The Best Sound JV Has Ever Heard at a Trade Show

Dear Mr.Valin,
I read your comments about M5. I have the M3 and I like them as the best loudspeakers ever heard.
May I ask you which kind of amplifier and cables for M5 at C.E.S.?
Kind regards and thanks!
Alessandro (Milan, Italy)

• reply

I, too, heard the Magico M5 at the show.  The sound here was quite nice, but I discerned some obvious colorations and defects in the presentation.  For example: The lower midrange on male vocals was colored and resonant.  The spatial resolution was large, but a bit phasey and non-specific.  There was obvious texture and a grain to in the lower treble that was not natural or lifelike.  All these problems could be related to the room, or issues with electronics, but nevertheless, this alone would preclude me including them among the best.  Don’t get me wrong: I thought the Magico sound was lovely and inviting – and I am interested in hearing them in other locations.  But the unequivocal best? I don’t think so.  And nearly $90K?  How can Mr. Wolfe justify this price when one compares the M5 to other products in this price range?   Or for that matter the V3 itself? I am baffled as to why JV would got out on limb and declare this "the best" so absolutely.  I heard several presentations I would rank a great deal higher, such as Richard Vandersteen’s new 7, as well as the new Wilson Audio MAXX in the Lamm room.  The MAXX sounded significantly more lifelike, three dimensional, and less colored than the Magico, and the Vandersteen 7 was notably more coherent and less artificially textured.  The 7’s bass was far more convincing on the bottom end.  Both these products look more expensive to build than the Magico, and yet cost far less.    –  Kevin

• reply

Key words: at a trade show
 
We have said this before, but in this context it bears repeating: no listening report from a show constitutes a review and it certainly isn't a substitute for a full review. The amount of time available and the system constraints (unfamiliar ancillary equipment, unfamiliar room, noise in the environment) make this impossible and impractical.
 
We should also note, as we have in the past, that comparisons are essentially impossible at a show. The constraints that different manufacturers face are a key reason:
 
- they don't all get assigned identical rooms and some handicap certain designs more than others
 
- different systems have different power requirements and a standard issue hotel room's power impacts different players differently
 
- different systems sound different on different days (and not always because setup gets refined over time, but rather randomly)
 
- etc.
 
In addition, no single reporter hears everything or even close. And, trade show work is grueling, and no reporter can show up at each suite with the same ear/brain/attitude from 9am til 6 or 8pm for 4 days straight.
 
Users should view show reports the way our editors do: a positive report is an indication that a product may have merit and is worth investigating further.  Neutral or negative reports don't tell you much (because we can't tell you why bad sound happened).
 

• reply

“This is quite simply a new standard in transduction, not just the best loudspeaker at this year's CES, but the best loudspeaker I've ever heard at a trade show and, quite possibly (the Magico M6 maybe excepted), the best loudspeaker any amount of money can buy. And as you will see, when I post my show report, this was not a show that lacked for stiff competition. In several floors full of very, very, very good speakers, nothing eclipsed this new Magico, which not only takes its place in my little pantheon of great speakers but pushes out several other long-cherished greats of the past.”

“....you can't hear upstream unless what is downstream is every bit as clear and colorless and high in fidelity as what precedes it. And so the M5s are--to a degree I simply never heard before and didn't dream possible.”

These are statements that imply – and to some degree, state explicitly – far more than what could be justifiably discerned in a show environment.  So yes, the key word is “at a show.”  JV’s commentary is inconsistent with this disclaimer. And…. At odds with what I and many trusted friends experienced at the show.  Yes, everyone has his (or hers) own biases and tastes and priorities.  But JV’s comments don’t account for this. As I say, his declarative statements are more absolute than equivocal. 

Yes, the M5s are good.  Maybe even extraordinary.  But how good they are remains to be seen (or heard).  JV’s report suggests otherwise. 

He has long eluded on this blog that he’d like to review the M5.  In preface to his review, it more than seems he is preemptively crowning a new king.  And this sums it up potentially.  Is this about king-making or good equipment evaluation or informative show reporting?
 

• reply

 
 
 
On the subject of not hearing all of the competition, let me say this. I have spent the last fifteen years going from room to countless room at I don’t know how many trade shows listening to speakers priced at $20k and up. Like all of my colleagues, I start at 8am in the morning and finish sometimes very late in the evening, only to start all over again the next day. As any speaker manufacturer at CES or RMAF can attest I don’t just drop into a room, shake hands, and listen passively to some cut I’ve never heard before that the manufacturer selects because he knows it will show his speakers off at their best (or at least disguise their worst). I carry with me--to every single show--a ten pound bag full of LPs and CDs and SACDs I know by ear and heart--and I friggin’ play them (or ask to hear them played) in EVERY room I go into. I listen to AT LEAST two or three very familiar cuts on each and every speaker. It is incredibly time-consuming--and probably drives a few manufacturers crazy (although many seem to enjoy the music I bring along)--but it is the ONLY way I know how to get a fix on what I’m listening to--to even the odds just a little bit from room to room and system to system. It ain’t a perfect system, and it ain’t always fair. Rooms may look alike but they can sound incredibly different. There is simply no way do to completely remove chance from the equation; the only little bit I CAN do to narrow down the odds is what I try to do--listen to the same music, music I know, on each system.
 
As for not hearing everything…well, sure, you always miss a few. It’s inevitable. But I am willing to bet that I have heard at least as many speakers priced at $20k or more as any other human being (even a paltry human being like a reviewer) at CES. In fact, I believe I’ve heard most. And I’ve heard many of them repeatedly from show to show or at the same show (I often go back to rooms I think are promising--to listen further, as I did this year with Vandersteens, Wilsons, several of the glass-bodied speakers, and of course the Magicos.)
 
Given the amount of time I and my colleagues put into this huge exhausting enterprise, I find it downright off-putting for anyone to imply that I or any of my tireless, incredibly hardworking colleagues don’t “cover the field” or make a heroic attempt to do so. When I said what I said about the Magico M5s, I was speaking from a thorough auditioning of almost every other $20k+ speaker at this year’s CES, this year’s RMAF, last year’s CES and RMAF, and back and back and back and back to about 1995. The very reason I waited several days to post about the M5s was because I didn’t want to jump the gun without hearing some of the especially worthy competition. I was also speaking from first-hand, in-home experience with some of the greatest loudspeakers and finest electronics and sources money can buy. So cut me and my friends some slack. We aren’t cracking walnuts with our ass or going out on limbs without checking what’s on the other branches.
 

• reply

First, my last post was directed at Mikey G’s comments on the price of the M5 versus the Wilson an Vandersteen, not at Mr. Valin.

Second, I should make it clear – again – that I liked the Magico presentation.  I was also quite taken by Alon Wolf.  He clearly is a passionate and intelligent designer, and I thoroughly enjoyed his demonstration.  I went three separate times. 

My concern is not Magico or Mr. Wolf, but Mr. Valin’s reporting on the M5.  Despite his rants and enlisting Robert Harley as a witness, along with legions of unnamed colleagues, friends and associates that he claims are in total solidarity with his opinion, he reports an experience that is at odds with my own.  And many others I associate and speak with.  My take was that the Magico, Wilson and the Vandersteen were all the buzz of the show.  Some liked the Magico, others the Wilson, and still others the Vandersteen.  If there was a clear winner, it was the MAXX in the Lamm room. 

Valin takes great pains to establish his authority – defensively.  Yes, he does this for a living.  I would therefore expect a more thought through and logical approach to his show reporting.  Using his own music only eliminates one of the myriad and profound variables present at trade shows.  Rooms, equipment, placement, are nearly insurmountable inconsistencies that wash any conclusion – other than general impressions -- into the realm of irrelevance.  Yes, Valin has experience with some of the loudspeaker brands that Magico may compete against, though, to my knowledge, he has never reviewed a Wilson or a Vandersteen, among many other important contenders, in his own home.  Yes, Valin now has the same electronics Magico used in their demo, but these of course are completely different from what Vandersteen used or what was used in the two different Wilson demos.  And what about Magico’s custom front end?  I just read Harley’s report on the Berkeley converter/server combo (different but related to Alon’s front end), and he suggests this playback method is revolutionary.  Couldn’t this be the variable that caused your reaction?

Yes, Valin seems dedicated to the job of show reporting, but dedication cannot overcome a flawed approach in his process.  At the end of the day, isn’t his “job” to serve the readers rather than pontificate on his own infallibility?  For me, calling me an idiot because of a phonetic typo answers this loud and clear.  I may not be as literate as Valin – I don’t write for a living, but I am an actual buying client for this category of product.  So does my opinion matter? 

I’ll wait for Harley’s report.  He is consistently more thoughtful and rational in his reporting and reviewing.  He articulates experiences that translate pretty consistently into what I experience. 

As far as not knowing what I’m talking about on issues of price: the information about Wilson came from reading Harley’s review of the Alexandria, his interview with Dave Wilson and, earlier, his visit to the Wilson factory.  Information about the Vandersteen came from conversations with Richard Vandersteen himself.  Along with other extensive research.  BTW, I am not the only one to address the questions and concern about the M5’s pricing.  Just read the other forums and blogs and you can see that many others are questioning its $90k price tag.  I was also disappointed that the MAXX 3 is $20 more than the previous model.  But even at $68k, against the M5 it is an obvious value as it is clearly more expensive to make than the Magico. My experience with Richard Vandersteen is that he is painfully conscious of value and fair pricing.  Am I wrong?  Tell me how.  I will happily stand corrected.  But bare in mind, this is not a casual observation, but one based on massive research.  While don’t make loudspeakers, I do have a clear understanding of the manufacturing process. And please don’t resort to the nonsense that Wilson uses off-the-shelf drivers that Focal sells for cars as Mikey G did in his post. This kind nonsense just insults everyone’s intelligence.

But then, Mr. Valin seems to take some pleasure in that.
 

• reply

Kevin,
Sorry to bicker, but you are factually wrong on a number on things. 
Unless Vandersteen is buying his tweeter from Magico, they are not the same.  Magico does not use an off the shelf tweeter, as a careful examination of the tweeter will reveal, and they do make their own drivers.  My understanding of Vandersteen's other drivers also comes from my conversation with him at the CES 3 days ago.  I give Richard all the credit in the world, like Magico, they do good basic research into drivers, but he will be the first to tell you it's to a price point as that is his style.
The Wilson midrange is an off the shelf unit with a Wilson flange, give me your email and I'll send you the part number from Madisound. I am not saying it's not good, but hardly the same as Magico's.
I know you've done massive research, but when you inject "powered and actively adjustable sub-bass" as a value proposition you are being silly.  You can buy this from Velodyne for $500, so your point is?
Love the defense of your not liking the 90k price, as "other people agree".  Sorry, maybe a better standard is available?
I don't build any of these products, neither do you. My non-massive research points to Magicos costing more to build-but let's say they cost $.03 to build.  Who cares?  If you can figure out how to build a time machine for $312 I hope you will have the good sense to sell it for what it's worth-you deserve to for your ingenuity.  If Magico sells none, then the market will have decided it's too much.
Finally, have some fun-ask Vandersteen what he thinks about Wilson's speakers, drivers, and measured results. 
 
 
 
 
 

• reply

Oh, one more thing:
"It is my understanding that Magico OEMs his cabinets from another vender whereas Wilson and Vandersteen build their won in house – this inefficient approach may partially explain the overly inflated price."
So now your argument is that Magico building drivers in house is more efficient than Wilson's buying from Focal and others, right?
Gosh, logic sucks when it doesn't go your way, huh?
 
 

• reply

This is why I religiously avoid the forums and so-called blogs.  They are filled with pseudo-intellectuals and conspiracy theorists.  I LIKED THE MAGICO.  READ THE POSTs.  But this not change the facts around their manufacture and Valin’s irresponsible and agenda-filled  report.  Signing off now.  You guys continue to bottom feed.  Kevin, Dave, and Dick.

• reply

 
Kevin,
You called the factory, that is nice. I am sure they will tell you they are using a $30 midrange unit in their $150K loudspeakers. I am also sure they told you that the X or M or F material is simple phenolic resin. Which is, like MDF, an inferior material for loudspeaker enclosures. Also, if you wish, take a Wilson tour on line and look at the inside construction of his products (http://www.audio-components.de/seiten/wilson/factory_tour/factory_tour.htm ). All his bracing is made with MDF. Kind of interesting giving the fact that he promotes otherwise. But I am sure that if you call them, they will say it is the new WAFY material, and you should like that (WAFY stand for "we are f&^#king you"). Anyway hate to say it but you are, apparently, an idiot.
 

• reply

 <<I agree with Robert's evaluation completely.>>
 
I am at a complete loss to understand you and whatever point you're trying to make. ROBERT AND I SAID VIRTUALLY THE SAME THING, for crying out loud, in virtually the same words (although we wrote our blogs entirely independently, which should tell anyone but you and your pals something about how we heard the same speaker in the same way).
 
My larger point, BTW, isn't just restricted to the great M5. Something is happening in this industry--what I've called a "quiet revolution" (and I mean "quiet" here quite literally). The M5s happen to be what I think is (and believe will prove on review to be) a standard-setting example of this trend. But the M5s aren't the only examples. The MartinLogan CLXes (to which the M5s bear an uncanny resemblance in some ways), the Soulution and other electronics, the latest generation magnetic-suspension turntables, certain phono cartridges, and certain digital sources are also examples. Things are bettter in the high end--not just a little better or a little different, but better in a big and important way. Colorations that we have simply come to expect--the old dichotomous categories (light/dark, warm/cool, yin/yang, musical/analytical, etc.)--just aren't there (or there in the same abundance) anymore. It is truly wonderful, after nearly forty-five years in this hobby, to see and hear this.
 
For you to turn a blog post extolling the M5s as a paradigmatic example of this most marvelous trend into some sort of agenda on my part (for what I do not know)--without seeing, BTW, what I will have to say about the Wilson MAXX IIIs (which are the best Wilson loudspeakers BY FAR I've ever heard at a show), the new Vandersteens (which are the best Vandersteens BY FAR I've ever heard at a show), and some of these farchachdat and almost counter-intuitive tempered-glass-enclosed speakers--and also to claim that Magicos--high among the most original and brilliantly designed and engineered loudspeakers in the world--are some sort of assemblage of store-bought parts and that Mundorf "designs" Magico's crossovers, that Scanspeak "designs" Magico's ring-radiator tweeter, that Magico's NanoTec drivers are "designed" by some third party, that the Mini II's or the M5's incredible enclosures (the most acoustically inert I know of in the most difficult of all boxes to build--a sealed chamber) are OEM'd, and, in the same breath (and with no offense intended to Wilson, whose new speaker, as I just said, is very much a part of this quiet revolution), to claim that Wilson's drivers are somehow superior examples of current technology and that its X-material is some sort of breakthrough that leaves Magico's birch-and-aluminum enclosures in the dust is just....well, beyond belief.

• reply

2. Magico may have some hand in the design of these drivers, but they are also largely OEM’d – not built by them in house.  Here I mean the so called Nono-Tec drivers.  These drivers may be the brainchild of Mr. Wolf, but most of the elements are not built by Magico.  Period.  Just like the midrange driver of the Wilson, the mid of the Vandy, etc.  Most of these companies are far too small to pull-off a project of this magnitude.  So what?  It may be a great driver.  It may even be revolutionary.  But in approach of its manufacture, i.e., how Magico gets the darn thing made, it is no different than many other loudspeaker companies, including Wilson and Vandersteen

3. The tweeter in the Magico is a Scanspeak unit – not their design and not built by them.  Again, get your facts straight.

Anyone that know the even the least bit about drivers will tell you that the M5 (V3 as well) tweeter is the Scanspeak Revelator.  See Tymphany's site here: http://www.tymphany.com/r2904_700009

See shot of the Magico V3 here: http://www.magico.net/?d=03_Products/02_V3/1.html

So what? It's a great tweeter used by several manufacturers -- including as I said, in the Vandersteen V7.  But, unlike what you keep insisting, it's an OEM product.

So Bored and Pissed, please get a clue before you make stupid statements.  Again: Get your facts straight.

• reply

Upon further reflection I see that I have been unfair.
Unfair to JV and crediting his observation, that is :).
The sea change you allude to is quite significant.  The Clearaudios are now approaching the naturalness of the Koetsu, and the Koetsus are more linear than ever.  There are several great tables and arms available with equally low colorations and noise floors. The best solid state (Solution, ASR, Gryphon, Lamm, Boulder) has most of the liquidity and presentation not unlike the best tubes (esp CAT monos and Lamm Ml-3).  And digital sucks a lot less lately too :) (my bad). And finally, there are speakers with low enough colorations that they approach the neutrality of elecronics.  The Magicos are clearly a great example of this.  A nice benefit to the bleeding edge audiophile, I feel, is that working with synergies and complementary colorations may soon be a thing of the past.

• reply

 The same ("off-the-ScanSpeak-shelf") tweeter, eh, in the Mini II (or V3) and the M5? Dig the big brain on Kevin!

OK. Here's the ScanSpeak Super Revelator in the Magico Mini II (it is the topmost driver, in case you don't know):
 

 
Perhaps you will notice--oh, hell, perhaps you won't--the flange which attaches the tweeter (via bolts) to the aluminum faceplate of the Mini II. Now let's take a look at the raw driver on the very Web site that you referred us to at www.tymphany.com/r2904_700009.

 
Attached directly to the back of that flange is the electro-magnetic motor of the driver. You cannot remove the flange to which the motor is attached without removing or damaging the motor and destroying the tweeter. Clear so far?
 
Here is the (according-to-you) "same off-the-shelf ScanSpeak" tweeter in the M5 (the tweeter, BTW, is the top driver, just in case you don't know):
 

 
Do you see any difference? On the off chance that you don't, take a look at the flange. Why it's gone! What became of it, pray tell? More importantly, what became of the all-important motor attached directly to that flange? You can't take the flange off the tweeter without damaging or destroying the motor. So where did the motor go? Could it be--I know this is a wild guess--but could it be that this isn't the same tweeter? Could it be that Wolf & Co. designed an entirely different motor for this tweeter, had ScanSpeak build the ring-radiator diaphragm apparatus, and then Magico itself attached its own motor to the ScanSpeak diaphragm?  Yes, this is still a ring-radiator (ScanSpeak holds the patent on that) and, yes, the diaphragm is still manufactured by ScanSpeak. But off-the-shelf? The same tweeter? Uh, I don't think so.
 
But don't let little things like facts get in the way, Kevin.
 
 
 

• reply

How come so many of you carping guys don't identify yourselves when you post? Is it possible there are some, shall we say, competitive "commercial considerations" involved? I'd hate to think that, Anonymous #1000. Of course, a name or a disclaimer would help. In any case, Kevin is not correct and his description is 100% wrong (as are his facts) and so are yours.
 
Now, to be honest, I wasn't crazy about some of the music in the Magico room, either. And I thought it was often being played back too loud. But then, as I've made clear in my reviews, I'm not a big fan of big wind-band and orchestral showpieces and I tend to listen at lower levels. I would have much preferred to hear more (smaller-scale) music that I know and like rather than CES showstoppers. This said, to conflate the kind of music being played back on a speaker with the "musicality" of the speaker is like saying that the picture on a Pioneer Kuro TV isn't very good because you're watching Rocky III on it. 
 
In addition, though some of the music wasn't to my taste (how many times can anyone listen to "Crown Imperial," for God's sake, without throwing up his hands in surrender or enlisting in the Coldatream Guards?), it is unfair and untrue to call Reference Recordings "hi-fi." Of all the "audiophile labels," it is perhaps the least hi-fi-sounding. Indeed, its recordings are superbly balanced and rather distantly staged. If you simply have to listen to "Crown Imperial" then RR's would be the version to listen to (unless of course you had a turntable in the room and a plum-label British Band Classics hanging about).
 
More essentially, it is absurdly wrong to say that the M5's bass was discontinuous or that the music being played (and it wasn't all showstoppers) did not allow a listener to hear delicate (and not so delicate) instrumental textures and colors or that the recordings were low in spatial cues. (BTW, anonymous, exactly what is the difference between "timbral" and "harmonic" accuracy? Only someone who knows nothing about music would make a distinction of a redundancy.) Indeed, as Robert has pointed out in his own blog, the M5's bass was one of the speaker's most outstanding features, although "outstanding" is the wrong word because it was anything but. When the volume was properly set (as it was, after some insistence on my part, at the private listening session on Thursday night), I've not heard bass that was more seamlessly integrated with the rest of the presentatiom, faster in transient response, higher in resolution, lower in the usual peakiness and Doppler-like distortions, or more accurate in timbre and texture than this from a dynamic speaker at a trade show.

• reply

I disagree with both of you. Perhaps you forget that the CES is a trade show. It is not intended to please and/or serve the crowd. If you wish to hear your own music, you should go to a dealer or, if you are a reviewer, get a sample to review. I have been to countless shows around the world and almost always cringe when someone asks to play a disk. There is about 60% chance that the disc would be unlistenable for a verity of reasons. I never understood why manufactures will expose themselves to this punishment. Not to mention that it almost never fails in driving people out of the room.

• reply

 Roy,
 
For a "verity of reasons"? I like that!
 
Yes, CES is a trade show and an elevator is an elevator. Does that mean you have to play elevator music all day long? Speaking for myself, the only way I can get anything like a fix on what I'm listening to is to hear music I'm intimately familiar with and actually respond to emotionally and intellectually. Moreover, I think the odds of driving other people out of a room for a verity of reasons are probably at least as low (or high) if you're playing back, say, Joan Baez's "Gospel Ship" or Monk's "Epistrophy"  rather than the Dallas Wind Ensemble's "Crown Imperial" at 90+dB SPLs.
 
Anyway, that's what I think.
 
Johann
 
 

• reply

"This just isn't what I heard, buddy." I have to agree on that. In fact, I thought that none of the mention rooms actually had any real low bass to speak off. Especially, in comparison to even the Magico V2s which to me were the real star of the show (..Well I can’t afford the M5). The usual ported uncontrollable midbass mass was evident to my ears in all these rooms. In particular, the Hansen/CAT room. Sorry for my spelling blunders, although as you just noticed, sometime I manage to be even more expressive when I make them.

• reply

I also heard lots of other things then RR myself and when I asked for Jazz, Alon was more than happy to play some for me. I did not find the sound to be too loud. Not when you comparing it to a typical MBL presentation.

• reply

Jon, I totally agree I was just trying to point out the possible reasons but I too  brought a half a dozen discs I know by heart  to hear. I have played these on my V.3, CLX and Grands and wanted to hear how the M5 did with them. I was disappointed that I could not hear them but I understand where he is coming from.
I had the MBL guy at the demo of the 101e play two seconds of one of my discs and pull it off and when I looked at him and stood up to leave he asked me what was wrong and my girlfriend was embarrassed as I walked by him with a look of distain and a shrug. He pissed me off and so I left. I did not bring any junk to the show just some amazing recordings of really good music, not audiophile doo doo that he insisted on playing.  The perfect 8 guys loved what I brought and made me play more and the Soulutions guys let me play all of my stuff so there are differences in thought.
He did play some things I knew but........alas...... the appetizers were great just didn't get to eat he main course
 

• reply

I've enjoyed following the spirited discussion in this thread though I do have an innocent, perhaps naive question: Could it be possible that, to some degree, everyone is "right" about what they heard in the Magico room? Might it be possible that the music selections and experience that one person had on a given day in that room could have been different from another person's experience at a different time, day, musical selection and even volume, therefore coloring (no pun intended) their opinion about the performance of the speaker? Never having attended a trade show such as CES or RMAF I'm just wondering, as I occasionally read reviews of identical products in several audio magazines, both offline and online, and sometime read reviewer impressions that seem to contradict one another. Of course, I'm sure when you factor in variables such as ancillary equipment, room, music selection, etc. that can explain some, if not most of it, (none of which apply in a trade show context) but the thought did cross my mind while reading all of the previous posts related specifically to the sound of the M5's. That said, I'm a huge fan of TAS, as well as both JV's and RH's writing. To me, you have an enviable job!

• reply

 <<Could it be possible that, to some degree, everyone is "right" about what they heard in the Magico room?>>
 
Chris,
 
First of all, thank you.
 
Second, this is a very thoughtful post, but before I  tell you why I think it is so thoughtful let me draw a distinction: It is one thing to differ about the sound one hears in a hotel room at any given hour of a trade show; it is quite another to misrepresent the technology that has gone into making the product that you're listening to. Now I feel KH and some of his cronies have done both, but the worse offense, in my mind, is the latter. People can reasonably disagree about the M5's sonics; to claim that the M5's tweeter, crossover, midrange, woofer, and enclosure are all store-bought off-the-shelf items is just not true. 
 
Now...to get to your point. When I first went into the Magico M5 room early Thursday morning, the sound I heard was not the sound I've blogged about. This was the first hour of the first day of the show, and nothing in the room had "settled" in. At around 9 am on Thursday morning I thought the speaker was a touch bright, and  I thought the bass was a touch heavy. The M5 was still ultra-high in resolution everywhere, but it didn't quite cohere.
 
I next heard the M5 at around 9 pm on Thursday night--when the entire system was no longer competing with every other room and floor for electricity and there were no other speakers blaring through walls or doors and it was just Robert and I and Alon listening--and it sounded the way I've blogged about: It was phenomenal! I've never heard a cone speaker that sounded that much like an electrostat without any sacrifice of anything a cone speaker brings to the table in the way of frequency extension, dynamics, staging, imaging, and dimensionality.
 
I deliberately returned to the M5 room several times over the next three days--to see if what I'd heard on Thursday night was an anomaly. It was not. I cannot say that the M5 showed as supremely well during the daytime (with all those other speakers going in all those other rooms) as it did under far-more-ideal condiitons on Thursday evening, but it was still plainly best of show (even though it was sometimes being played too loudly and the music--at least for me--often was a bore).
 
Now I've had this very same experience before--with the Magico M6s, the MBL 101 X-Tremes, Wilson MAXXes, the TAD Model Ones, and recently the Focal Grande Utopia EM, among many, many, many others. Some speakers show well no matter what the circumstances; they are easy to please and not at all demanding (or as demanding) of setup and ancillaries. Ultimately, they do not have he same sonic potential, either. But speakers like the Magicos and  the others I've mentioned are thoroughbreds; they need what they need and they won't show their best until and unless they get it. 
 
So, to answer your question, yes, it is possible that we all heard what we heard and that what we're differing about is how we would characterize what we heard. However, even allowing for this, I don't think anyone who listened to the M5s (even very early on Thursday morning)  could fairly characterize its sound in the way that some of the posters have here, with references to a phasiness, graininess, resonance, and midband coloration that it never showed no matter when I heard it played.
 
This said, it is a fact that I had an indisputable (and maybe unfair) advantage over them--I heard the speakers sound  the best they could sound in a hotel room; they perhaps did not.
 
Jon

• reply

<<His tactic is to treat his opponents as if they’re retarded, suggesting than anyone that disagree with him is simply stupid.>>
 
Did I treat David as if he were stupid, Kevin? Or Chris? Or Roypan? Or Elliot? Or Mikey? Or Discman? Or Alessandro? Or Ben-H?  
 
L'il ol' ethically retarded me thinks that you are talking out of so many sides of your mouth it ain't funny anymore. You have implied that because Magico buys a part from Mundorf Mundorf is then responsible for its crossovers. You have outright said--although you deny it now--that the tweeter in the V3 is the same Revelator that is used in the M5. It isn't. (And you still don't have the balls to admit you were wrong.) You have implied that because Magico has its crossbraced cabinets milled from solid blocks of birch plywood by one of the finest cabinet makers in Denmark (and one of the only cabinet makers in the world that can actually do this extraordinarily difficult and demanding work) that it doesn't design its own enclosures. You have questioned why a speaker, which, as Roypan just noted, uses extraordinarily expensive and difficult-to-manufacture parts (some of which are OEM'd, just like everybody else's are, for goodness sake--where do you think Wilson gets its drivers and capacitors, from the Good Driver and Capacitor Fairy?) should cost as much as it does, as if it were a rip-off. Is that your idea of ethical intelligence? God help Alon Wolf if he does, indeed, have to depend on you "to keep him in business."

• reply

JV,
How do the M5s compare to your listening experienc of the Grand Exquisites on your trip to Turkey.  I know there is an apples and orange comparison when we speak price.  but i am trying to get an idea of how good the M5s are and i have heard similar set-ups to those you heard in Turkey.
BH

• reply

How about getting back to the subject. How do you JV, compare the M5 to the Grand Exquisites you heard in Europe?

• reply

I suppose you are right. I thought that the loiminchays were one of the worst offenders at the show. Just one big mishmash to my ears. In any case, I think that it is crazy to make any purchase decision in a show.

• reply

Jon, I came home and when I went to work on Tuesday the first thing I did was go into my sound room and listen to the same things I heard at the show on my reference system. It is truely hard to compare what you hear at the show to something in another room, with different electronics, cables, power etc. I was taken by how good most of the products were at the show compared to previous years. I truely believe that we have entered a new era in home music reproduction with this new generation of  equipment that allows us all to hear much more with much less coloration, character and distortions. I was really impressed with all the new speakers that I heard and how much better they were and the digital that fed them has become. There are a great deal of CD and DAC's that have moved the bar much further along and not by a little bit in the last few months and all of this will push the envelope further and further. I spoke to a few of my friends in the last few days and they all seemed to feel much the same way. I did hear the Loiminshays and I would not have put them in the  top group of really outstanding things I heard but that other gentleman certainly may have had a better listening experience than I did. I also heard the Wilson's with Boulder and I must say that what we heard in there was not even close to the room with the Lamm's. I guess sometimes it depends when you walk in, how crowded it is and of course what they are playing.  In many rooms I did not sit and play my discs and that depended on how many people were there, if there was music playing already and what my impressions were. I know that it is not the fairest way but my interest is not that of a reviewer but if the product might  be of interest to me to sell or just to see what the competition is offering.  I did not see everything but I might add I also heard the Giya at the Mirage and Phillip had some amazing software and a good showing as well. BTW I was disappointed that i could ot hear the Pans, and the contraption they did have was to be honest nothing to speak of and looked like something from Monsters , Inc.

• reply

JV,
Thanks for your reply on the Grand vs. M5.  It is probably unlikely to get those two into a room for a side by side.  But from what you are saying in your later blog about the Wilson vis a vis the Boulder vs. the Lamm as it relates to your hearing preference, I think  it would be interesting to to receive feedback in your TAS report on the M5s the impact of playing the M5s with a system renowned for a bit of color (gorgeous sound) Kondo, Zanden or a Lamm vs. a very neutral sound such as the Solutions.  not to minimize the M5s but it sounds in part that a lot of your joy for the M5s is coming from the set-up behind it as much as the ability of the speaker to portray the neutrality of that set-up.  I think this would be be helpful and very interesting for TAS readers to understand.  from my experience, i have found that the "gorgeous" sound is desired by many music lovers; however, as people have more and more experience with hi end equipment, they progress (move to) an appreciation of that neutral sound.  you more than anyone are probably in that level given that this is your career.  but i think a report on the above request creates a helpful visual for us to determine what components of the system are doing what and how the M5 handles those components.
thanks,
BH

• reply

BH, These are all very interesting points and there is one, very interesting fact, that support your observation. The V2, one room below the M5 was played with a 90W CAT tube amp. A completely different setup, and yet, to my ears, on a different scale, just as special as the M5.

• reply

 Elliot,
 
Thanks for the clarification. 
 
The Boulder didn't sound at all harsh when I was in the room (it was also the combo that Robert extolled in his Best of Show Blog), but, given the way you and I seem to have heard so many other things alike, I believe that the sound must have been not-so-hot when you visited the room. You know Vegas electricity is infamously "iffy" (just think of all those neon signs and light bulbs up and down The Strip!), and it is quite possible--maybe even likely--that fluctuations in current were affecting the sound in various rooms, plus big amps like the Boulder 2050s with 80 output transistors and 48 filter capacitors really suck up the juice.
 
Jon

• reply

We seem to now have gone past musical with caveats and accurate with exception and have gotten to musical and accurate. We are going to need to need some new vocabulary because the "old style" colorations seem to have been pushed aside and with these new transducers .  I would catagorize these changes as revolutionary not evolutionary and they are occuring all at once and from different areas as well.  Digital has taken giant steps, transistor electronics and speakers seemed to have made giant leaps in a short time and we have a whole new world of super cables and power devices,  now let us hope the recession ends so that maybe we can afford them!

• reply

<<Accurate should be musical. It was simply never really accurate. We have always mistaken upper mid and treble push as transparency. But let’s not get carried away here, this is not a trend. Most of what I have heard at the show was still same old same…>>
 
This is an exceptionally astute observation, Roy. (Perhaps we should get you to write for us as I tried to get sacduser to do--speaking of whom, what has happened to sacduser and wslam?) You're right and you're right: It simply was never really accurate and only a fraction of the stuff at the show was "New School"; there was still plenty of "Old" (like, IMO, the Wilson MAXX Series III) and a good deal of stuff in-between (like the Vandersteen Model Seven). But I still think there was enough New School gear there (and I've recently heard enough in my home--like the Soulution electronics--including its CD player--the MartinLogan CLXes, the Da Vinci 'table/arm/cartridge) to qualify if not as a full-blown trend at least a mini one. I agree with what Elliot said: Digital and transistor electronics are so much better--not across the board, mind you, but in several specific instances--that it has rather shocked an old ARC-tube-aholic and analog-aholic like me (although to be fair to ARC it has been steadily moving toward a New Schoolish or, at least, In-Betweenish sound, incorporating solid-state virtues quite successfully in a tube context).

• reply

You don't have to apologize, Elliot. I was the one who started this "trend" talk. And I agree with what you say: There is enough new stuff out there (and there was enough at the show) to make me very hopeful about the future of high-end audio (at least, from a sonic standpoint).

• reply

That, I'm afraid, is beyond my ken, although the Magico V2 and MartinLogan CLX aren't entirely unaffordable, and even if the Soulution gear costs an arm and a leg it ain't as ungodly expensive as some of its competition, while Pass, Spectral, Edge, and ARC electronics remain the great deals they have always been.

• reply

 Antonio,
 
I'm a big fan of both Rockport and Magico loudspeakers (I reviewed the Rockport Hyperions in TAS many moons ago and, driven by two pairs of the, alas, now-extinct Tenor 75Wps, they were phenomenally realistic in timbre and texture--pantheon-worthy loudspeakers.) Of course, I would be interested in reviewing the Altair--the only problem being I'm already slated to review the M5s and fitting both in the same room is impossible. (It's gonna take the Elam Bros. just to get the M5s into my house and upstairs into my listening room.) However, I would happily review Andy's Altairs (if he wants me to) at a later point, although getting a single-piece 515-pound speaker up three flights of stairs and into my listening room might be beyond even the Elam Bros substantial capabilities. 
 
I certainly liked the Rockport Aquila at CES, which, though a mite dark in balance in the room they were in, sounded otherwise gorgeous on "Rainy Night in Georgia," with fine focus, very good resolution, and Andy's patented (and very true-to-life) sense of musical relaxation. The speaker was equally impressive on "Keys to the Highway"--very realistic. 
 
Jon

• reply

I agree. I thought that the Rockport were overly warm and somewhat “fat” sounding. I never cared for side firing woofers, as they simply do not make sense from an engineering or performance perspective.

• reply

Scan again. Just about anyone that has some sort of show ranking gave the Magico’s rave coverage. Hell, SS just gave it Showstoppers, daily highlights and standout demos all together.

• reply

Has it occurred to you that we got there first? If you don't think audio reviewing is a bloodsport, think again. (And I can attest to this better than most.)
 
But even Atkinson, for what it's worth, just called the M5s: "Awesome. Simply effortlessly awesome." (Of course, if Stereophile is still around to review it next fall, he may end up rating it: "Awesome, but limited in low bass." Seeing the V3 went down to 20Hz in his room by his own measurements and got a "limited in the low end" ranking, I would guess the M5s would have to go down flat to, oh, 3Hz to qualify as full-range.) BTW, John-boy, it's "Soulution" not "Solutions."
 
I would also point out that Magico speakers have been named Products of the Year in Japan and Germany, garnering raves in magazines that generally don't rave. We ain't the only ones who think highly of this stuff.

• reply

BH,
 
The revolution, if it can be fairly called that, is a substantial reduction of noise and coloration that has made it harder to describe products in the old language of high-end audio, and you can hear it in select loudspeakers, amplifiers, preamplifiers, and analog and digital sources. It used to be (and, as has been pointed out, still is to a large extent) that audio gear was easily "stereotyped" in dichotomous ways: warm/cool, bright/dark, musical/analytical, tube/transistor, analog/digital, ad infinitum. What all these "opposites" were really describing were a set of distortions and colorations that we either liked or didn't like, all conveniently summed up by an adjective. 
 
Today I would be harder put to describe the sound of, say, the Soulution 710 amplifier via the old lexicon of dichotomous adjectives. It doesn't seem to have a sound of its own (or as much of one); rather it seems to sound more like whatever is played back through it. How, you might fairly ask, do I know this, since I wasn't at any of the recording or mastering sessions? Well, I don't know this for sure. But I do know that I am hearing more and more deeply into each and every mix. I am hearing what the recording and mastering engineers did or didn't do in a way that I've never heard before. I am hearing great records sound better than ever, and bad records sound worse. I am hearing an abundance of fresh, previously obscured details of pitch, intensity, timbre, and duration that I've never heard before on each and every recording. I am hearing an expansion of dynamic range that is the result of pianissimos being reproduced not just clearly but clearly and softly. (I don't have to turn up the volume to make soft passages clearer—like turning up the volume on TV to catch the dialogue—and because I do not have to turn up the volume  I'm not making both soft and loud passages too loud, destroying dynamic contrasts.) This is all relatively new to my experience of high-end audio. And the benefit is—at least with the best recordings—a greater sense of realism.
 
JV

• reply

 BH,
 
I don't think you'd go far wrong with any of the speakers you've been considering. But I don't think you'll be happy with "not going far wrong"; what you want is to get things exactly right. Unfortunately, I can't decide for you which speaker you should buy. I can highly recommend the Soulution electronics with the speakers I've heard them driving: the MartinLogan CLXes, the Magico Mini IIs, and the Magico M5s. (And I'm pretty sure that they'd do a helluva job with Focal Grande Utopias or Kharma Grand Exquisites or Rockport Hyperions or Wilson MAXX 3s or Magico M6s.) I can also highly recommend the MartinLogan CLXes and the Mini IIs, as I've lived with both and think each is superb, although each has--what is that phrase?--"limited bass."
 
If you can wait a bit before making your decision, then I've got the M5s coming to my house (maybe as soon as next week). Once they're settled in, I will start a thread on our Forum covering what I hear. (I will also be listening to the M5s with Audio Research electronics, including the 610T amplifiers, which remain my favorite tube amps and which, although more "tubey" and less neutral than Soulution gear, I also highly recommend with CLXes and Mini IIs.) 
 
If it eases your mind any, it wasn't just the Soulution electronics that impressed me about the M5s in Vegas. It was the speakers themselves, which, for the umpteenth time, sounded like CLXes but with far superior frequency extension and dynamics and all the other virtues of cones. No amp all by itself can turn that trick.
 
Be a little patient and I will post in detail about the M5s soon.
 
JV
 
 

• reply

BH,
THe situation you describe is a difficult one to address on many levels. I have not heard the Scala at all. I was in France at trhe new line introduction but at that time they did not have a pair for us to hear. I have Diablo's and Grands in my shop. I therefore can't really give you an opinion. I will tell you that I am not a bass challenged kind of guy. I like to hear all the music and IMHO without the foundation of the music it leaves me empty. This is of course my taste and not everyones. I heard the Mini's at the show with the Soulutions and they sounded really good ut with the bass caveat which I just explained is not my preference. I have and prefer the V3 since it is a fulll range speaker. I know this is a tough question but what exactly did you not like about the Grand's? I think that you in the end of course have to satisfy yourself as to what you want in your own home but please rememeber tghat the room plays a large part in the sound especially when buying a big speaker.I thought the M5's at the show sounded great as well. I wish I ould have listened to some of my own music and hope someday to have them in my own room but alas in this economy and being a small dealer in Florida that is not economically feasable right now.  I agree with Jon that the products you mention are all really exceptional and the personal part is for you to ad. I can tell you that my Grand's have blwon everyone away that has listened to them and I do not have the huge selection of assocaited hardware that Mr. Singer has available. I know I would love the chance to play with a pair of M5's in my room but as stated I don't think that will happen in the very near future.
BTW how large is your listening room? Dimensions?  I too love the 610t's and I thought the Soulutions sounded amazing and hope to get a chance to try them in my store sometime soon .
My best advise is at the end of your journey you need to satisfy yourdelf and make sure that whatever you purchase that if you can't do it yourself that you find someone that can set it up so that it proforms as advertised.

• reply

Roy, I don't want to pick a fight but you dismiss these things so off handedly. Have you had the Soulutions in your system? You got to hear the Grand's with Spectral ( your choice?) in your room? with your music?
You have the right to your opinion but its just a one man survey. 
By the way I have heard both and I totally disagree with you about which sounds better. I own both the Grands( which are totally different in sound than the old ones) and theV3 along with the CLX and they are ALL new school IMHO. One last item Sir I have listened in many places as well and I will agree that I am usually underwhelmed but I don't think that makes all the gear crap it just means it in many cases is not set up well and is not in a good room. 
 

• reply

Roy, I did not mean to put anything in your mouth it was my convenient way to catagorize all the bad sound in the world into a singular word, excuse me if that came accross wrong. In my store the EM's have the best bass that I have ever heard...anywhere. The speaker is a precision instrument with a lot of control and flexibility. I don't know where you heard it or when but I do know that it takes a long time to break in and and even more time to get right. I have been through this process with other large speakers and I do know that they are much more difficult to get right than the V.3, or V.2 or other similar size speakers. The CLX is far better than any stat I have ever heard in almost anyway, it does lack some bottom for sure but it lacks the stat sound I have lived with my whole life and does not sound like listening through some small window as many of the past have exhibited. The CLX's play loud, don't arc and have incredible transparency that none before have exhibited... Old School indeed. The Soulutions are rocket fast, dead quiet, play like they are power unlimited and have in my short time with them nothing that i can hang my hat on as to their sound (I  am not a dealer BTW) old school indeed ..again. I am not saying that Spectral is not good that is the farthest thing from the truth it is an excellent product and my position with them is VERY personal. I can't deal with RF and I almost sued them which would have been the first time in my life I ever sued anyone. May I ask where you heard the Grands? Show?
I want to again state the many speakers , the V3 being one of them, is not really difficult to set up. This is a good thing BTW. I found that after I had mine broken in it took a very short time to make them sing. I also had little difficulty with the CLX and I suspect the V2 will also be easy. The M5 I have not played with yet but my guess is they will take a bit more work to do.
I want to give you one more example. I have heard the Monster MBL's at the show and they plain out sucked! The room was bad, they played way too loud and to be frank I thought this was a bad joke. That however does not mean the speaker sucks! I respect JV's opinion and I did get a chance to hear the 101e's this year with a very different result. I respectful suggest that maybe you did not hear the product or products at their best. If you had the soulutions on YOUR V3 in your home perhaps your opinion would change.
I  have only heard a handful of superior systems in my whole life and I appreaciate how hard is is too make that happen. Lot's of good very few great and that Sir is all about the set up and room.

• reply

 Elliot and Roy,
 
As you know if you read my review in Issue 190, I agree with Ellot about the CLX: It is the best electrostat I've heard and one of the best speakers I've heard, although I grant your point Roy--there are some who will find the CLX's lack of low-bass a disqualifer. I do not. Anymore than I found the Mini II's lack of low end a disqualifier (though frankly the Mini II goes lower than the CLX).
 
On Soulution versus Spectral...I've not made the comparison, so I can't say. People I know and trust who have told me that the Soulution is the superior amp and preamp, but that the Spectral retains an edge in the front end (a lot of folks think it is the best CD player). Speaking for myself, I've never heard better--which is to say, higher resolution, more transparent, more colorless, more realistic--solid-state electronics than the Soulution (including its CD player) in my home.
 
On Magico V3s versus Magico Mini IIs...I've made it clear in the past where I stand on this. They're both great; I prefer the Minis. (And did at the show this year, again,)
 
On Old School versus New School...I'm kinda sorry now that I started using these words as they are so imprecise. Roy says Spectral is Old School, Soulution New (but he prefers the Spectral). However, one could easily argue that Spectral is as New School as anything out there with its pioneering use of cutting-edge technologies in design and build, its superb measured response, and its utterly neutral sound (and it's nearly unbeatable value-for-dollar). The fact that Roy admits to preferring something Old School seems to me to be the more important point.
 
The way I look at it, the proof of the pudding is in the listening, and if you are hearing things you haven't heard before (without losing things you have) and the entire presentation is demonstrably and repeatedly higher in resolution, lower in noise and coloration, and (with the best sources) more lifelike, then something has been improved, and what difference does it make how?
 
I'm not as concerned--and never have been--about how a company gets from X to Z as their getting there, although it does seem that the very best stuff has these things in common: 1) cutting-edge design, often using computer simulation; 2) superb build with the highest-possible-quality (and best-sounding) parts. some of them custom-made, and the highest-possible-quality construction techniques; 3) superior measurable response (particularly harmonic distortion);  4) a transparency to sources that allows you to hear low-level performance details that have been more difficult to make out in the past much more clearly--rather in the same way that a great center-channel in a home theater system can improve the audibility of dialogue; 5) an audible expansion of dynamic range (particularly on the p-to-pppp side) with a concomittant increase in lifelike dynamic scale; 6) a large reduction in the noise, grain, and color being imposed on the music by the component--so marked that anyone can readily hear it; and 7) an increased sense of "realism" on the best source material.
 
Old School or New, if a product gets to 7) that's all that counts for me.
 
Jon

• reply

Thanks for the offer Elliot,
Unfortunately, i wont be back from Africa by then.  i will keep doing demos before making the final trigger and that will include more time with the Utopias.  i agree on the sub's as i was impressed with the EM.  the kharma's definitely didn't need the subs either, it was more a compliment to the DD1812 (i listened to Kharma's without) they are truly amazing, absolute compliment to any system.  The Utopia's didn't dissappear in my sessions.  it might be that they weren't fully broken in yet, i'll find out.
I'l keep updated on the posts and let people know what i hear.
Thanks,
BH

• reply

Take a look at this, boys: www.magico.net/ 

• reply

 Simon,
 
I thought the Parsifal/VTL system I heard in Cambridge was a tad warm and tubey, nicely detailed (though not super-transparent like CLXes or M5s with Soulution or ARC electronics), lively in dynamics, very three-dimensional in imaging, and beguilingly lovely sounding. It was a sweet, airy, spacious, relatively modest, quite affordable system with a world-class front end. 
 
Jon

• reply

 Joe,
 
Goodness gracious, thanks! (And gimme a call one of these days.)
 
Jon

• reply

SUMMING IT ALL UP.
 
Dear All:
 
I feel compelled to put my two cents in and sum all this up.
 
There is no doubting Mr Valin and his creditials, and most importantly, his ears.
 
Here are MY concerns.
 
1) I guess the original Nay Sayer here was concerned with the following, and I see his points.
 
Mr Valin proclaimed, when it comes down to it, the Magico M 5 was the best sound he had ever heard at a show, or anywhere else, and the M 5 was very far ahead in its performance from any other speaker he has heard.

Fair enough. But to proclaim that, which I am not disputting, (I did not hear them) then to go on to say a review will be forthcoming...begs the question...but for what purpose? There is already a conlcusion, signed, sealed and delivered. What would be the point of the review, since we know what the outcome will be?
 
2) It does seem that Mr. Valin enjoys creating an exclusive cult around certain products. In the last issue of TAS, the MBL flagship was the most realistic and impressive speaker he had heard...now a few months later, that has changed. There is an issue of credibility in the sense that it just cant get that much better...or can it? And let me say that I actaully think Mr. Valin is a good writer. I did enjoy his MBL review for his sheer passion. Which leads me to another topic....
 
When Mr. Valin jumped on the Magico bandwagon which is all well and good...they had 1 or 2 dealers at most...now they have a total of FIVE dealers nationwide. How many people have actually even heard a Magico speaker?
 
Such a tiny number relative to the people involved in our hobby. Dealers, a few nutty hobbyists who travel to the shows, and writers. Mr Valin continuously uses the Magico Mini II as a point of comparison in his revies, possibly ovelooking the fact that his readers have no point of reference for it. I have heard speakers from many, but not all manufacturers, including Martin Logan, Quad, Harbeth, Spendor, Wilson etc...so I would have a point of reference on those.
 
Im making the point above strictly as reader of TAS.
 
3) An unrelated topic...can a reviewer establish a personal realtionship with a manufacturer, enjoy a factory tour, a dealer margin price, opera concerts, and other stuff and really provide an objective review? Im not accusing anyone of anythng..just a provactive question. :)
 
Pharoh Master
 
 
 
 

• reply

Roy Pan:
 
I was only going by the the Magico web site which actually lists 6 dealers now in the US, in FIVE states, including Hawaii.  Yes, if I really wanted to I could really make the effort to go hear them.
 
But, I have never bought a piece of gear without hearing it in my own system, in my room, with my music. I think that is a reasonable way to buy gear.
 
And by the way, I do find the Magico theory of taking any enclousre resonanance out of the eqaution facinating. This allows 100% of the driver energy to focus on the music. The other school of thought is that those resononace in traditional box speakers like Harbeth etc add to the music. 
 
 

• reply

I stand corrected. I did see those page tabs. Thank you. For what its worth, the Magico web site is a reall shlock job. It deserves better.

• reply

I actually like it. Especially the photos which are some of the best I have seen.
>>If he ever decides to make "budget' speakers..
You should go and listen to the V2. As I said before, IMO, the real show winner!

• reply

Many people want a written explanation to justify the money they are spending and what they or others are hearing, however as we have found in Audio this is not always the case, and in todays world not possible with the measurements we use or have. I am not a scientist, stated up front, but it seems to me that whatever we have been measuring plays some part in what we hear but it does not explain the whole thing. We look at distortion, frequency response etc. and to be frank most speakers have about the same specification but as we all hear they don't all sound the same, Why???? I have no clue and I think that people looking for the magic term or measurement are always disappointed that the Silver bullet is missing. That is not to say that some may have figured this out more than others but I haven't. I have not read Mr. Hansens paper and to be honest I have no desire to read his white paper or anyone else's since the proof is always in the hearing. I can read a cookbook but I will never be a Master chef, I read a lot about golf but Tiger has no worries from me either and in audio many want the answer to bite them and let them know that this is "IT" but alas there is no it. In the circle that includes the really good sounding products there is no way to hear them all under the same exact circumstances and that is the reason for the difference in opinions. It would be nice to hear all of these items with the same gear in the same acoustic environment but that does not exist. I think that the reviewers get to hear more of this is a controlled environement than the rest of us that actually have to buy it to see what it can do in our homes or rooms and so they may have more insight into what the differences are. My point is to use them to help cut down the choices you may be interested in and then to go out and do the best research you can and buy the one you prefer.

• reply

Jon, I totally agree. I have spent 30 plus years telling listeners there is no ONE thing.
Magico knows more than me for sure ( as does most others :) ) but I can say with certainty that its not one thing! Its not just 17 ply birch, or aluminum baffles its all the parts that make the cake.
The specs on most of this stuff is just doesn't tell the story just as a photo doesn't tell you the persons heart.
Not too much cake Jon you will loose that girlish figure!!!! Better to have Bouchon's bread!!!!

• reply

>> ..frequency response etc. and to be frank most speakers have about the same specification but as we all hear they don't all sound the same, Why????
Elliot, with all due respect, you are out of your game here. Statements like these are silly, simplistic and utterly wrong. All speakers properly assessed and measured will be anything but similar. Correlation between a good set of objective measurements and good performance are easily achieved. The problem with the people who are in Hi-End business , is a lack of basic technical understanding of the issues on hand. There is a lot more to a speaker then just a FR. But that requires a bit studying. Too much to ask of the industry to do…

• reply

Roy , please show me the measurement that explain why the Wilson Maxx 3 and The Magico M5 sound like they do and why they differ!
Please show me the same for the Watt Puppy8 and the V3.
When your done I would love to see the documetaton on the CLX vs both I really want to learn and if you know please share this with us!! I will be forever grateful,
Respectfully,
Elliot

• reply

Elliot,
 
?? Are you saying that you cannot see the measurable differences between the Watt Puppy8 and the V3 (Both on SP website)? Or are you saying that you do not understand the differences? In any case I got to catch a plane now. If you are serious, I will gladly show you why the WP and The V3 sound the way they sound based on their measurements when I get back. Have a good weekend!

• reply

 Roy,
 
Sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought you were down-rating the importance of flat frequency response, which really does matter and is quite audible. (Indeed, it was the chief difference-maker, IMO, between the old MBL 101 E and the MBL 101 X-Treme.)
 
Have a safe flight, bub.
 
JV

• reply

It looks like I wasn't alone in noticing how JV (and TAS in general) have written about Magico with a  *lot* more intensity than other rags. I guess this happens within our hobby. But it does seem a little dizzying to proclaim this speaker "best" in one category and that speaker "best" in another. With all of JV's categories, I lost count as to how many speakers represent state-of-the-art sound !!
 
It's also a shame that JV has to pick such pricy (and physically large) subjects for all his consecrations. I know for a fact that breakthroughs in transduction are happening right now at far lower prices. These (speakers) work on a different acoustic principal. It also seems silly at this point to build bass into a main speaker cabinet, being that we could do the job - better - with two corner-bass subs. But this problem goes beyond Magico - many are still building massive cabinets.
 
Finally, JV says that breakthroughs are happening right now in audio and that he "couldn't have said this a few years ago". Well, he *did* say this a few years ago - in Dec '99, in his piece "The Condition of the Condition We're In"...............
 
 
 

• reply

Byt the way JV, my question assumes all my ducks are lined up...equal break in, proper stands, good cables, proper set up etc.

• reply

Simon,
 
Merci, but I can take care of myself.
 
Jon
 
 

• reply

 JPH-22
 
Hey! Aren't you the same cheerful guy who claimed that nobody but Robert and I paid so much attention to Magico loudspeakers? And didn't I point out to you what Atkinson just said about the M5s ("Awesome! Simply effortlessly awesome!"), and didn't several other folks point out that the M5s and every other speaker Magico has made have been widely praised here and abroad, winning numerous awards? Or did you forget so soon, JPH?
 
So you think I (and all of us at TAS) recommend too many speakers in too many "categories." I'm not surprised this bewilders you (for which, see the paragraph below). Just out of curiosity, do you think that there is just ONE speaker that's right for every listener, every room, every kind of music, every budget? I cover the Cutting Edge of the high end in TAS. The products I review tend to be large and pricey--certainly well beyond anything I could afford. But some people can afford them, and many people just enjoy reading and dreaming about them. That's the way it works in this world (or did up until recently). Until I find that one speaker that does it all for everyone on every kind of music in every room and at a price point even I could handle, I will continue to recommend a "bewildering variety" of products and continue to assess their relative strengths and weaknesses and continue to point to the kinds of music and the kinds of rooms and the kinds of listeners I think they may be best suited for. 
 
Finally, you've talked about a different acoustic "principal"? What high school for the deaf would that be in, pray tell, or could it have been that you meant "principle," in which case I'd sure like to hear about this "new thing" and these new breakthroughs that you "know for a fact" are occurring at much lower price points. Gosh, no more woofers. Just corner subs and a whole new acoustic principle! Man, doesn't that sound yummy? It's no wonder I bewilder you. 
 
JV

• reply

 K-H,
 
You may not have seen it, but I did apologize for calling you an idiot. (I meant JPH-22 and Anonymous #2000, actually.) 
 
All kidding aside, I actually think it's decent of you to come back and admit you were wrong about the ScanSpeak tweeter. And if I misdescribed X material in my blog post I will correct it . (I was told by a number of people that it was compressed paper and resin, a kind of HDF.)
 
JV

• reply

Mikey G.
you write:
2) And here's where you are really a bitch- little digs at Magico like calling a beyond furniture grade, well crafted layered birch box "plywood"?  The economies of scale on that exactly? Have you seen it in person ? (no, otherwise you'd shut your yap). Especially since you made it a point earlier that Magico has to buy them and not make them in house, thus being less efficient than Wilson.  Now 3 posts later you imply Wilson, lacking economies of scale on buying their box material, has the better model?  One, you are now talking from multiple orifices, and two, you really think buying sheets of whatever is different than buying high grade aluminum?

As I said, I was afraid of being attacked. Mikey, pull your panties out of your crotch and relax.  Please.  Here, I admit I was wrong, apologized, and all this does is fuel Mikey’s hate toward anyone who raises legitimate questions.

To clarify what I understand:

1. Magico’s cabinet materials are off-the-shelf.  In other words, anyone can buy them.  Alon clearly does some wonderful and innovative things with these materials, especially his use of Baltic plywood. But let’s be truthful about the nature of these materials.  Aircraft grade Aluminum is not cheap, Baltic plywood, on the other hand, in its raw form is quite inexpensive.  Economies of scale refers to the fact that the maker of Baltic Birch (or 6061 aluminum) makes the material not just of for Magico, but for literally thousands of other manufactures that buy this product for a variety of purposes.  The cost is spread accordingly, and is the reason it is quite inexpensive as a raw material.  This is not to say that Magico’s process doesn’t add a great deal of cost to the speaker; I’m sure the stacked process is expensive to do, though I don’t have insight as to how exactly this affects the price.  Conversely, Wilson’s materials are proprietary – they have co-developed them with an outside manufacturer and are unique to them.  The raw materials Wilson uses lack the economies of scale because they are the only users of these materials. Is this important?  Only when you have a group of guys hyping a product at another product’s expense – as you do with the Magico versus the Wilson.  I’m not saying that Wilson has a “better model.”  Those are your silly words.  I’m just am trying to get to the truth here.

2. Magico has an outside cabinetmaker, located in Europe, which builds its cabinets.  Wilson constructs its cabinets entirely in-house.

3. I already addressed the tweeter issue in the previous post – again I’m sorry that I got it wrong.  But why do you continue to mischaracterize the Wilson tweeter? Who cares the age of the technology is still viable.  Wilson used Baltic Birch in the eighties as a cabinet material for the WHOW and the WAMM.  I owned a WHOW from this era.  Twenty-five years ago.  So what?  Please stop the bigoted hateful nonsense against Wilson. 

4. You hype the nature of Magico’s drivers, stating they are superior by virtue of the fact that Alon designed them.  My point was to suggest the same is true for Wilson’s materials and for their new midrange diver. 

Let me state for maybe the firth time.  I LIKE THE M5.  THOUGHT IT WAS WONDERFUL.  What I don’t like is the nonsense that surrounds their nature and makeup.  Let’s call the Magico what it is, let’s be accurate about how it’s made – rather than perpetuate what is hyperbole at best and pure bullshit at worst.  You seem willing, even obsessed with doing so with the Wilson.  So what gives?  I’m actually considering the purchase of the M5, along with the Wilson S3 MAXX and went to the show with my dealer to preview both. Are you in the market for these speakers? If not, as you say to me, keep your gap shut.  Hyping up the Magico does not make me want it more, anymore than your silly malevolent mischaracterizations (bordering on speaker-bigotry) of the Wilson make me want it less.  Ultimately, all this technology is purely academic – fodder for guys like you to justify what is good and what sucks.  All that matters to me is the music and how a speaker reproduces it.  On this front I was delighted to read Mr. Valin’s very balanced and informative coverage of the MAXX 3 and the Vandersteen on his other blog.  I agree with the sound he heard, but preferred on balance the Lamm rig.  (Wouldn’t be great if we could combine to Lamm with the Boulder – then we’d have something.)  As I’ve stated, I also disagree with the hierarchy placing the M5 show sound above the MAXX. But in light of his insights on what he heard, I now understand and accept the difference.  In the context of this blog, I have gained more understanding of Mr. Valin’s perspective.  I should have been patient. I’m sorry Mr. Valin.  I was just startled to read your first Magico post, which was zealously ebullient, and it set me off.  (I accept your apology, Jon – the heat of the battle gets to the best of us)

My urge to debate came from what I saw is a spewing of market-driven hyperbole and self-promotion from Magico and Alon Wolf that in many ways puts a market-driven company like Wilson and Dave to shame. More power to Alon.  I hope he stays around, because good competition benefits everyone.  I really want him to be around if I settle on purchasing his loudspeaker.  But this kind of thing turns me off.  I want to like his speakers for what they are.  Mikey and others have accused Wilson as being market-driven and hyping their products.  What’s with double standard? 

So, no, I’m not a dealer or a journalist – my sloppy writing should have given that away.  I have owned MAXX S2s, as well as Avolons, Quads, Vandersteens and many others.  I’m looking to purchase either the MAXX 3 or the Magico.  I came away from the show thinking MAXX, but I have to admit, all of this has caused me to give the Magico another listen. 
 

• reply

How did the M5 compare to the M6?
I was around 2 CES's back when Alon presented the M6. It did not sound well in the room, despite reviews to the contrary. I did subsequently hear it in a custom dealer room with top notch electronics and was very impressed (Spectral front, Boulders for the rest). Not as much as I am from the "below the radar" gryphon poseidons whose scale and dynamics are unparalleled (in my opinion.)  This "sport" is so subjective that if someone experienced and with good intentions says it is the best they have heard, so be it. I don't understand what the fuss is about. It is not like claiming it is the "best", which is a whole different (philosophical!) point.
The best I have heard are the Poseidons, the Rockport Arrakis, and the M6. The Kharmas next.
Btw, I own Soulution equipment as well as about 5-6 of the very top models of Krell, MBL, Gryphon, Wavac, FM Acoustics, etc. I have had a chance to own them all at the same time and compare. My back still hurts from moving that stuff around. I agree that for a non class A, the Soulution is excellent. I find the amps a bit lean (and credit the feeling of extreme resolution to that), but not to the extent that the big Goldmunds make the sound a bit colder than it really is. Certainly, something interesting is going on with the Soulutions.   They do not have however the fuller (more accurate) body of the Gryphon Colosseums or the unbelievable transparency and believability of the big Wavacs. For some of us, tubes and class A have not yet been bested.
The claimed specifications of the 740 CD player are amazing. I have not heard it yet.
Michael

• reply

 JPH-22,
 
Now I remember you--from the Magico Mini thread. I think I told you back then that I too like horns (so, for what it's worth, does Alon Wolf, who makes one of the best horn systems in the world--the $400k Ultimate). In fact, one of my favorite sounds at this year's CES was the $40KEuro Affascinate 1 SE from Germany's Cessaro Horn Acoustics, driven (you will be pleased to hear) by superb but very expensive Zanden electronics and a very good-sounding Grand Prix turntable. On Norah Jones' "Come Away with Me" (from the LP Live From Austin Tx) and other cuts, these speakers (which did not have separate subwoofers, BTW) sounded gorgeous on guitar, voice, and other instruments--smooth, liquid, graniless, with oodles of space, very good low end, superior weight and body throughout, and unbelievable delicacy of tone color and low-level detail (just superb on pianissimos--wotta tweeter!). Outside of the Lamm/Wilson room (or maybe alongside it) it was one of the most purely gorgeous (and quite realistic) sounds at this year's CES, and despite what I've said about gorgeous not doing it for me the way it once did, I could easily see this Cessaro/Zanden combo or the Lamm/Wilson combo more than doing it for many others. They sure were beguiling.
 
I simply don't understand why Cessaro does not have distribution in the U.S. You'd think some enterprising soul would snap this manifestly excellent and well engineered line up. I've heard two different models from it in two successive years and in two successive years each has been wonderful. Indeed, this year the Affascinate more than made up for the slight midbass leanness and disjointedness of the less-expensive model I heard last year. It was downright voluptuous, with maybe only the slightest bit of "horn" coloration on voice (and I mean slight).
 
BTW, I'm not sure why you're carping at me about CD players. I like vinyl; I make no bones about it, and you know that. I kinda lost interest in CD for awhile, but I'm coming back around because you are correct: while I was sleeping Red Book CD has gotten very very good (just listen to the Soulution 740 or the dCS Puccini/Scarlatti or the ARC CD7 or CD8). I still prefer vinyl, but nowhere near as overwhelmingly much.
 
Jon

• reply

 Michael,
 
I was impressed with the M6 when I heard it several years ago at CES, and (as has been your own experience) I've been told that it has shown unbelievably well in various shops around the world.
 
How does it compare to the M5? I have no idea. At this point I only have an exceptionally favorable show impression of the M5 to go on, and I haven't heard the M6 in better than two years (although, as noted, I've heard awfully good things about it).
 
I wish some of you guys would cut me a little slack here and just wait until I get the M5 in my home and it breaks in and I can report on it with greater authority and detail. I suppose I brought this on myself by raving about the thing in such absolute terms, but, for chrissake, I never heard a speaker sound like that before at a trade show (or anywhere). Remember I'm coming off three of the best speakers I've ever listened to (four if you count the Kharma Grand Exquisites, which I'm not because I haven't heard them in my home): the Symposium Acoustics Panoramas (which are ribbons with cone subs), the MBL 101 X-Tremes (which are Radialstrahlers with cone subs), and MartinLogan CLXes (which are full-range 'stats). To go from any of these monster-good products, but particularly from an electrostat to an all-dynamic loudspeaker in a box and to not just be not disappointed but to hear virtually the same extraordinary level of resolution and transparency to sources that I've heard via the CLXes for months now (and heard from the Pans for almost a year before that), plus much of the body, dimensionality, staging, dynamic clout, sheer density of tone color, and extraordinary disappearing act that I've heard from the X-Tremes, coming from a cone loudspeaker was mind-boggling. And I was suitably boggled.
 
Jon

• reply

 JPH-22.
 
No, it doesn't bother me to listen to LPs, many of which, BTW, were recorded well into the 90s and are being issued or reissued right up till today. Of course I listen to CDs for repertory (and there is a lot that is now only available on CD). It may be the wrong thing to say on this board, but I could frankly care less about how good a CD or LP sounds if the music and performance don't interest me. But if music and performance do interest me than I would prefer to hear them in the best possible sound, which remains LP playback (although the best CD playback has definitely closed the gap--I was shocked by the Soulution 740 and the latest dCS gear, and I haven't even heard the much-vaunted Spectral and Boulder in my system).
 
As for horns...regardless of what else is available, those Cessaros are mighty damn good, buddy. Somebody ought to take a bite of that apple, IMO. Of course, the problem with selling audiophiles on horns is space, which they do take up. (And they don't exactly kill the competition on the looks front, either.)
 
JV

• reply

I have just come back from another trip after CES, so apologies for the late post. The M5 was also the best sound of the show for me. I went there 4 times over the 3 days to make sure. I was also miffed that I couln't play my CDs, but I heard enough music that I knew backwards to form a decent opinion.
As far as the Soulution gear is concerned, the sound in their room (using the Mini2s which I have at home) was also superb. Having said that, I don't think I would trade my Ref 3/610T for the Soulutions if I was given such an offer :) Yes, the Soulutions had a tighter bass, but lost out (IMO) in the mid-highs. I am sure that some (many ?) would prefer the Soulution's presentation to the ARC's gear, which is perfectly fine.
Btw, Alon was waxing lyrical to someone about the 610T on V3s. I asked him if he tried them on the M5s and he said "not yet".

• reply

<<There's a belief in high-end that reviewers do what they do so they could "play" with expensive audio gear..>>
 
There's also a belief that the Reference 3A Grand Veena are 95% as good as Magico Mini M5s or Mr. Pearson's $100k Scaenas for 1/9th the cost. Imagine that! 
 
And you sure don't have to spend 1/9th of what a Mini M5 or Scaena costs to get great sound. The Magnepan 1.6QR is $1700.

• reply

K-Tiel (not verified) -- Tue, 01/20/2009 - 03:02
I noticed that JV said we can "dream" about owning speakers costing upwards of $100,000. Well, it should be no surprise that we don't *have* to spend that much to get world-class sound. Forget horns for a minute, why not try the Reference 3A Grand Veena, which Harry Pearson called "great speakers". These with two subs (corner-placed or not) will provide a huge slice of the Magico's sound, probably 95% of it for 1/9th the cost
K-Tiel,
After 25 years of playing with gear in every price point, I've got bad news for you.  The very best stuff connects you to the music in a fundamentally superior and obvious way.  Go hear a BIG, seriously good system (and there are plenty of BIG not so seriously good ones) and I think you will agree.  When it's right (like the porn definition goes) you'll know it, and you (like HP) will look for ways to get a taste of what you heard in more modest gear.  I do not relish the expense, although-yeah, pride of ownership is a factor.  I attended the CES, and not too many were running around saying the V2 was some 80-90 % of the M5, and certainly no one was saying a $5000 0r $10000 speaker was close.
A Toyota Mr2 will give you the flavor of a Ferrari 430, but it is not in the same ballpark.  And you can't drive by a restaurant and have a hot 20 year old, standing with her parents no less, yell "I want to f___ you" like she did to my friend driving one.
 

• reply

This thread gives masturbation a bad name....and audiophiles an every worse one.

• reply

How come our remarks are "childish" and yours are all grownup? I didn't start this ridiculous talk about masturbation; nor am I hiding behind an "Anonymous" screen name.
 
I've heard Grand Veenas at several shows; about fifteen years ago I used the Reference 3a Grand Reference in my system. They were very good speakers. But to say that the Grand Veena is 95% as good as some of these others is just plain silly. 
 
 

• reply

RH, Have you requested the new 808.2 from Meridian?
 

• reply

 Fellas,
 
It appears that several recent posts from K-Tiel and Roy (sounds like that ill-fated tiger-taming act in Vegas, doesn't it?) were inadvertently deleted. Please feel free to re-post, guys. One of my own posts is also gone! Sorry for the inconvenience. 
 
Jon

• reply

 JPH-22,
 
Back again I see.
 
Before you complain again about my "consecrations," you might want to take a look at http://www.avguide.com/blog/tas-editors-writers-pick-the-best-sound-ces-2009, which is our Best of Show blog, where you'll find that 4 out of 8 of our show atttendees mentioned the M5 as BOS, including TAS's Editor in Chief (Robert) and Executive Editor (l'l ol' me). Only one other speaker got as many as two mentions (and in one of those mentions it was tied with several others).
 
No one is arguing that select lower-priced speakers aren't better than ever, including the Reference 3As (which I like, although the Veenas with first-class subs ain't exactly cheap). I heartily recommend (and would, in fact, myself) listen to and consider buying Magnepan 1.6QRs, MartinLogan Sources, Quad ESL-2905s. among many others. But it just isn't so that a Grand Veena (with a sub) will give you 95% of a Magico M5 or a MartinLogan CLX or a Kharma Grand Exquisite or a Symposium Acoustics Panorama or an MBL 101 X-Treme or a Scaena 3.2  or a Cessaro Affascinate or...well, just wait for my show report. (In fairness, there are several speakers that I think do give you a whole taste of high-end sound and that don't cost as much as the bigger of the Big Boys: the $13k Magnepan 20.1, the $16k Sound Lab M-1, and the $22k MartinLogan CLX, for example. Each of these has some downside in size, setup, driveability, and sonics, but each plays--where it plays--with astonishing fidelity.)
 
You're NOT just paying for bass with a more expensive loudspeaker; you're paying for lower coloration of every kind across-the-board (and consequent higher coherence, resolution, accuracy,transparency to sources, and, ultimately, realism). I know you're a horn-lover, and I love 'em, too, and lived with one from Avantgarde for several years. But, JPH, you're kidding yourself (and the rest of the readers of this blog) to suggest that the vast majority of horns don't have, well, obvious horn-colorations. Talk about hearing individual drivers! Good Lord, there were times when my Avantgarde Trios sounded like three separate megaphones (with that subwoofer you and K-Tiel are so fond of implying blends seamlessly with anything it happens to be thrown together with sounding grossly like a fourth sound source). Seamless, they weren't. Incredibly adept at transient response, very high in resolution, very beautiful in tone color, very fine at dynamic scaling, they were. And often very realistic. (I should also note, in fairness, that the Trio's coherence has been greatly improved since I listened to and owned it, as have its subwoofing systems.)
 
It's curious, to me, that our impression of sonic "realism" seems to survive all sorts of gross colorations that are thrown against it. Personally, I think this is because "realism" is tied as much to transient behavior as it is to timbre. And horns, as noted, are superb at transients. That's my theory, at least, and I'm sticking to it.
 
OTOH, once you hear a speaker sound "realistic" without those colorations, it is hard to go back because the impression of being in the presence of actual musicians is, well, more real. I would happily demonstrate this to you if you're ever in the neighborhood.
 
JV

• reply

One can't argue with the once apon the time I visisted a dealer and heard a bad demo.....that is irrefutable evidence . I apologize sir for my 3o years  of doing this full time pales in comparison to your once apon a time. I'm quite sure that no one will ever accuse you of being a big spender either.
 

• reply

 JPH,
 
Horn compression drivers are low in some kinds of distortion; their diaphragms don't have to move very much because of the way the horn itself couples that movement to the air so they are quick and clean and very high in resolution. But your contentions that most horns are nowadays completely free from horn-like (megaphonic or "cupped hands") colorations or that you can't still hear the presence of individual drivers in many horn-loaded system isn't consonant with my experience in my home and at shows, and I don't care what any other reviewer wrote to the contrary. Also seamlessly mating dynamic subwoofers with very fast drivers of any kind (like horns or 'stats or ribbons) is a helluva lot easier said than done.
 
As for ultimate SPLs in concert halls...perhaps Faulkner was referring to peaks at microphone distances rather than typical mid-hall distances. (The challenges facing recording engineers like Tony are an entirely different kettle of fish.) All the literature I've seen (for instance, take a look at John Eargle's classic textbook Music, Sound, & Technology [VNR], p. 200) suggests much lower peak levels and average levels of 70-90dB SPL. And I repeat: Regularly listening to music with volumes set at peak levels of 120dB SPL (which is the same loudness as a jet engine) is insane and will permanently damage your ears.

• reply

 JPH,
 
I did say in my review of the Trios (and I believe I was the first reviewer to review Avantgarde horns in the U.S. and one of the first few to take horns seriously in TAS) that, on occasions, music sounded as if it was coming from three independent tubes. I remember writing those words (or something like them) because I remember the experience.
 
I liked the Avantgarde Trios a lot. I still do; I said so in my Munich show report. I like horns, as with the Cessaros I've praised in two successive CES reports. I said this to you no more than a few posts ago. That doesn't mean that horns don't have limitations. All drivers do. But  horns can bother me a bit more than most, because they can remind me more obviously that I'm listening to loudspeakers by making it so easy to localize their drivers. (Not all horns do this to the same degree.)
 
I've met and talked with Tony Faulkner. He's a wonderful engineer. But I don't believe that orchestral peaks hit 120dB SPLs as heard from a mid-hall seat. And neither does anyone else I've consulted or read. (BTW, if this were the case, why did you originally say that orchestras peaked at 110-115dB, which is also too high an estimate?) That's way too loud not to cause hearing damage, even if the peaks were instantaneous.
 
And yes John  Eargle was associated with JBL, and JBL specializes in horns. All the more reason to trust what Eargle wrote about orchestras and SPLs.
 
I'm done with my side of this endless conversation, JPH. 
 
 

• reply

Yikes JPH-22, give it a rest.  You're the guy in the theater line in Annie Hall.

• reply

Isnt this the subject of another thread? One that I certainly won't read and comment on!
I have heard this nonsense all before. I can't buy  ergo it sucks!!!!!
I have heard this so many times in my business. The guy who has better than everyone until he drags you to hear it and it is of course WRONG!
Jv wrong, RH wrong, HP wrong, Alon Wolf wrong, Dave Wilson wrong, Arnie Nudell wrong,  martin  logan  wrong, focal wrong, Magnepan wrong, we all bow to the new boss for his research has once again proven that the sun revolves around the earth.
We salute you...alll together now a bronx cheer!

• reply

JPH,
You are so unique and smart  and we are so blind and stupid. None of us ever heard horns anywhere… In the mean time here are 2 photos of some measurements taken from Japan SS 156. Look at the distortion levels on the avant-garde (top) vs. the first Mini. I am sure you have a good explanation but in reality, the avant-garde distortion levels, in percentage, is on average 200% higher than the one on the Mini. BTW, there are other horn type speakers measured in this issue. All exhibit gross levels of distortion, and to my ears, they do sound like that. But I can still hear…

• reply

JPH,
 I am done with you and this discussion. I freeely admit I am a dealer and I could care lesss what a few screen names say about something they heard in a drive by. There are more people here that disagree with you and yet you keep making excuses . You made stupid statements and claims and I won't agree with you now or ever.  No facts just an opinion without credibility since who the heck are you and what are your qualifications. I stand on my reputation in this business I don't hide on the internet being a pseudo-expert.
C 'ya
 
 

• reply

JPH, These are measurements done in Japan by Stereo Sound. All measurement at 90dB with a measuring distance of 2 meters (within the anechoic chamber). These are 2nd and 3rd order distortions you see there. When it come to objective assessment, it does not get much better than that. And yes, these horns sucks!

• reply

You think they are better HOOOORAYYYYYYY let's have a FREEEKIN party becausee you say they are..
You of unlimited qualifications
You of ultimate wisdom
You with better golden ears than all the rest
Go shove your horns!  Or perhaps use them to call ducks!

• reply

Read my post!! At 2 meters. That means 2 meters away from their mouth.

• reply

 Folks,
 
This guy has already driven other people nuts on other threads with his relentless drivel about 20-bit resampling and horns. Just ignore him, as I am. He's an asshole with an agenda, and he knows nothing about high-end hi-fi.
 
JV
 
 

• reply

 Mikey,
 
Maybe I shouldn't say this, but I actually like some of JA's reviews, particularly of loudspeakers (although I still don't understand his ranking of the V3). 
 
BTW, your reference to the guy in line with Woody Allen in Annie Hall was funny!
 
When everything is in place and broken in, come on over and listen to "my" stereo, why don't ya?
 
Johann

• reply

 Boys,
 
This is a blog about Magico M5s and assorted other hi-fi items. Let's all of us try to leave politics out of it, if possible.
 
And, TubeMaster, I am familiar with Belles amps, though I've never reviewed one. As I think I may already have said on another thread, the thing that's so stunning about the Soulution gear is that it DOESN'T sound like anything else, tube or solid-state, that I'm familiar with. If you take a look at my review of the CLX in Issue 190 or my review of the AAS Gabriel/Da Vinci turntable and Da Vinci Grandeeza tonearm in our about-to-be-published Issue 191, you should understand that part of the reason I'm hearing the front end and back end with such transparency is the Soulution amp and preamp that live in between them. This stuff really is extraordinary.
 
Jon

• reply

JV:
 
Understood. But here is a clever question. What does Nothing sound like? Not a sarcastic question. I have
actually wondered my self.
 
Another question I asked myself today while driving..."Do records sound worse today than 35 years ago"
Putting the merits and  quality of the MUSIC  completely aside.. .I would much rather listen to Sprinsteens Born to Run or Darkness on the Edge of Town than Magic, or the Rising...STRICTLY based on the presentation and production.
And its NOT, to my mind a digital vs analog thing...Al Greens latest, Lay It Down, sounds Fantastic...and i was shocked to find out it was recorded to Pro Tools.   Nonetheless,  it sounds like big fat analog tape was used.

• reply

JV It seems you nailed it. "Nothing" sounds a direct pipeline to contents of the cd or the LP you are spinning, assuming you have all the other goodies of the same caliber in the chain.

Observation: It seems to me that alot of MusOphiles, when actually confronted with absolute neutrality, end up of running for the cover of "coloration" or euphony. Just like when you look at a brutally revealing untouched photo of some one you greatly admire. You almost wish you hadnt seen it.

• reply

 Oy.

• reply

JV, any chance you could also try with the MIT cables that seemed to work so well at the CES?
You get the ARC 8 yet?
And there ain't gonna be no escaping the mess if the wife sees a 89K check going to the Magico dealer!

• reply

 Mikey,
 
Yes, I may try the MIT cables, which quite obviously worked very well with the M5s and the Soulution gear, although I have to say that the Tara Labs Zero and Omega have worked extraordinarily well with CLXes and Soulution gear (and with everything else I've had in house over the last few years). At the start I will be using Tara Labs.
 
Yes, I have the Ref CD8 but I haven't listened to it enough to comment with confidence. At the show in the ARC/Wilson room it sounded like it has sounded in my system, which is darker in balance than what I'm accustomed to from the CD7 (and ARC in general), more tightly focused in imaging than the CD7, seemingly lower in noise and hash than the CD7, considerably more detailed than the CD7, but less bloomy and tubey and "analog-like" than the CD7 (once the CD7 broke in). Because it took the CD7 so long to "come around," I'm hesitant to comment on the CD8, so everything I just said should be considered an interim report. I'm still a good ways away from knowing what the CD8 "really" sounds like (although I can safely say that it sounds excellent).
 
Jon

• reply

 Now, now, Roy.
 
This is his chief competitor's Web site, after all, not "neutral" (or perhaps a-little-more-than-neutral?) ground. JA tried to set the record straight on one contested point, and I think maybe that's the last we'lll hear from him on this thread, though he's certainly welcome to join in about M5s, V3s, or anything Magico. Regardless of any personal animosity he or I might feel toward one another, he is undoubtedly a smart cookie.

• reply

 Don't kid yourself. I haven't put animosity aside, Roy. I have good reason not to. I merely allowed that Atkinson's a smart fellow.
 
 
 

• reply

 I was impressed with the MIT cable and interconnect, too, and from what I understand Wolf was using the second-from-the-top of MIT's MA line in the M5 room (and the top-of-the-MA-line with the V2s). The Soulution electronics are phenomenal.

• reply

Elliot,
to follow on an old postiing. i auditioned the Grand Utopia III EM again.  remember i thought the soundstage wasn't as good as expected.  well, the Focal guys came and positioned the speakers and the speakers were further broken in and I can say that they were really good this time around!
BH

• reply

I'm a late arrival at this thread, but actually did hear the heralded Magico SYSTEM at CES, at some length.
Quite frankly, I'm at a loss to understand the gravitas bestowed by JV on this system. I am fortunate enough to have been blessed with a low distortion system, for my daily musical delectation, and the reverence afforded by JV to the aforementioned Magico system, is exceptionally disproportionate to the performance I experienced.
I'd go as far as saying, that the praise is risible. As some other contributions have alluded, there were sundry other exhibits, that afforded one a far more musically realistic experience; this includes loudspeakers that are but a fraction of the price of the Magicos. JV's grovelling praise ought to start one thinking very carefully. In any event, this is certainly a case of premature adjudication.

• reply

I seems that some people on the forum can't distinguish between challenging someone else's observations and simply attempting to undermine their credibility.  Nobody at the magazine is forcing anyone to appropriate their opinions.  You don't have to like or agree with anything they say.  But, if you maintain that they and the vast majority of showgoers who were blown away by the M5 are wrong because they didn't hear what you heard simply makes you look like a fool. 

• reply

<< I thought that JV was on a higher plain.>>
 
Far be it from me to impugn your reputation, Harold, such as it is and whoever the hell you are, but "a higher plain?" Like somewhere in North Dakota or the Himalayas? But then perhaps you meant "plane." With you throwing around (and misusing, BTW)  pretentious buzz words like "gravitas," I guess i shouldn't be surprised by an imbecility like this one.  
 
Let me repeat: The M5s are the best speakers i've ever heard at a trade show--and now in my home. That isn't cheerleading; it's an objective opinion founded on long listening and confirmed, for what it is worth, by measurements. And if you don't like it, go piss up a rope..

• reply

 Micturate, whilst, gravitas, risible, "premture adjudication" (which, at least, has a modicum of wit).. and now this hilarious neologism "ultracrepidarianist." I swore I wouldn't so this again, but you're an idiot. 

• reply

<<One would have expected more, than the childish "you're an idiot" gainsaying, from such an eminent member of the world's hifi journalistic fraternity.>>
 
This after you tell me to piss in my amplifiers while they're on, after I pointed out that in spite of your pretentiousness you made a boneheaded mistake ("plain" is not "plane"), which you didn't even acknowledge.I spent the better part of six pages on this very thread answering your "pertinent" questions about M5s (as did a whole lot of others who heard and loved them at CES). I'm not going to do it again. (BTW, Wilipedia may cite a reference to this portmanteau word, but the Webster's Unabridged doesn't, so it ain't in modern usage--and never was, QED.)

• reply

<<The word 'plain' , when used as a noun , is defined as 'a large area of flat land with few trees'. My use of the word in that context, was not incorrect>>
 
C'MON!!!! 

• reply

Nice informative post stuff

• reply

COULD SOMEBODY DO US A BIG FAVOUR AND GET THIS JV ASSHOLE OFF THIS FORUM.  I JUST CAN'T STAND HIM.
 
THANKS.
ANONYMOUS.
 

• reply

I am a passionate audiophile like you all here but I have worked in the trade for a number of years. I have met many people from the trade, known(still know) some very influential journalist and seen all kind of politics and biased reporting. To be honest I had a great freedom to make my own decisions about articles simply because I had the privilege to hear for myself the equipment under review. I also have a select few journalist whom I regarded as having 'truthful' taste in audio according to my own subjective needs.

I have left the audio trade now for some 15 years and have only taken a 'laid back' interest. Last year a friend asked me to help him launch some hi-fi equipment at London's biggest hi-fi show. Whilst there I of course visited rooms to hear new equipment. When I walked into this one room, I was so blown away by the sound that I said 'Wow...this gear is on a different level !' Of course I am familiar with how rooms at shows are different just like the rooms at the hi-fi shops I worked in are all different etc. Sure..hell all rooms sound different! But to my mind, there was no mistaking this was not just a great sound, it was on a different level to everything else at the show and there were far more expensive equipment in other rooms.

The speaker that blew me away was the Magico V3. As I have been out of hi-fi for sometime, I asked myself who this manufacturer was. I came home and did some internet searching and there were numerous awards given to this product world-wide! Gee I thought to myself, you are not that deaf after-all because other people feel it is a brilliant piece of kit too.
My point is I really understand what JV is writing here. Yes you can criticize me till the cows come home but Magico is amazing. I have sold all sorts of high end from Vandersteens, Wilsons, Apogees, M-L's etc etc. I have liked them all but never been passionate about wanting them. However for me, Magico is magic! I really look forward to hearing the M5 someday although I know realistically I'll never be able to buy a pair unless I win the lottery!
My blessings go to Magico..Mr Wolf has exceptional ears and design. To JV, I have never read any articles you have written(I left the trade in 1993/4) but I do think you are on to something!!!

• reply