Magico M5 Loudspeakers
Jonathan Valin -- Tue, 02/10/2009 - 15:16
Tomorrow, if all goes according to plan, I get the Magico M5s!
I will begin posting photos of the install process and the speakers sometime after noon. I will also blog about the installation, with photos of the Elam boys carting them up my three flights of stairs to the listening room, where the Soulution 710/720/740, ARC 610T/Ref 3/PH7/CD8, Walker Black Diamond, and Tara Labs Omega Gold and Zero Black await.
I gotta admit I'm excited. This ought to be a great stereo system--anything less will be a disappointment.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
The M5, like the Mini II (where it plays), is deceptively hard-hitting and very full-range. It doesn't have the (elevated) midbass sock of certain other large ported mutliways, and its lack of the usual driver/crossover/enclosure resonances and colorations make it one very smooth, seamless customer; however, when something deep and powerful comes along It can floor you. I In my room with either the Soulution gear, the BAlabo gear, or the ARC gear, the speaker is not "polite." As those of you who have read my review in Issue 196 already know, I agree with ws and Roy--it is, overall, the best speaker I've heard. As those of you who've read my review also know, I think it is better played louder rather than softer (the "laid-back" quality that ws observed may be another way of saying this). Its dynamic scaling from pppp to mp isn't on a par with, oh, the elecrostatic MartinLogan CLX or the ribbon Symposium Acoustic Panorama. In my experience, and the M5 is not an exception, cones generally needs a little more juice to bring the same spark to very low-level dynamic contrasts.
Jon, I am surprised that you didn't find the BA Labo/M5 combination laid back or 'dark'. I thought the M5 sounded better with FM Acoustics, and I suspect Spectral will do a good job with the M5 as well. But it does seem like the M5 likes power. And you are right, the audition was a tad on the soft side in terms of loudness, but the sound remains very balanced.
ws,
Don't worry. We're still hearing things alike!
I DO find the BAlabo "dark" and voluptuous (see my blog at www.avguide.com/blog/lets-call-the-whole-thing-pt-iii-balabo-bc-1-mk-ii-control-amplifier-and-bp-1-mk-ii-power), but not laid-back when he amp is set up the way I set it up. Check the rear panel of the amp. There are two rotary switches there that allows users to attenuate the input signal in each channel. If this attenuation is being used, the amp does tend to sound politer and less hard-hitting. When the inputs are not attenuated (and the amp's front-panel display is turned off), the BAlabo is killer good on dynamics, with marvelous control in the bass (albeit still dark. rich, and sweet in overall character).
I haven't heard the M5s with FM Acoustics (in fact, it's been years since I've heard big FM Acoustics amps), so I can't say how it compares with Soulution or BAlabo. Wolf has displayed with Soulution, BAlabo, Boulder, and Spectral--so I guess those combos are Magico approved. (In addition, I am told that his speakers sound very very good with top-of-the-line Goldmund and Krell.) I'm guessing that the M5s will also sound marvelous with Naoto Kurosawa's Technical Brain gear.
Jon
Sorry Jon, I just read your blog and saw you used the exact same term 'dark' to describe the BA Labo! =) SO we do hear things similarly.
In your blog entries about 'calling the whole thing off', I think the issue may boil down to this. HiFi is 'good' when within a given framework, everything sounds 'convincingly realistic'. BA Labo sounds different from Soulution which in turns sound different from ARC etc etc..each, imho is 'valid' and 'absolute' within their own illusions. Recordings are *all* flawed imho. The job of the chain of playback equipment is to give the listeners a realistic picture. They do not have to be the same. It's difficult to say one is better than the other...
I think this applies to the M5 as well. After I heard them for the first time I didn't tell my friend they are "the best". But I did think they were flawless. It's throughly consistent... from top to bottom, everything sounded right and have the same consistent sonic characters. vs, slightly 'less perfect' designs, something sticks out... or some areas don't perform quite as well as the others. these small 'underperfomring areas' always break the 'illusion' of an otherwise convincing picture it is trying to portray.
imagine an orchestra made up with all top notch players, except say one clarinet player. the music sounds wonderful unti you hear that one clarinet player, and the performance is ruined. but in absolute terms, most of it is still excellent.
M5 is like an orchestra with players at the same extremely high level of playing. I find most speakers are usually mixed bags of 'skills' spread among their 'players'. M5 is consistent, and consistently high. I think that is what makes the M5s so unique.
4am here, no idea if what I am typing make any sense. =P
ws
You do make perfect sense. The issue of sounding “whole” is profound. Unfortunately, it usually come with a price of limitation, i.e. planers or single driver solution.
<<The issue of sounding “whole” is profound. Unfortunately, it usually come with a price of limitation, i.e. planers or single driver solution.>>
I agree, NirB. The M5 is an exception.
JV,
In your opinion, what are some other speakers that show good driver integration?
JoelW (not verified) -- Tue, 09/08/2009 - 21:01
Jonathan: In reading you excellent review in TAS concerning the virtues of the Magico M5 a very basic question arose: If I am correct, the drivers in the M5s are not aligned to be "phase and time coherent" (i.e., the drivers are neither aligned on a sloping baffle nor is the tweeter coincident with the midrange as is the case with Thiel and Vandersteen). Does this lead to any noticable degredation in terms of different drivers' sounds reaching the listener at different times? If so, how noticable is this inconsistency? If this is not an issue, how does Magico achieve this result? Thanks for your efforts.
Jonathan: In reading you excellent review in TAS concerning the virtues of the Magico M5 a very basic question arose: If I am correct, the drivers in the M5s are not aligned to be "phase and time coherent" (i.e., the drivers are neither aligned on a sloping baffle nor is the tweeter coincident with the midrange as is the case with Thiel and Vandersteen). Does this lead to any noticable degredation in terms of different drivers' sounds reaching the listener at different times? If so, how noticable is this inconsistency? If this is not an issue, how does Magico achieve this result? Thanks for your efforts.
Joel,
Did you really read the review? JV has stated that this is the “most cohesive” speaker he had ever heard and you are asking him if he notice “different drivers' sounds reaching the listener at different times”?
Joel,
Should you first explain what is a "phase and time coherent" design, and how, in practice, such a design is truly achievable? And since such a design, if practically achievable, only apply with reference to a specific design point or design axis - move off the design axis and alignment of any type is lost simply because the path length to the different drivers will change - why would this be a desirable goal? Please read JA “Measuring Loudspeakers, Part Two”, it will explain some of the “myth” associated with the term. He conclude, as many before him that “Of the 350 or so loudspeakers I have measured, there is no correlation between whether or not they are time-coherent (implying both accurate amplitude and phase responses) and whether or not they are recommended by a Stereophile reviewer." He also conclude that “Along with false claims of high sensitivity, false claims of time coherence are among the commonest lies in high-end audio.” Never heard the M5 and I am not aware of any claims associated with that speaker, but I can assure you that its ability to perform well, or not, have nothing to do with phase and time coherence
Hi Louis,
I agree to what you said, but not to the fully extent.
Lets try a satellite/subwoofer system. If the subwoofer's distance greatly differes from that of the satellites, you can hear the difference. So while small time difference is not important in the grand scheme of thing, I don't think it is a variable you can simply erase.
In terms of phase coherence, I think this differs from people to people. I have come to realize that 99.9999% of my audiophie friends pay very little attention to this issue, and cannot tell the difference. But I also know *one* person who is hyper sensitive. I have slowly learned to pick up the difference. Admittedly, the difference is subtle, and I can only really tell when I start to 'move around'. So again, I think to a very very large extent, it does not matter, but to some, it does...
It may not be fair to simply erase these two variables as designing goals. But obviously for the most of us, we do have a relatively high tolerances for these two factors.
I am almost certain the M5 cannot be phase cohesive, and from the look of it, neither are they time aligned. But they are probably not far off from the ideal. Whatever they have got 'right' certainly compensates for these tiny deviations from the ideals. They indeed are by far the most coherent speakers I have come across.
Hi WSLam ,
You are confusing different tissues. Phase coherence implies that a speaker system should retain, in its acoustic output, the same phase relationships between different frequencies as was present at the input signal. You are probably talking about driver absolute polarity. In terms of moving subs around, again, a different issue all together. As I suggested to Joel, you may want to read about the subject so you can better understand what it is. JA "Measuring Loudspeakers" article is a good place to start.
Hi Louis,
I have read JA's excellent article before, even though I cannot claim I have a full grasp on every concept he tried to explain. I do understand that what I was referring to is the absolute polarity of the driver, but I was actually using that as an example that I do know people who are very sensitive to this. I was under the assumption that the reverse polarity driver does indeed produce 'inverted phase' relative to the 'positively' connected driver. (assuming lets say it's a 2 way).
Is this incorrect?
ws
WSLam ,
"I was under the assumption that the reverse polarity driver does indeed produce 'inverted phase' relative to the 'positively' connected driver..."
But so is 2nd order XO, many amplifier or/and player. Not to mention recording. So a phase coherent speaker will produce an “inverted phase” signal, if an “inverted phase” signal was presented at the input. Hope I/it make sense.
Yes of course, if the source material has problems, the playback system of course should reflect the same issues. But the problem is (for some people), they can sense that one drive is inverted and one drive isn't. I was using this as a phase coherency example. Like I said, I do not find it a big issue for me, but I do know one person who is very sensitive to any driver being connected in reverse polarity... if there are any inconsistency in terms of drivers polarity, this person claims he can hear it. Back to my original post, I think while JA says it is not an issue for most people, we can't rule out that to *some* people, it does matter.
"I was using this as a phase coherency example"
Sorry, bad example. Having drivers connected in the same polarity, does not make the a speaker phase coherent. It is not an issue of sensitivity to “phase coherence”. Neither you or any of your friends, most likely, have ever heard a true “phase and time coherent" design. No speakers that I know of meet the criteria. At least not fully. Again, as JA said “false claims of phase and time coherence are among the commonest lies in high-end audio.”
louis
WSlam is in fact correct about some listeners being sensitive to incorrect absolute polarity (or phase), also long known as "The Wood Effect". It can be evident to them when they listen to speakers that do not have all the drivers connected with the same absolute polarity. I believe such loudspeakers can never be phase and time coherent (at least when using passive crossover design). So any enquiry about a designer's attempt to aspire to phase and time coherence is legitimate for some people.
I would avoid buying any speaker that did not have all drivers oritented with the same absolute polarity - but that is just me. And yes I have owned speakers that were remarkably close to being completely phase and time coherent - designed by D'Apollito many years ago.
Those using DSP and digital crossovers are designing speakers that are phase and time coherent. I am sure that developments in this area matched with high resolution digital music will help listeners appreciate the extra benefits of striving for that design outcome.
Frank
Frank,
I am afraid I am not following your logic. The fact that some people maybe more susceptible to “polarity” had nothing to do with the issue on hand. We hear a difference between a non-inverted and inverted signal – but there is not necessarily a "right" or "wrong" phase, since it depends on the way the recording was captured in the first place. A "phase coherent" loudspeaker will still play an out-of-phase recording out-of phase. Beside, you can have all drivers connected in an “absolute polarity” (i.e. positive polarity) and still have them play “out-of phase” by simply using higher order XO. Again, this is not what “phase and time coherent” concept is about. Perhaps you are confusing the terms "phase coherent" with "phase aligned"? Anyway, I have a feeling that this conversation is not going to go anywhere. So I will conclude with another quote from Floyd Toole, “The advocates of accurate waveform reproduction, implying both accurate amplitude and phase responses, are in a particularly awkward situation. In spite of the considerable engineering appeal of this concept, practical tests have yielded little evidence of listener sensitivity to this factor..."
louis
Trying not to get into a discussion about absolute polarity, except to ask:
1. Should one not assume that anybody who is really senstive to absolute polarity will have the system capability to change it for any recording?
2. Can the auditbility of such changes be fully appreciated in designs that do not have all drivers connected with the same polarity?
3. Should a speaker builder aspire to a phase coherent design with all drivers connected with the same absolute polarity as a starting point? I believe yes.
4. Does it mean the designs that don't have all drivers connected with the same absolute polarity will always be slightly compromised reproducers of the original sound? Despite what Toole may conclude, I have always believed "yes".
5. So is it OK to ask if any design meets these criteria? It should be.
Frank
Hi Louis,
These are really the same issues. phase coherncy cannot exist without phase 'consistency'. When you have 2 drives being differently connected in terms of polarity, the phase (given an 'in phase' signal being played, for argument sake, an inphase pink noise) is no longer consistent, hence, no longer coherent.
Pls note that Toole did not say 'no' evidence. There are people out there that are sensitive to this. I consider myself 'lucky' to be relatively insensitive to this issue, or else my choice on speakers will be greatly reduced.
cheers, ws
Perhaps I am missing something but where is PQ last post? It is stated as last reply but if it is not posted “last” how does one find it? It happens often that people inject their posting somewhere in the middle of the thread, how does one suppose to find it?
PQs comments praising JV are on page 3.
Hey Roy,
Sorry my post was "injected" in the middle of the thread on page 3 - due to my being new to this posting lark, so apologies there, I was just making a comment related to other comments made around that time on that page. I'll have to swot up on the correct etiquette won't I ?
Thanks. But how did you find it? I hope you did not have to “look" for it…
Thank you, PQ.
Jonathan,
There seems to have been a lot of discussion lately about the overuse of the word "best" in the reviewing world. I do not want to get into it any further here. At least you are not wishy-washy about expressing your preferences clearly, something some others are hesitant to do. That said, please give me your list of the best six speakers you have heard without any explanations, qualifications, caveats etc. Just the make and model.
Thank you and all the best.
Jonathan has largely given that list in his review of the M5.
Jonathan, great review by the way. You gave an excellent and balanced insight into just how good the M5 is in your listening environment, with useful comparisons to other speakers.
Thanks
Frank
I agree with EBIT..all you need do is read the review..all JV's faves are there......by the way JV i enjoyed the review....it's been a while that tAS has laid out such a complete review ,,i loved the speaker issue overall....i hope TAS works on a comprehensive Amplifier issue in the not-to-distant future.....
RIP Jim Thiel: my first audiophile quality speaker was a Thiel 2.2 used,,,,,it was a challenge to place and to amplify correctly...but it gave me a real education in High-end audio...thanks JIM
EBIT & zead or whatever, unless you are Jonathan's personal assistants...do I really have to spell it out?
TAS is not accessible to me with reasonable effort right now, otherwise I'd read it.
BB,
First, thanks to all of you for the kind words about my review of the Magico M5.
As for my favorite speakers...in electrostats, the Martin-Logan CLXes with the Quad 2805/2905s and Sound Lab M-1 runner-ups; in planars/ribbon dipoles. the Symposium Acoustics Panoramas with the Maggie 20.1s, Maggie 1.6s, and (maybe) the Perfect 8 The Forces runner-ups; in dynamic dipoles/bipoles, the Da Vinci Virtus with the Vandersteen Model 7s and Nola Baby Grand References runner-ups; in two-way mini-monitors, the Magico Mini IIs with the Focal Diablo Utopias runner-up; in omnis, the MBL 101 X-tremes with the MBL 101 E MkIIs and MBL 111Fs runner-ups; in horns, the Audio Tekne SP-9301Ses; in small dynamic floorstanders, the Magico V2 with the Avalon Indras and Wilson Sophia 2 runner-ups; in large dynamic floorstanders, the Magico M5 with the Rockport Hyperions, Kharma Grand Exquisites, and Wilson MAXX Series 3s runner-ups; overall, the Magico M5.
Remember that, while I've heard a lot of speakers, I haven't heard all of the top contenders--like the Magico Ultimates, the Rockport Arrakis, the Wilson Alexandria 2 Series 2, etc.--and some that I have heard I haven't heard at their best due to poor setup, poor ancillaries, or poor room conditions.
JV
Thank you! That is exactly what I wanted. Haven't heard many of those but will put them on my list to audition in a suitable environment. As a CLX guy, I cannot wipe the shitty grin from my face, they are -after all- such an audio bargain @ a mere 20-25 grand. LOL!
Mr. Valin,
When was the last time you heard the Sound Labs? They have a fairly new technology called px. I have recently heard both the CLX and the U1 PX. As much as I love the CLX, the new Sound Lab is WAAAYYYYY better.
I hope you can get your hands on some for a review, as your Sound Lab review is a classic. By the way, why hasn't this happened already?
Thanks
Where they play and at the SPLs they are capable of playing at, the CLXes are hard to beat, IMO.
Mr. Valin,
I wanted to thank you for your review of the Magico M5 speakers, it was personal, and I felt every word was a testament to your many years as an avid nusic lover, and well traveled audiophile. I always enjoy reading your reviews, I feel as though I am in the room auditioning the hardware with you! I remember when you commented on the Magico M6,being driven by the "Uber Exspensive " BA Labo gear as being the best sound at a trade show a couple of years ago as an epiphany for me. Allow me to explain... I went to the BA Labo web site and researched the amp, and pre-amp. I was immediatly impressed by both products. (especially the build quality) To know that you are auditioning the M5's and the BA Labo gear with the MIT cables is like the closest thing to a little slice of Heaven that I so eagerly want to experience. I live in Cleveland and there are no "high end" dealers near me to audition HIGH END gear ie. Magico, Soulution, MIT, Audio Research, and definitly not BA Labo, it is very frustrating, Not that I could ever afford ANY of the current gear you have in your home"on the third floor" I would give anything to sit back and listen to the remarkable sound that is flowing through that room of yours! I'm not sure if this is appropriate; but is there any way that I could drive down to Cincy one day(morning, noon or night) and be amazed at what I (we) are hearing? Music and the reproduction are VERY PERSONAL and SPIRITUAL to me, I'm sure you understand! It would mean so much to me, and I would not take up much of you, and Kathy's time.
Thanks Jon
Mr. Valin,
I very much enjoyed your M5 review as well as your on-line coverage and opinions on all things Magico. I have auditioned the V2 and can honestly say that it was the best dealer demo (with Spectral/MIT/SME) I've ever experienced. I hope to take the next step and have an in-home audition. I eagerly await Robert's V2 review, but in the meantime, I would appreciate reading your thoughts on how the V2 compares to the Mini II an the M5, in your experience. Thank you.
Peter
Peter,
I only heard the V2 at CES, so i can't make a comparison based on extended listening in my own system. However, I thought In Vegas that the V2 sounded surprisingly like a Mini II with a bit more bass and, perhaps, a bit less very-low-level resolution. Since I think the Mini II is one of the two indisputable classics that Magico has produced so far (the other being the M5, of course--I have never heard the Ultimate), I mean this as the highest compliment.
Jon
Hi Peter,
I am a mini 2 user, I've heard the M5 and the V3 at the dealer's demo room (about 500 sq-ft), my listening room is about 180 sq-ft, with no dis-respect, the mini 2 and the V3 sounded like wimps compare to the M5, the dynamic and depth is a simple no match. The dealer's room could be a little too big for the V3, and music has never sounded this good at home before I purchance the mini 2, IMHO the M5 is simply that much better.
tc
I had this experience at the dealer's whereby the Mini2, which during my previous few auditions sounded stunningly beautiful, suddenly went dull, lifeless and rather constricted dynamically (note: same equipments were being used). This is however not to say that they shouldn't pale in a direct side-by-side comparison to their bigger brother--the new M6 (w/nanotech midrange drivers), it simply just wasn't anywhere near the performance I got used to of them in that dealer's exact same room previously.
As it turned out, the dealer told me that they had actually added quite a bit more room taming materials since last (bass traps, panels, absorbents etc. all flushed in-wall, thereby leaving no visual cues from outside). And also room is at that particular time 'tuned' to sell their newly arrived M6. Thus lesson learnt, ask whenever possible during dealer auditions as to how the particular room is being treated, especially when in the same space auditioning speakers with large varying size/outputs as above. As a room maximized for one, could easily spell disastrous for the other.
Thanks tc. My room is about 240 sq-ft with little room treatment. The dealer said that the V3 would really overpower the room (not to mention the M5) and so he recommended the V2 or Mini II. I can understand the M5 being dynamic with better depth. It is their latest design and must be quite an achievement. The V2 does share the M5's tweeter and baffle clamping system.
Peter,
I have a room about your size and have the M5's and they work fine. I do have 10+' ceilings and the rear wall is solid cubicles (record & CD storage) and I did use acoustic block drywall and a few other sound isolation items behind the walls during construction. Room treatments are a work in process but the speakers are great sounding. That is the beauty of these speakers is that they are small enough to go in smaller rooms and are so coherent from top to bottom. I'm sure a bigger room would be more ideal but i am in no way feeling like the room is overpowered.
jfkbike
Hi Jon,
I enjoyed reading your M5 review, especially the interview part. I am wondering if you and Mr Alon Wolf talked about his choice of the tweeter used, if he had considered using a diamond tweeter. I am not suggesting or implying a diamond tweeter would be better, just curious.
thanks, tc
tc,
I don't think Alon and Yair are fans of diamond/ceramic drivers. They use a ring-radiator in the V2, V3, Mini II, and M5, a Mundorf/Heil AMT in the M6 and, of course, an Ale compression driver in the horn-loaded Ultimate.
Jon
It's October 18 and I still haven't gotten 196 in the mail. Darn it. That's one drawback about being half a world away. I'm itching BAD!
Hmmmm go figure. I got the issue today. Great and very indepth review of the M5 Jon, I also found the review of the B-44 Phantom 2 very interesting. I was however disappointed that the Unifield 3 was cut at press time. After RH had promised on this very thread that it your review would be out in issue 196, I had been hoping to get some of your deeper insights about this affordable (at least by comparison to what you normally cover) speaker you have praised many times. Too bad indeed.
M.D.,
Thanks for the kind words!
I'm sorry that you had to wait so long for Issue 196. My review of the Unified Model 3 is in Issue 198, which should be coming out momentarily.
Jonathan
Mr. Valin:
Have you written about the ARC Ref CD8 anywhere in a blog or review? I have a solid state system (Magico V3, Spectral electronics DMA-360s and DMC15) and am considering replacing my Naim CD player. I heard it recently in comparison with the DCS Puccini + clock and took away a very favorable impression of the ARC. While the Puccini seemed perhaps more precise it also seemed much less full and natural. I wonder if you have any points you would make. Much of the music I like best nowadays is smallish vocal groups or solo vocal with acoustic accompaniment. I also like a lot of solo piano music. I read your review of the ARC Ref CD7, and was interested in your point about the possibility of the ARC's tubes adding analog-like coloration which sounds like bloom rather than actually resolving low level information on the disc. Has your thinking on this evolved or changed after listening to the ARC CD8 which is said to be more resolving than the CD8 (I have not heard the CD7 myself)?
Many thanks
Hasan
All I can say Jon is that you are lucky to be in the USA. There is NO WAY the M5s could ever make it to even a second floor over here considering how small we are LMAO! I particularly like the fact that you put the M5s through their paces with a plethora of associated equipment. I wish you guys had the time and the editorial space to do this as extensively with all reviews. Keep up the good work Jon and please tell HP that a comparison between the MY Sonic Labs carts and the Airtight Carts would be a real firecracker. It has not been done yet and on our side of the world where it is widely known that they are designed by the same fellow AND have identical published specifications, the clamor for a shoot out is pretty big. Now that he's got the carts AND the wands, there's no reason not to do it. Also the Dynavector XV-1t is out and I can attest that it is one heck of an all-rounder. Consider these potential scoops repayment for years of reading pleasure ;-)
Now, any crumbs for me? I'd love to get a hint of what else will appear in 198. It keeps my mailbox well attended and assures I don't miss any bills!
Hi Mr. Valin: Diverging to the question to Magico V3. Has this speaker ever been classified as Class 'A" full range in Stereophile (as speakers have to go down to 20HZ for this classificaion). I am aware that V3 are "A restricted". Also, was mentioned that "V3" are bass shy since port tuned to 32 HZ only. I am huge low bass fan as I listen to lot of pipe organs. Thanks for your response
Jon,
In one of your posts you mentioned the ability to audition the M5's in Cincinnatii. I am in Cleveland and it would be great if I could drive to Cinci instead of fly to Boston. Can you give me information on where I can audition the M5's in Cincinnati? Thx.