merely telling you that Robert and I (and apparently some at Stereophile, for which see http://blog.stereophile.com/rmaf2010/magico_steals_the_show_so_far/) heard the Magico room differently.
I've learned from many many years of showgoing that a lot depends on the day you hear an exhibit, the music that is being played (which is why I bring my own with me), and even the time of day you listen. The Technical Brain/TAD room, for instance, sounded very good on Friday morning when I popped in for a split second and bizarrely screwed up on Friday afternoon when I listened at greater length (the problem, I'm told, was a bi-amplification setup in which the set of amps going to the woofers was out-of-phase). On Saturday, with this problem corrected, the system sounded very very transparent, and on Sunday it apparently sounded great according to Robert and others.
There is this, as well: We listen for different things and by different standards. For me, fidelity to the sound of real instruments (and transparency to source material, provided it does not make the system sound overly "analytical") are my first priorities. I am less impressed by systems that sound "beautiful" but don't sound particularly realistic. For other listeners, including several on our staff, timbral beauty is paramount.
As I will say in my show report, I think that Spectral gear did a VERY good job in a small and somewhat brightish room, but I think that the Soulution gear I heard in Berekely was superior (as was the room). But then the Soulution gear costs eight times what the Spectral gear (which is just an incredible bargain) costs and the Berkeley listening room was a carefully treated listening space much larger than the Marriott shoebox.
Jon
MIchael Fremer at sf spent many months with it after it was set up carefully by Alon Wolf himself. Fremer says this speaker is good for acoustic music and can't really get the bottom end. I wonder if room treatment can fix that. JV loves acoustic music and others with similar taste should audition it.
Sam,
I haven't had hands-on experience with the speakers yet, so cannot comment on the bottom end, save for what I heard in Berkeley and Denver. In neither of those venues would I have said the Q5 "can't really get the bottom end." It may not have the mid-to-upper bass slam of a ported speaker (if that's your idea of "low end"), but it sounded very lifelike, low in distortion, and linear in the bottom octaves when I heard it and certainly didn't lack for deep bass (20-40Hz).
Jon
Indeed, listening to organ music I noticed the Q5 goes deep but you won't get the slam because it's a closed design.
Silence is Music
Agreed! The Q5 does not really "breathe" deep down.
What do we mean by 'slam', in relation to organ music?
The Q5 gave heaps of pressure down deep, and provided excellent pitch definition at the same time. You could easily hear, and feel (!), the delay in the buildup of the low notes, hear the delay was longer with lower notes, and distinguish between different low notes, even when played simultaneously.
What I haven't figured out yet for myself is, whether the richer bass of a good ported design (Maxx 3, Isis) gives a more realistic picture of the bass notes, or is adding something of its own. Which might be very addictive, but not fully the real thing.
Marcel,
Sorry I wrote that real quick and obviously there's no relaltion to 'slam' and organ music. What I meant to say was that it seemed to lack slam in music that does 'require' slam. Like uptempo funk music with bass guitars or some rock music, even santana (just to name an artist). I noticed this on the V3 also which seemed to have less slam than a good ported design which in reality goes less deep.
I had the same question in my head about bass, like you. I think it's a matter of preference. Imo the Magico's take on the low frequencies is more realistic, the definition of the low freq is simply outstanding! And the bass does have weight (although differently than a ported design)! Like you said the richer bass of a good ported design is addictive and can make you 'feel' the bass more (as in being more present in your room) but to my ears it also has something 'added' that's not supposed to be there. Maybe it's spectacle. Anyways it really depends on which group you belong to. Do you like to hear your music reproduced as close to reality as possible or do you just like it as beautiful as possible not minding if it realistic or not? I defintely belong to the former.
After hearing the Soulution amps I learned that I really value honesty and neutralism in my music reproduction. Sure, with some music you think if the mid bass and lower bass would be a little 'thicked up' it would swing more until you hear yourself listen more to the bass and missing the whole musical message.
Silence is Music
Fellas,
The Q5s are slated to arrive at my house on Monday. I will do the usual photo essay about hauling them up to my third floor room and setting them up. As soon as I've gotten my bearings I'll start to blog in detail about how they sound.
Jon
Jon:
Please do your reporting in the speaker forum. That way it won't disappear.
Mark
Just listen to something new, without a big name like BigdanAudioCreations model PETRA.
No pc base programs that will make the speakers sound good no mater what.
Really wonder how much different from the show experience the Q5 will sound in your own system.