| Products in this article: | M5 |
| Related products: | Magico M5 |

First, a confession: I generally don’t like big dynamic loudspeakers. To me their chief raisons d’être are loudness and bass. And since I gravitate toward small-scale acoustic music where neither is a necessity, I don’t see the point of giving up all that you stand to lose with one of these behemoths for (to my way of thinking) the little that you stand to gain.
Yes, Virginia, you do give up a few items with a big multiway dynamic loudspeaker. First of all, where do you put it? If you live in a penthouse this may not be the issue that it is in my smallish listening room, although the corollary to “Where do you put it?”—to wit, “Where do you put it without exciting all sorts of room resonances?”—can remain a problem even in a penthouse. Second, how do you make that menagerie of drivers—all those paper or silk or metal or ribbon tweeters, upper-midrange cones, lower-midrange cones, mid/woofers, and woofers, with different on- and off-axis dispersion patterns, power-handling capabilities, and break-up modes—cohere? It’s hard enough to make a two-way sound like a single thing, but a four- or five-way? Third, those giant enclosures aren’t just hard to place; they’re hard to erase. To me, the first essential duty of any loudspeaker (of any piece of hi-fi gear) is to disappear as a sound source. A “disappearing act” is a lot harder to achieve when you have a cabinet with the surface area of a picnic blanket, every square inch a potential source of diffraction or reflection. Fourth, lots of drivers mean lots of crossovers—those heal-alls that are supposed to compensate for all the other problems I’ve mentioned (like different dispersion patterns, power-handling capabilities, and break-up modes). Crossovers may be necessary, but lots of them with lots of different parts, slopes, and hinge points aren’t necessarily good things. (Just consider how hard it is to get the simple high-pass crossover in a subwoofer to work right.)
So what happens to that Holy Grail “disappearing act” when you house half-a-dozen different drivers, with half-a-dozen different high-pass and low-pass filters, in a gigantic singing box? Don’t ask. Not only do you usually hear the box, you sometimes hear the individual drivers, the crossovers, everything. Now I’ll grant that materials, technology, and engineering have come a long way in the past decade—and that big speakers are considerably better than they used to be. (The Rockport Hyperion was a high point for me, as were the Kharma Grand Exquisite and the Wilson MAXX Series 3 I heard at CES.) Nonetheless, as a group they still evince many of the driver-coherency and enclosure problems I’ve mentioned, and in worst cases, can still carry you about as far from the “single-driver” ideal as any kind of loudspeaker can take you. Is it any wonder, then, that I prefer (bass-limited) ’stats, planars, and mini-monitors?
But…what about the fifth string of that five-string Fender Deluxe American Jazz bass guitar, I hear some of you asking? What about rock-concert power handling? How can you listen to the latest Slayer album at “lifelike” (or would that be “death-like,” because you’re surely killing your ears) levels on a Quad 2905, a MartinLogan CLX, a Maggie 1.6QR, or a Magico Mini II? Well…you can’t. There—I’ve said it. But let me also say something about so-called deep bass in many typical large ported dynamic loudspeakers.
First of all, more often than not the bass isn’t really that deep. There is more than one gigantic loudspeaker out there with a steep roll-off below 35–40Hz. What keeps you from noticing this is its greatly elevated midbass and upper bass—a plateau in the 40–125Hz region that can make standard four-string bass guitars or Hammond organs or jazz/rock drumkits sound astonishingly powerful and “authoritative,” giving the impression of a really deep-reaching low end although none of these instruments really goes that deep (the lowest E of a four-string bass is 41.2Hz). Many audiophiles tend to like speakers that accentuate the mid-to-upper bass in this way. They think the sound is more exciting and visceral—and it is. It can also be annoying.
Comments
A well-written review JV. Your addressing the much-maligned "best in the world" descriptor was especially well done and appreciated. The V5 I'm sure is a terrific speaker but will remain a dream for the majority of your readers. Congrats on the review.
I'd like to add my kudos as well. This is the way an audio equipment review should be written.
It's great to review by JV but at $89,000 and 360 lb. the M5 make no sense whatsoever you have extraordinary speakers in $5000 range (Magnepan) that will give you a great deal of what the M5 produce (and you will be able to move them by yourself!) Absolute sound should also be about best bang for the buck!
P.S this remind me of Kelly Johnson (creator of the F-117 stealth fighter) story about the B2 bomber, the B2 was a wonder of technology but make no sense financially to spend a billion $ per unit to do the same job of the same high end F117 which cost only 100 millions.
Alexandre,
Everyone is entitled to hiis , or her own opinion; but I think that your statement about speakers sounding rather "extraordinary" in the $5000 range is true.
BUT THERE IS NO WAY that ANY speaker especially "Magnepan" that will give you everything that the M5 delivers in that price range. I dont think that you have actually heard the M5's in action. LMAO! The M5 represents a whole new way of approaching dynamic loudspeaker design. EVERY aspect of Magico's entire line of speakers (crossovers, aluminum plates, lack of MDF cabinets, in house speakers, etc) gives you an open window to the performance as it was meant to be heard. I know that JV states that the Magnepan 1.6 sounds good but, does ANY ribbon speaker give you the top, to bottom SEAMLESS sound that the M5 obviously has? Not quite! JV is my favorite audio reviewer, and after reading his reviews, blogs over the years I have grown acustom to his tastes in speakers, and for him to hear "what he feels" as the absolute sound should speak for itself. $89K for this level of quality is a bargain for a product that"redesigns a genre" JV also states that the $250K MBL Extreme @ 3000 lbs. was a speaker that compares to the M5, what a bargain! Go listen to the M5, it will change the way you hear music, and especially the way you listen to music..........
Interesting speakers and interesting review, but I am quite happy with my Vandersteen Quatros at 1/10th the price. They also present a seamless image from top to bottom -- you are never aware that any note is coming from a particular driver, even during a descending scale that drops into the integrated subs. I am curious if you are experienced with Vandersteen's Quatros, Model 5s or Model 7s, and how you would compare them to the Magico.
First I did NOT say the buying a Magnepan will give you everything that the M5 delivers ( I use the words "a great deal") but the 3.6 or the 20.1 WILL give you a LOT of what the M5 produce!
AGAIN 90K and 400lb for the M5 (compare to 10k 20lb for the 20.1) make NO sense for a pair of speakers and you can tell me all day long that the M5 produce sounds like no other audio system to date, it does not change the fact that even if you are an audiophile and have some money to burn, the M5 should not be on your purchase list!
Now funny thing here is a review of Magnepan 20.1 review but no less mister Valin (!) The title of the review was :The Finest Speaker In The World! (LOL)
Jonathan Valin, of Fi Magazine, said in December, 1998, Volume 3, Issue 12,
"So what have we got here? A big planar speaker that throws the widest, deepest, tallest, most coherent soundfield I've heard from a hi-fi system, filled with the most naturally-sized instruments I've heard from a hi-fi system, with the sweetest, most natural timbres I've heard from a hi-fi system, the finest dynamic nuance I've heard from a hi-fi system (particularly in the treble), and the most natural illusion of instrumental "action" I've heard from a hi-fi system. What we've got here, in sum, is "realistic reproduction" in the highest sense of the phrase, in the sense I spoke of earlier, the virtual duplication of instruments and voices rather than mere analogs of certain aspects of their sound....While it's hard to call anything that costs over ten grand a bargain, I can tell you this; if it were my money, and I were shopping for the very best, these are the speakers I'd buy."
Alexandre,
Like I said , you are entitled to your own opinion,. MY personal taste in reproduction would be a speaker like the M5, for the simple fact the speaker produces the "full range" from bass, to treble, with a "planar like" presentation. It gives you the best of both worlds. When I consider the price of $89k for the M5, I look at the Magico Mini II and it's $32k price ( for probably the world's finest moniter) as a "reference" for price/performance. So considering the M5 gives you the same "window" , and the added "full range" depth "top to bottom" for three times the price is a "bargain"once again for a dynamic loudspeaker that "redefines a genre".
Alexandre,
Like I said , you are entitled to your own opinion,. MY personal taste in reproduction would be a speaker like the M5, for the simple fact the speaker produces the "full range" from bass, to treble, with a "planar like" presentation. It gives you the best of both worlds. When I consider the price of $89k for the M5, I look at the Magico Mini II and it's $32k price ( for probably the world's finest moniter) as a "reference" for price/performance. So considering the M5 gives you the same "window" , and the added "full range" depth "top to bottom" for three times the price is a "bargain"once again for a dynamic loudspeaker that "redefines a genre".
Alexandre,
A couple of thoughts concerning the price and size of the M5. The cost of the parts alone are more than the entire cost of other "reference" loudspeakers. The front baffle alone is made of "aircraft-grade" aluminum, and takes eight hours (each) to machine. Take into account the crossover all made of "ultra-premium" components cost several thousand dollars in itself. Consider also that the all "in-house" drivers (including tweeter) with the Nano Tec drivers are sublime, and costly add to the price of the speaker. As ffar as the size issue, the output of the drivers is rather substantial, and in order for the speaker to deliver it's "planar-like" reproduction there can be no "coloration from the box, and baffle. So a heavy box along with the way that the drivers are mounted to the baffle insure that the only moving part of the speaker will be the drivers themselves, and not the "box" One more note, the aluminum baffle "squeezes" the "cabinet " together to the rear of the speaker to achieve the "boxless" sound.
Good listening.......
Hiendguy the bottom line is that are YOU seriously considering spending 89K on a pair of speakers?!
(Which mean that you are ready to spend at least $500K in other components to go along your M5)
So I bet that when you'll have to open your wallet I'm pretty sure you will think more than TWICE before investing 89K of your hard earned money! Especially when you could get an other all time great speakers that would give you a GREAT deal of the M5 for 1/5 of the price...
How does the Magico compare to the Wilson Alexandria 2 at 600lbs and 135K? Or The Wilson Maxx3 at Same price as the Magico and at 400lbs?
Alexandre,
A couple of thoughts concerning the price and size of the M5. The cost of the parts alone are more than the entire cost of"some" of the other "reference" loudspeakers. The front baffle alone is made of "aircraft-grade" aluminum, and takes eight hours (each) to machine. Take into account the crossover all made of "ultra-premium" components cost several thousand dollars in itself. Consider also that the all "in-house" drivers (including tweeter) with the Nano Tec drivers are sublime, and costly add to the price of the speaker. As ffar as the size issue, the output of the drivers is rather substantial, and in order for the speaker to deliver it's "planar-like" reproduction there can be no "coloration from the box, and baffle. So a heavy box along with the way that the drivers are mounted to the baffle ensure that the only moving part of the speaker will be the drivers themselves, and not the "box" One more note, the aluminum baffle "squeezes" the "cabinet " together to the rear of the speaker to achieve the "boxless" sound.
Good listening.......
I don't like your analogy between speakers designed to bring the joy of music into people's homes and bombers designed to kill people.
Well, congratulations on finding the best loudspeaker you guys have ever heard. This month too.
Hi JV,
Your lucid review is quite explicit in its conclusion.
Does the M5 leave any room for the M6 persé, no matter how much (more) it may cost ?
My best,
Ronald Dunki
Ronald,
Well...IMO, the M5 is a better speaker than the M6, so I guess my answer would be "no." However, Magico has just changed the stakes by announcing its all-aluminum-bodied Q Series speakers, the first of which (the Q5) is slated to be introduced at CES 2010. Since the Qs are a LOT less expensive than the M Series Magicos and use more advanced drivers and cabinets, it will be very interesting to see how they compare.
JV
Magico seems to be getting far too much hype from all hi-fi magazines these days. I guess if there were no press backups to back up these speakers they would sell nowhere. A lot other manufacturers manage to sell their speakers with much less press hype and propaganda.
With regards to a speakers that pretty much disappears when listening to them there are multiple other options other than electrostats or overpriced Magico. One of the brands would be the Wilson Benesch line of speakers who have managed to combine electrostatic advantages with box speaker advantages many years ago. For example the Chimera has relatively good base while pretty much disappearing and all that for less than 30ths USD - while not cheap still good value compared to the same price for two Magico standmounts and dirt cheap if compared to the M5. And the WBs are so old tha tI am sure there are alreay many similarly priced or even cheaper options around that duplicate these feats or improve on them.
There are enough other examples especially once one starts looking at active speakers e.g. Adam who for a high cost at least include studio quality and amplification with high room adaptability. How come Magico gets used by pretty much no recording studio?
These Magico reviews lack any perspective and give the wrong impression of what one needs to spend by putting an even far more expensive speaker such as the mbl 101-Extremes as comparisonto a M5 but omit any cheaper speakers that may sound pretty much as good... To keep some comparability at least consider the smaller mbls 101E which are already much cheaper than the M5 at least...
Otherwise we may as well go totally unrealistic and start comparing Gryphon Poseidons, Adam Olympus Sound System, various Audio Physics offerings and all of a sudden Magico really starts to look boring, conventional and long in the tooth...
Magico skeptic,
This is simply a dishonest post. I DID compare the M5s to MUCH cheaper speakers (including the $1.7k Magnepan 1.6QR) and explicitly said that the M5 was NOT the best speaker I'd heard in every respect--particularly in low-level resolution at low volumes, dynamic range and scale on piano and pianissimo passages, and transparency to sources. There certainly are other speakers out there for less money that will give you a good deal of what the M5 offers and some that will outdo it in specific regards. But OVERALL it is the best I've heard in my home, with my music and my ancillaries at the volumes I listen at, although Magico's new Q Series may be competitive.
JV
Hey JV, any ideas on the Revel and Mordauntshorts; guess Revel's a step up than MS perhaps but would appreciate your thoughts?
Mr Valin
I am a 14-year-long reader of TAS, but this is my first forum post.
I must ask you in all honesty - you mentioned that you had purchased the Magico M5 for your own personal use following the review. However, my dealer who also knows you personally says that you did not really have to pay for it. Is that true? I think that people should know exactly how much reviewers pay for their products, in order to see where possible biases and "strings attached" may lie.
I personally drove nearly 200 km to audition the Magico M5 only because of your review, and found its sound really disappointing. Also, the workmanship was a bit under what I would expect at this price. I think that had I known then what I do now about how much you had (not) paid, I could have saved the time and hassle of the trip, since I would have read the review in a different light.
Would you agree to reveal how much you had paid for the Magico M5 (if at all), and also would you agree in general that reviewers should reveal this important piece of information?
JV did not buy the M5s, nor does he say that he did in this review. He does not own M5s; they were on loan from Magico for the review (equipment loans are the method of obtaining review product in 99% of reviews). Your dealer (badly) misunderstood something.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
I never said I "purchased the Magicos for my personal use following the review" in TAS or on-line. I couldn't possibly afford $89k speakers. Your "dealer who knows me personally" doesn't know what he's talking about, and neither do you.