Magico mini 2 vs V3
Cemil Gandur -- Sun, 09/16/2007 - 07:56
Dear all,
I'm upgrading from my 13 years old Maggies 3.5, and was considering the 20.1 until I heard the Magico Minis. The mini2 were the only "affordable" speaker that seem to be Maggie-like in openness, lack a 'box' coloration, fast, with a big soundstage (though not as big as Maggies). Over that, they are much more acceptable to my wife, and I am fed up in having to change a Maggie ribbon every year. I't probably due to my lousy workmanship, but I can't think of a less enjoyable task (except perhaps changing cartridges - my eyesight is not what it used to be :) )
I've not read anything comparing the mini 2 to the cheaper floorstanding V3. I do not have the option to easily audition a V3. Any comments?
Any other options I should consider? I didn't like the Kharmas I heard (forgot the model but about $20k price point), wasn't too keen on Avantguarde, liked the Avalon Eidolon (but not as much as the Magico)..
THanks for any guidance
Zeb
Zeb,
Being an old maggie freak, and the owner of a very uniquely rebuilt and modded Tympani IVa system, I will be very curious about your opinions.
I am planning to audition the Mini myself when I travel to New York City next month.
Larry
Zeb,
It's funny that you mention Maggies, because in certain ways the Minis are reminiscent of Maggies, particularly in the midrange, which, I guess, is another way of saying they can sound extraordinarily lifelike and present with the right sources and ancillaries. That said, they don't sound as "big" as Maggies and don't move the same amount of air on top and bottom as Maggies. They are, however, considerably more of a piece from top to bottom and more neutral, overall.
Quote:I've not read anything comparing the mini 2 to the cheaper floorstanding V3. I do not have the option to easily audition a V3. Any comments?
On the basis of the little listening I was able to do at CES, I did not think a prototype version of the V3 was quite as "magical" as the Mini. However, I understand that the V3 has been greatly improved (both cabinet and drivers) since the show, so the bottom line is I don't know how the current V3 compares to the Mini, since I haven't heard the current version. I will hear it again at CES and report then.
Interesting, Zeb, that the MG20.1 and Magico Mini were ALSO the final two contenders in my shortlist of speakers to buy. I was also listening to the Kharma 3.2 FE, but it got disqualified once I heard the MG20.1. Despite Kharma's efforts to damp the cabinet, its boxy boom was too conspicious for ears accustomed to Magneplanars.
But its not surprising because of the way Mini's neutrality has an strong affinity to the boxless presentation of a planar speaker. Especially with the extremely soundless nanotec woofer, the Mini manages even to show up the remaining vestiges of mylar "clang" or resonance in the 20.1.
Above the Mini, the 20.1 does offer the ultimate boxless experience. It also presents supersized images which some may consider a plus.
But the Mini presents its own virtues as well. In addition to the tonal coherence from top to bottom that Jvalin mentioned, the ultra precise imaging and defined soundstage created by the Mini is at the other end of the spectrum from the diffuse presentation of Maggies.
The Mini's handling of transients also has a horn-like alacrity and realism, which can make even the 20.1 sound tame and reticent. I find the Mini a more "correct", refined and realisitc speaker overall, which can make the 20.1 sound somewhat crude and dated, which it should, considering the Mini is a newer design that is twice the cost of the 20.1. The 20.1 is an excellent deal and, arguably, incomparable to any other speaker for what it does well.
Don't misunderstand; the big and open presentation of the 20.1 had me hesitating a couple of weeks before going for the Mini. If I had another room and system, it would be the MG 20.1's. I fully understand why panel enthusisasts can't tolerate boxed speakers. I can't accept cabinet colourations either, and would rather have a Magneplanar than any boxed speakers, excecpt the remarkably unboxy-sounding BBC LS3/5a or the Magico Mini.
Thanks all for your input - much appreciated.
Maggies were totally addictive for me, and one reason that I am still using the 3.5, despite years of searching, is that I couldn't find a satisfactory replacement that would justify an additional investment. I've ended up with a system where the cables are nearly as expensive as my speakers :)
Over the years I have tried many speakers in my room (a big one, with a cathedral ceiling that the Maggies fill oh so gloriously - although admittedly a bit exaggerated) and could not stand any for a long time. It was always a relief when the dealer reposessed his demo speakers and I switched back to my 3.5s. I cannot stand 'boxiness' any more, and it's like my ears automatically 'tune in' on any faint trace of it now.
One of the best music experiences I've had from a hifi system was from a multi-amped ARC/Maggies 20 active system - quite a few years ago. I've not heard the MG20.1 (well once only in one of their NY dealers - but the demo was so scandalous, they should have their dealership revoked) and I can't arrange a home demo locally. However, I was nearly decided to go for the MG20.1 for lack of a better alternative and was busy finding excuses to justify why the hated large speakers that sit a fair way into the living room have to get even larger :)
Until the Magico Minis 2, which I heard in a dealer showroom and had to go back for a second listen the following day (a very good sign). I'll have a pair of the mini 1 on demo delivered to my home tonight for a few days (I hope) so will be able to test in situ. No mini 2 available for home demo locally, but I've read plenty of comments on this board about the differences to be able to draw some conclusions.
Will revert with impressions. When is CES by the way ? :)
Zeb
Zeb wrote:Thanks all for your input - much appreciated.
Maggies were totally addictive for me, and one reason that I am still using the 3.5, despite years of searching, is that I couldn't find a satisfactory replacement that would justify an additional investment. I've ended up with a system where the cables are nearly as expensive as my speakers :)
Over the years I have tried many speakers in my room (a big one, with a cathedral ceiling that the Maggies fill oh so gloriously - although admittedly a bit exaggerated) and could not stand any for a long time. It was always a relief when the dealer reposessed his demo speakers and I switched back to my 3.5s. I cannot stand 'boxiness' any more, and it's like my ears automatically 'tune in' on any faint trace of it now.
One of the best music experiences I've had from a hifi system was from a multi-amped ARC/Maggies 20 active system - quite a few years ago. I've not heard the MG20.1 (well once only in one of their NY dealers - but the demo was so scandalous, they should have their dealership revoked) and I can't arrange a home demo locally. However, I was nearly decided to go for the MG20.1 for lack of a better alternative and was busy finding excuses to justify why the hated large speakers that sit a fair way into the living room have to get even larger :)
Until the Magico Minis 2, which I heard in a dealer showroom and had to go back for a second listen the following day (a very good sign). I'll have a pair of the mini 1 on demo delivered to my home tonight for a few days (I hope) so will be able to test in situ. No mini 2 available for home demo locally, but I've read plenty of comments on this board about the differences to be able to draw some conclusions.
Will revert with impressions. When is CES by the way ? :)
Zeb
I think someone have told me it would be in january....
Having lived with the Mini 1 for a couple of days, here are some impressions:
- Better bass than the Maggies (okay, pretty obvious)
- clearer midrange
- incredible dynamics and microdynamics. ie the relative loudness levels between the various instruments, and the way each has its own dynamic behaviour
- the air around each each instrument. Massed strings, backing vocals/choirs, horn sections sound like many distinct voices/instruments.
- total lack of boxiness :)
- Highs are incredibly detailed but less 'sweet' than the Maggies. Had to toe them out a bit and change cables from Nordost to Kimber to soften them up a bit. Not that they are fatigue inducing, but less 'sweet' - you could argue that the 'sweetness' is a coloration, I suppose ..
- Excellent front to back and top to bottom soundstage. Less big but more realistic than the Maggies. Maggies' still come up tops on large orchestral pieces though (sound stage wise).
- Fantastic punch! The Rhodes stabs on Steely Dan's Hey Nineteen (standard issue lp bought back when it was newly release) hit you like a punch squarely between the eyes :)
Guess I'll plump my hard earned cash for a pair ...
Oh yeah .. my wife approved too
Zeb
Zeb wrote:- Highs are incredibly detailed but less 'sweet' than the Maggies. Had to toe them out a bit and change cables from Nordost to Kimber to soften them up a bit. Not that they are fatigue inducing, but less 'sweet' - you could argue that the 'sweetness' is a coloration, I suppose ..
Thanks for sharing your observations, Zeb. I encountered this screechiness as well in the Mini I. It was so unbearable that I was nearly driven to buy the 20.1 instead, but I gave them a final chance and toed them out as Jvalin advised and it brought the sharpness under control. This shrillness issue is wiped out totally by the Mini 2, as reported by Jvalin and myself in the Mini 2 thread.
Zeb wrote:- Excellent front to back and top to bottom soundstage. Less big but more realistic than the Maggies. Maggies' still come up tops on large orchestral pieces though (sound stage wise).
Certainly, the Maggies, especially the huge 20.1's, create large scale soundstages that simply envelopes the listener and innundates him in a large diffuse sea of sound. This is probably not how the actual performances sound but still, I love the effect!
But the Maggies sound invariably large regardless of the size of the performing ensemble or hall. This works well with pop music where artificial soundstages are produced in the mixing studio.
However, the soundstage created by the Mini more accurately varies to reflect the nature of the recording venue and stage. I've also heard the Mini create an incredibly big soundstage in a large room, playing the SACD of Mahler 8 by Haitink. I'm still trying to position the Mini 2's to create a approximation of that experience in my medium-sized room.
Zeb wrote:- - Fantastic punch! The Rhodes stabs on Steely Dan's Hey Nineteen (standard issue lp bought back when it was newly release) hit you like a punch squarely between the eyes :)
This is exactly one of the most important qualities I hear in the Mini I. You'd have to get horns or watch a live performance to improve significantly on those transients.
The 20.1 is half the price of the Mini 2, so the fact that we are comparing them also means the 20.1 is an excellent deal. I find the 20.1 a far more tolerable speaker than almost any other boxed speaker.
The Mini 2 is an equally great deal too, and for an audiophile cheapskate such as myself, that is saying a lot. It means you are getting a lot for what you are paying for. Congratulations and I hope you enjoy your purchase!
sacduser wrote:...Certainly, the Maggies, especially the huge 20.1's, create large scale soundstages that simply envelopes the listener and innundates him in a large diffuse sea of sound. This is probably not how the actual performances sound but still, I love the effect!
But the Maggies sound invariably large regardless of the size of the performing ensemble or hall. This works well with pop music where artificial soundstages are produced in the mixing studio....
As a long time owner of large Maggies, I have to disagree with some of the above. Absolutely, the Maggie soundstage envelopes the listener, one of the attractions of this and other large speakers, and it is a seductive experience. However, I've found with my pair of Tympani IVa's, that when the ensemble is small in scale, like a chamber quartet or jazz quintet, the Maggies will present a smaller soundstage as opposed to recordings done in large halls. On the Maggies, recordings done in Boston Symphony Hall bear the sonic signature and acoustic of that hall, and recordings done in Rudy Van Gelder's studio bear the signature, acoustic, and soundstage of a smaller venue, and the instruments image as such. True, there is a more diffused sound, however, I have never had trouble pinpointing instrument sections in larger works, and even being able to hear the location of individual players within those sections. When properly set up, trumpets image smaller than tenor saxes, and grand pianos image larger than violins.
This, in part, may be due to the fact that particular pair of IVa's I own are unique. They have been rebuilt at the factory, and modded with upgraded parts in both the external and internal crossovers, binding posts, internal wiring, etc., plus Grant VanderMye custom stands. They are set up as HP recommended in TAS Editors Choice section of issue 42, and are in a dedicated room with acoustic treatment.
Since the IVa is a three panel system, the bass panels present a large surface area, and push a lot of air. Even so, I use a sub with the system, a Sunfire True Subwoofer Signature, and I have it set up and crossed over, again as HP suggested when he reviewed the Maggie 3.6/True Subwoofer Signature combo, at around 40hz. It goes unnoticed until needed.
I have heard the 20.1 at a dealer, not under the best circumstances. First of all one of the side walls of the set-up was the plate glass window of the store. Also the choice of amps used for the audition did not show off the speakers in the best light. What I most remember now of that audition was the tightness and lack of coloration in the mid-bass, an excellent mid-range, and the best integration of drivers I have ever heard from a stock Maggie. There is no doubt that the 20.1's are transparent as hell. The high's although extended, seemed a little brittle, but I attribute that to bad placement and amp pairing. Based on that audition, I actually made up my mind to seek out a pair of Tympani IVa's to replace the IV's I owned, since I couldn't rationalize spending what a new pair of 20.1's cost to my wife. I was very lucky to find the pair of IVa's that I now own.
I am very curious to hear the Mini 2. I recently spent an afternoon with a Wilson Alexandria 2 based system, and I was impressed, but not to the point where I would trade my IVa's for them. I found that in most areas that are important to me, the Maggies gave up very little to the Wilsons.
Larry Lerner
llad wrote: However, I've found with my pair of Tympani IVa's, that when the ensemble is small in scale, like a chamber quartet or jazz quintet, the Maggies will present a smaller soundstage as opposed to recordings done in large halls. On the Maggies, recordings done in Boston Symphony Hall bear the sonic signature and acoustic of that hall, and recordings done in Rudy Van Gelder's studio bear the signature, acoustic, and soundstage of a smaller venue, and the instruments image as such. True, there is a more diffused sound, however, I have never had trouble pinpointing instrument sections in larger works, and even being able to hear the location of individual players within those sections.
Thanks for sharing your experience with your particular Maggie setup, Llad. It seems here that listeners keen on Magicos and Maggie are pretty much on the same page. We find speakers having prominent resonant signatures of their own to be objectionable.
I have heard the aspects you mentioned through Maggies as well. I did not mean to generalise that Maggies cannot distinguish at all between ensembles and halls of different size and acoustical quality, sorry about that. Like all resolving speakers, the 20.1 can resolve a good bit of the recorded cues that define the position of instruments and the acoustical space.
These observations might not apply to your specially-tweaked MG Tympani IVa setup, but on the stock Maggies I have heard , the larger radiating surfaces tend to spread and merge sonic images, so a listener might not perceive the positioning of players and instruments as precisely as he/she would with a point source such as a tiny coned speaker. This is also a problem with large speakers having spread-out coned multi-driver arrays.
Also, with a diffuse radiating surface, the more subtle cues from hall reflections that determine stage depth and hall size tend to be more blurred compared to a point source. This does not sound objectionable with recordings of large ensembles in big halls recorded from a distant perspective, as such soundstages sound diffuse anyway. This effect is thus rather innocuous as it has somewhat the same effect as sitting further back in the hall and having more of the wall reflections and reverberations merge with the sound of the instruments and bake them in a kind of acoustical halo.
However, this blurring effect becomes a bit more of an obstacle in reproducing nearfield recordings made in small intimate settings, which require pin point imaging precision. I found myself feeling dissatisfied by this diffusion after a few hours of listening to a 1.6QR, although it impressed me with its all-engulfing sound at first. It is also present with the 3.6R but the 20.1, this diffuse characteristic seems to be better controlled.
The back-firing wave of the Maggie, as a dipole, also creates psuedo soundstage cues when reflected off the rear wall. This can create very pleasing impression of stage depth. In fact designs like the Revel Salons incorporate a rear-firing tweeter to simulate this effect. But these cues are not from the recording or the original acoustics and can render the original soundstage even more diffuse. Of course, these can be tamed by acoustical treatment behind the panels.
These are trade offs which are compensated by the compelling advantages of boxless planars. Boxed speakers exhibit cabinet resonances that we hear on top of the sound of the recording. Their presence in the soundstage utterly spoils and sullies the illusion that is supposed only to be derived from the stereophoic signals. The boxless Maggies, by having a low resonant signature, allow recorded sound to seem to emate "from itself" and not from objects that themselves produce sound.
Of course, small cabinets also have low resonant signatures. But their downside is that they shrink the massive soundstage that an orchestral performance should create, whereas Maggies allow large sonic canvasses to blossom.
My point to Zeb is that the Mini bridges that gap between these compromises. Among other things, it offers a boxless sound akin to Maggies, and yet retains the pinpoint imaging accuracy of a mini monitor.
As a long-time fan of Magneplanars, I find the Mini to be a boxed speaker specially for listeners who value the hallmarks of Magneplanars. I'd be keen to know your impressions, especially of the Mini 2 which has even less of a sonic fingerpirnt than the original Mini.
llad wrote:
I recently spent an afternoon with a Wilson Alexandria 2 based system, and I was impressed, but not to the point where I would trade my IVa's for them. I found that in most areas that are important to me, the Maggies gave up very little to the Wilsons.
I agree, I would not trade the 20.1s for any Wilsons either, or for any boxed speaker I've heard, apart from the Magico Mini or a BBC LS3/5a.
Quote:My point to Zeb is that the Mini bridges that gap between these compromises. Among other things, it offers a boxless sound akin to Maggies, and yet retains the pinpoint imaging accuracy of a mini monitor.
To be honest, sacduser, one of the things that I like about the Mini I and II was that they didn't "miniaturize" images. I always get a little nervous when peole talk about "pinpoint imaging," as if that were a virtue. (Just as I do when I hear people talk about "jet-black" background silences.) Never in my life have I heard real instruments in a real hall sound like "pinpoint images." Indeed, one of the great virtues of Maggies--and one of the things that sets the Minis apart from, oh, LS3/5a clones--is the often close-to-natural size (including height) of their images, particularly on large instruments like piano or drum kits or large ensembles like orchestras (although I grant that Maggies can sometimes sound too big and ill-focused on some instruments and voices). The Minis don't really image with fully natural instrumental size, but they sure come closer to it that other two-ways I've heard--at least, they do with the right amplification and preamplification.
jvalin wrote:To be honest, sacduser, one of the things that I like about the Mini I and II was that they didn't "miniaturize" images. I always get a little nervous when peole talk about "pinpoint imaging," as if that were a virtue. cation.
Perhaps the term "Pinpoint" has the wrong connotations, Jvalin. I know the type of pinpoint imaging you refer to, where mini monitors create tiny scale models of orchestras that sound too finely chiselled and fake, (and this might have to do with lack of bass extension more than anything else.) Although the Minis do not image in this fashion, they are accurate, not only in placing instruments in their precise location in the performing space, but also in definining the acoustical quality of the instrument in terms of size, shape and material construction, as well as its relation to its surrounding space and boundaries.
Among other things like lack of colouration and transparency, I suspect it requires a point source to convey a soundstage accurately. On the contrary, the Maggies' larger radiating surfaces probably prevents them from achieving such accuracy in imaging. When I listen through Maggies for an oboe within an orchestra, I can tell the vicinity from which the oboe is playing, but it's presence feels somewhat ephemeral compared to the more solid portrayal of an oboe by a conventional small monitor. I don't quite feel convinced that I can reach out and grab a resonating stick of wood that someone is blowing air through. But I'm sure this is not what Maggie fans buy Maggies for.
The Maggie's soundstage has a special appeal. I suspect that Maggies' offer an "alternative" soundstage; one that might not be precise, but still sounds pleasurable due to a diffuse and soft-focus type of imaging that smooths over the sharp edges (and etches) of the musical landscape. I think this serves to flatter CD-quality sound particularly well.
The psuedo depth from the rear firing wave also contributes a sensational spatial bloom, like turning on the "wide stereo" switch on a compo set.
With the boxless panels literally disappearing due to freedom from cabinet resonance, such a heavenly cloud of sound, emanating from nothing but itself, can only charm the listener as it swamps over him or her.
To some degree, all sound systems, Maggie based or otherwise, offer alternative soundstages determined by room, listening position and speaker location. These factors affect even with the most faithful depection of the original performing venue.
I make these observations as someone who has been intensely interested in Magneplanars and admired them for a long time. At different points in my journey, I've extensively auditioned the 1.6QR, the 3.6R and most recently the 20.1. Its strange I've never come to the point of purchasing one.
I'm not sure if I've just critiqued the Maggies or praised them, but if it sounds great and people enjoy it, that should be the point, especially seeing how Maggies have proliferated.
Perhaps absolute pleasure defines the Absolute Sound.
sacduser wrote:
Perhaps absolute pleasure defines the Absolute Sound.
Would be nice, except that the system that can take the pleasure out of a great piece of music is yet to be born, despite the best efforts of some people:)
I agree with jvalin on his comments re the soundstage. Big sound out of the minis - not as big as the Maggies, but I would think more accurate on certain things. Ideally though, one would have a spare system with 20.1s for the full whack orchestra / big band... The Maggies image can wander a bit depending on frequency - which is why I think they sometimes give the feeling of being ill-focused.
Biggest difference was the way they handled dynamics and punchy music. The Maggies are fast, but they've never slapped me the way the Minis have, if you seen what I mean.
Finally, I've never liked Wilsons either, and wouldn't swap my 3.5s for a Maxx2!
sacduser wrote:...The back-firing wave of the Maggie, as a dipole, also creates psuedo soundstage cues when reflected off the rear wall. This can create very pleasing impression of stage depth. In fact designs like the Revel Salons incorporate a rear-firing tweeter to simulate this effect. But these cues are not from the recording or the original acoustics and can render the original soundstage even more diffuse. Of course, these can be tamed by acoustical treatment behind the panels....
Exactly. All Maggies need to be set up far from the back wall, and/or have acoustical treatment behind them. Sitting a bit closer to the panels than one normally would puts you in a near field listening experience that literally engulfs you in the music and hall acoustic.
Granted that most of the time we are listening to large ensemble recordings where the microphones are 10 feet above the orchestra, with occasional spot microphones used. The actual sound we hear at a concert does not have laser sharp imaging. When there is a soloist, our ears focus in on that point in space. When an ensemble is playing, it is the blend of all the instruments, coupled with the hall or studio acoustic, that we hear.
Our home systems tend to become an electron microscope focused on the recording, where we can pick apart aspects such as soundstaging, timbre, transparency, etc., from recordings. I, as I'm sure many other audiophiles do, have to fight the tendency to listen to our equipment and not the music. Although I have yet to hear them, from what I've read the Mini's come very close to being the speaker that brings to recordings all the right virtues of both cones and planers. I can't wait to hear them.
I could not agree with you more, llad. Sometimes the music is so good that you just stop caring about the stereo and you just get lost in the performance (or the recording of it). My hi-fi system is set up in the basement at my parent's house up in Connecticut; I live in an apartment in NYC. I do most of my listening through a $50 Cambridge Soundworks satellite/sub system plugged into my computer . I have had many more great listening moments on my crappy little PC speakers than I have had on my hifi system, simply because I'm far more likely to be sitting in front of my computer, in my bedroom, than I am to be sitting in my parent's basement. And, those times that I'm sitting in the spare bedroom in the basement, I tend to get distracted thinking about the shortcomings of the sound quality, thinking "oh, wouldn't it be great if I had speakers that could handle the organ in Poulenc's concerto" or "too much congestion in loud passages" or "the treble is too steeley".
Which is, because, like you say, the recording is like an electron microscope, and you are sitting in a room with the sole purpose of engaging in some music, but when you set out to do that it is sometimes very hard (for some of us) to kick back and just enjoy it. A lot of hifi enthusiasts make an upgrade and forget about; they use their system simply for the joy of listening to music, but there are some, like me, who have a tendency to become preoccupied with the sound of the system(maybe I should stop reading TAS until I have more income, or become a reviewer). For me, it is most likely to happen in big orchestral works where my old B&W monitors just can't handle the dynamics. If I'm listening to something like the Pope Marcellus Mass or Prokofiev's Piano Sonata in A, my speakers hide much better their shortcomings and I am always absorbed in the music. I've rambled too much, but that is a good point that you make, and something that people don't discuss too much: the act of forgetting that you're in front of a stereo in a room by yourself. Perhaps the term "disappear" is a more multi-faceted statement than previously thought.
Thanks, EasyBigFella. Audiophiles live for those rare moments when it all comes together (recording, pressing, system, room) and you lose yourself in the music. I have to say that jvalin hits it on the head when he writes about equipment. He never forgets that this is all in service of the music.
Thank you, Larry.
jvalin wrote:Thank you, Larry.
BTW Jon, have you been watching CALIFORNICATION on Showtime? David Duchovny's character listens to vinyl. In the last episode he was using an Avid turntable.
Larry
Quote:BTW Jon, have you been watching CALIFORNICATION on Showtime?
No, I haven't. Ever since The Sopranos ended (and Deadwood was canceled) I haven't been watching TV shows (Larry David excepted). But if you recommend Californication, I'll take a look. I've liked Duchovny since X-Files.
Have you seen the new Cronenberg? I'm going tonight.
jvalin wrote:No, I haven't. Ever since The Sopranos ended (and Deadwood was canceled) I haven't been watching TV shows (Larry David excepted). But if you recommend Californication, I'll take a look. I've liked Duchovny since X-Files.
Have you seen the new Cronenberg? I'm going tonight.
Seeing EASTERN PROMISES this Tuesday at the DGA. I'll be curious to hear what you think of CALIFORNICATION. I will start a thread in the Film/TV section of the forum.
Larry
After a long self debate and few listening sessions I have decided to order a pair of V3 instated of upgrading my Mini. I have finally heard the Mini 2 and I can agree with all that has been said about them. But I also had the opportunity to spend some time with the V3 and hear its strengths. After long consideration, I believe that the V3, overall, has more to offer then the Mini. They are truly 2 very different speakers. When the qualities of the Minis are easily detected, it takes a bit more time to realize what the V3 are doing. I will argue that its 6” pure midrange is much more transparent then the Mini 7” woofer and therefore let you hear more of “faulty” setups issues. I did not pick up on that until we changed cables and completely transformed the sound of the V3. I have never heard such a transformation before. These speakers are so transparent and linear that passing judgment on them is very tricky. It took me some time to figure out that I am actually “hearing more” with them then I do with the Minis. In the beginning I thought that they are a bit less refine but I believe that I was just hearing more of what is going on, good and bad. I also love the bass and the sense of ease they have over the Mini 2. We’ll tell more once we get them. D
With all respect to the fellow audiophiles who own the Magico's: do you realize you are comparing $20k-30k+ speakers with the $12,000 MG20.1's? So this is also implicate that there is no moving coil speakers in the $10k-20k range that can compete with the Maggies? Shoot me if I'm wrong. I would say: congratulations Jim Whiney, you have no real competitors, except for the Magico's, but hey relax, those Magico's are much more expensive than yours.
Chris
dazzdax wrote:With all respect to the fellow audiophiles who own the Magico's: do you realize you are comparing $20k-30k+ speakers with the $12,000 MG20.1's? So this is also implicate that there is no moving coil speakers in the $10k-20k range that can compete with the Maggies? Shoot me if I'm wrong. I would say: congratulations Jim Whiney, you have no real competitors, except for the Magico's, but hey relax, those Magico's are much more expensive than yours.
Chris
For myself, I would say an unequivocal "YES." I auditioned higher end models from Martin Logan, Quad, Kharma, Avalon, Wilson, Sonus Faber, McIntosh, Avante Garde, Von Schweikert. For me, there is no other speaker, moving coil or otherwise, I would have preferred over the MG20.1, apart from the Magico Mini (and perhaps the BBC LS3/5a). That is because freedom from colouration is the topmost priority for me.
It is no coincidence that a number of Mini buyers here are also Magneplanar admirers. The Mini is for listeners who need a boxless-sounding presentation, but also need coned drivers in a box to go beyond the compromises posed by panels.
Sacduser, I agree with your comments regarding the Maggie sound characteristics. I would like to ask you some more questions. Is it possible to mail you these questions? Thank you.
Chris (Netherlands)
dazzdax [at] xs4all [dot] nl
dazzdax wrote:With all respect to the fellow audiophiles who own the Magico's: do you realize you are comparing $20k-30k+ speakers with the $12,000 MG20.1's? So this is also implicate that there is no moving coil speakers in the $10k-20k range that can compete with the Maggies? Shoot me if I'm wrong. I would say: congratulations Jim Whiney, you have no real competitors, except for the Magico's, but hey relax, those Magico's are much more expensive than yours.
Chris
Absolutely right. I have to say this extends all the way down the line for me. IMO, every Maggie gives the best sound in its price range and goes quite a way above. I've not found any speaker cheaper or at the same price range as the MG20.1 that I felt represented an upgrade on my old MG3.5. I've not been satisfied with any other speaker tested, until I heard the Magicos.
Maggies do come with some "problems": wives don't like them, they need room to breathe, the bass is 'different' to what most people are used to, they tend to oversize a bit, the ribbon tweeter has a tendency to blow every couple of years (at least on my 3.5s; user-replacable, but as fun as installing an expensive cartridge), the company does not like to deal with customers directly (presumably due to size) and some of the dealers do a terrible job of demo'ing/supporting them.
Zeb
Can I pm you Zeb? Btw, thank you for your comment.
Chris
Sure. go ahead
Hi Zeb, this is what I read from the forum administrator: Private messaging has been disabled on this board. Can I email you? Thank you in advance.
Chris
Sure.
Please email me at zebdiane [at] hotmail [dot] com
I've never heard Maggies before; I used to be turned off by their unassuming looks. However, I've heard soooo many great things about Magnepan that now I don't care so much that they're just flat panels. JV alone has just heaped praise on those speakers. I look forward to the day that I have the money to buy new speakers, because the MG1.6 is first on my list.
I'm back from a very short trip to NYC. I was on a tight schedule but was able to find a couple of hours to hear the Mini 2 system at Sound by Singer. However, one of the Mini's had blown a woofer, been sent back to Alon Wolf for replacement and returned. The new woofer was still being broken in, and I was told that there was a disparity between the broken in and unbroken in woofers. The sales associate, Michael Nadler, told me to come back the next afternoon, when with continuous playing the new woofer would be broken in enough to be properly demoed. Unfortunately, I was not able to come back.
Maybe some day L.A. will get a a Magico dealer. In the meantime, I want to compliment Sound by Singer and Michael Nadler. After explaining to Michael that I live in L.A. and was only hear to listen, Michael was still very eager to demo the Mini 2 system for me. It was the kind of attitude toward a customer I wish some dealers out here would have.
Post new comment