Sublime Sound

[Al M.]

Hi Peter,
Again, continuing with the thought in my reply to Davey, I think people hone on what they like and find realism in... There is something about speakers that have a single driver across the entire range. If you are used to that sound, everything else sticks out. Tastes are learned. Obviously, people readjust their tastes with new experiences. Coca Cola tastes Weird to someone first trying it - until they learn to like it. And remember the looks on the faces of freshmen who are new to alcohol in the first few weeks of college. That grimace is gone by spring, as they embrace the bitter taste...

Unfortunately, these musings are irrelevant to the question of the Mini II sound coherent or not.

I listened to the mini and q in the same room, and I am familiar with full range stats... Ack maybe right about the incongruities of the Q, but I think it's much better than the mini...

Here's the truth:

1. The Mini II, when expertly set up as Peter did, sound very coherent (I agree with Ack).

2. The fact that you heard the Q3 and Mini II in the same room is, in itself, irrelevant. Speaker set-up is everything, and obviously there must have been problems. One speaker may have been set up well, and the other not. And if you drop another speaker in the same position as the first one, and expect miracles, this is often wrong. What may be an optimal position for one speaker, may be a sub-optimal for the other. Near the top of the list of audiophile mistakes 101.

(And if both speakers were in the same room at the same time, instead of removing one from the room while listening to the other, this would be even worse.)

 

[Al M.]

But I find many of the stats problematic as I quickly pick up on poor highs due to badly designed or pussy powered amps, poor macro dynamics - also because of people using pussy powered amps, the thinness, and incongruities of woofer integration of the hybrid models. But the biggest problem for stat technology is a lack of dynamics in the midrange. But many don’t notice it because they are used to the sound, and it only comes across when comparing to a much better designed, frequently more expensive non-stat speaker…

If you haven't heard Ack's Martin Logan's then you have no clue what stats can do. They are extremely dynamic in the midrange, driven by the Spectral DMA-400 monoblocks.

But this thread is not about stats, but about Peter's system. Let's get back on topic.

 

[caesar]

Unfortunately, these musings are irrelevant to the question of the Mini II sound coherent or not.



Here's the truth:

1. The Mini II, when expertly set up as Peter did, sound very coherent (I agree with Ack).

2. The fact that you heard the Q3 and Mini II in the same room is, in itself, irrelevant. Speaker set-up is everything, and obviously there must have been problems. One speaker may have been set up well, and the other not. And if you drop another speaker in the same position as the first one, and expect miracles, this is often wrong. What may be an optimal position for one speaker, may be a sub-optimal for the other. Near the top of the list of audiophile mistakes 101.

(And if both speakers were in the same room at the same time, instead of removing one from the room while listening to the other, this would be even worse.)

Hi Al,
Having a bad day? a bad night's sleep? Oyoyoy!!!! If people didn't have divergent tastes and preferences, the product choices would be a lot slimmer. So depending on one's perspective, high end is all about taste and preferences! Looking to see a rematch of the fight between "Sterile" Jon Valin and Great Peter Breuninger about who imagines their turntable sounding most real in their head... Also would like to see "Sterile" Jon fight "Snooty" Peter McGrath about whether Magico or Wilson sounds more "real" with acoustic instruments.

And what makes you think the setup was poor? You are making a lot of assumptions that don't hold...

 

[caesar]

If you haven't heard Ack's Martin Logan's then you have no clue what stats can do. They are extremely dynamic in the midrange, driven by the Spectral DMA-400 monoblocks.

But this thread is not about stats, but about Peter's system. Let's get back on topic.

Hi Al,
Stats were brought up because single driver stats don't exhibit driver discontinuity. But a lack of dynamics in the midrange is inherent to that technology. If someone brought in the Q3 to Ack's room, it will be obvious.

I hope you a great day, man! Sincerely!

 

[Al M.]

Hi Al,
Stats were brought up because single driver stats don't exhibit driver discontinuity. But a lack of dynamics in the midrange is inherent to that technology. If someone brought in the Q3 to Ack's room, it will be obvious.

As I said, my friend, you have no clue.

I hope you a great day, man! Sincerely!

I am having a very great day, thanks! You don't have to worry about me .

Let's get back on topic, shall we?

 

[bonzo75]

I think Caesar is on topic, this is Peter's thread, so he is saying Peter's speakers have a more dynamic midrange than Ack's. If it was the other way round it would be off topic for this thread and on topic for Ack's system thread.

 

[Al M.]

I think Caesar is on topic, this is Peter's thread, so he is saying Peter's speakers have a more dynamic midrange than Ack's. If it was the other way round it would be off topic for this thread and on topic for Ack's system thread.

No, he made stats a topic. And he's got not clue because he hasn't heard Ack's system. I have, many times. And I have heard Peter's system as well, many times. Both have a very dynamic midrange.

 

[microstrip]

(...) But the biggest problem for stat technology is a lack of dynamics in the midrange. But many don’t notice it because they are used to the sound, and it only comes across when comparing to a much better designed, frequently more expensive non-stat speaker… (...)

It would be nice if you could explain with detail what you mean by this statement. Just dynamic range? Micro dynamics? Macro dynamics?

 

[Al M.]

It would be nice if you could explain what you mean by this statement. Just dynamic range? Micro dynamics? Macro dynamics?

Even if it's both he has no point. At least not in every specific instance.

 

[ack]

No, he made stats a topic. And he's got not clue because he hasn't heard Ack's system. I have, many times. And I have heard Peter's system as well, many times. Both have a very dynamic midrange.

+1

I apologize to Peter for continuing on this, but between the numerous times I've heard the Q3 at Goodwin's driven by my amps and my speakers at home with the same amps, the differences in dynamics were so negligible, up to about 100dB RMS, as to be irrelevant. Ceasar may still disagree, and we have to leave at that. As I have been saying for years, if stats sound undynamic, you are not driving them correctly, and this is likely what ceasar is reporting on.

 

[caesar]

It would be nice if you could explain with detail what you mean by this statement. Just dynamic range? Micro dynamics? Macro dynamics?

As an example, listen to Miles Davis blow his horn on a stat. If the system is well setup, it sounds damn good!!! And people don't even realize they are missing anything. That is what people are describing in this thread.

But then compare the same recording on a box speaker like a Magico Q3 that has a high-quality midrange driver, and the dynamics that were missing become very apparent. That same recording played on a Magico q3 will smack you a bit harder - emotionally.

You are just up against the physical reality with stats. Stats do have superior dynamics from a whisper to the speaking voice range (ppp to mp). But then the physical limitations kick in and they cannot go from very soft to very loud. Dynamic speakers are superior in dynamics from the speaking voice to very loud (mf to fff).

Sounds like many people in this thread have closed their mind to this due to passions, so they will remain experientially impoverished. But if one were to get the Q3 into Ack's system with the same spectral amps, it will be very apparent.

 

[caesar]

+1

I apologize to Peter for continuing on this, but between the numerous times I've heard the Q3 at Goodwin's driven by my amps and my speakers at home with the same amps, the differences in dynamics were so negligible, up to about 100dB RMS, as to be irrelevant. Ceasar may still disagree, and we have to leave at that. As I have been saying for years, if stats sound undynamic, you are not driving them correctly, and this is likely what ceasar is reporting on.

Why apologize? We are chatting audio.

 

[bonzo75]

+1

I apologize to Peter for continuing on this, but between the numerous times I've heard the Q3 at Goodwin's driven by my amps and my speakers at home with the same amps, the differences in dynamics were so negligible, up to about 100dB RMS, as to be irrelevant. Ceasar may still disagree, and we have to leave at that. As I have been saying for years, if stats sound undynamic, you are not driving them correctly, and this is likely what ceasar is reporting on.

Actually, I would have a lot to say for stats countering plastic coloration and lack of midrange dynamics (all down to poor auditioning of not well driven systems) but that would be off topic

 

[DaveyF]

As an example, listen to Miles Davis blow his horn on a stat. If the system is well setup, it sounds damn good!!! And people don't even realize they are missing anything. That is what people are describing in this thread.

But then compare the same recording on a box speaker like a Magico Q3 that has a high-quality midrange driver, and the dynamics that were missing become very apparent. That same recording played on a Magico q3 will smack you a bit harder - emotionally.

You are just up against the physical reality with stats. Stats do have superior dynamics from a whisper to the speaking voice range (ppp to mp). But then the physical limitations kick in and they cannot go from very soft to very loud. Dynamic speakers are superior in dynamics from the speaking voice to very loud (mf to fff).

Sounds like many people in this thread have closed their mind to this due to passions, so they will remain experientially impoverished. But if one were to get the Q3 into Ack's system with the same spectral amps, it will be very apparent.

I actually agree with this. IME, and that is all I can go on, stats are exactly limited in the way Caesar states. Having owned stats, I thought they sounded great, until that is I heard what a great dynamic speaker can do with midrange dynamics...and in some ways dynamics in general. This was also the case with the high frequency response and ability, I thought it was very good...that is until I heard what a great silk dome can do. It’s all relative in our hobby, and I am sure Ack’s system with stats has conquered these aspects...presumably. At any rate, he is happy enough with the sound from his stats...and imho, that’s all that matters.

 

[microstrip]

As an example, listen to Miles Davis blow his horn on a stat. If the system is well setup, it sounds damn good!!! And people don't even realize they are missing anything. That is what people are describing in this thread.

But then compare ]the same recording on a box speaker like a Magico Q3 that has a high-quality midrange driver, and the dynamics that were missing become very apparent. That same recording played on a Magico q3 will smack you a bit harder - emotionally.

You are just up against the physical reality with stats. Stats do have superior dynamics from a whisper to the speaking voice range (ppp to mp). But then the physical limitations kick in and they cannot go from very soft to very loud. Dynamic speakers are superior in dynamics from the speaking voice to very loud (mf to fff).

Sounds like many people in this thread have closed their mind to this due to passions, so they will remain experientially impoverished. But if one were to get the Q3 into Ack's system with the same spectral amps, it will be very apparent.

Thanks for being ambiguous again and avoiding a clear answer. Are you just addressing the maximum linear loudness of electrostatics, a well know physical phenomena, well documented since long?

 

[Al M.]

Thanks for being ambiguous again and avoiding a clear answer. Are you just addressing the maximum linear loudness of electrostatics, a well know physical phenomena, well documented since long?

Can we please address this on the new thread that Caesar opened?

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ctrostats-Why-so-few-speakers-beat-ol-Quad-57

Peter's system thread has been hijacked enough.

Thanks
Al

 

[microstrip]

Can we please address this on the new thread that Caesar opened?

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ctrostats-Why-so-few-speakers-beat-ol-Quad-57

Peter's system thread has been hijacked enough.

Thanks
Al

Al.,

IMHO the subject is also related to Peter's new speakers. It is why I asked for a clarification.

 

[Al M.]

Al.,

IMHO the subject is also related to Peter's new speakers. It is why I asked for a clarification.

It is not, Francisco. Can you and others please stop and go to that other thread? Thank you.

 

[microstrip]

It is not, Francisco. Can you and others please stop and go to that other thread? Thank you.

As far as I see it, it is. Unless Peter ask us to end this subject or moderators say so, I think it is of great interest to people who like Magico speakers. I am not interested in the parallel vendetta, but the evolution from Mini II to Q3 is a challenging subject, and we can not ignore that Magico speakers have been frequently compared to electrostatics in reviews and debates. See this interview with Alon Wolf:

"Wolf's other childhood interests included sound reproduction and industrial design.

"I was interested in sound reproduction from the time when I first remember myself," he reveals. "But a decent system was not easily available in Israel when I grew up in the 1960s and '70s. The first time I heard Quad 57 electrostatics, when I was 14 or 15, I thought I'd died and gone to heaven. That experience, which initiated my craze to build a system that could re-create the feeling I had back then, has screwed (footnote 1) my mind ever since."

Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/interviews/508int/index.html#22rrEAJh4RDxwmyX.99

 

[PeterA]

Yes, I can imagine that your Pass is an even better match for the Magico's, as they have a difficult impedance. Your current M3's have an EPDR (equivalent peak dissipation resistance) around 1 ohm in the bass - something that will forbid almost all tube amplifiers!

Are you considering subs? We should always remember the old rule - subs integrate better with speakers that apparently do not need them!

Hi microstrip. I think you mean my Q3s have that EPDR at 1 ohm. Brutal. As you may know, I tried two JL subs in my system before. The Q3s are different, and I may indeed consider adding some subs down the road. I have heard good and bad examples of sub integration. I agree that these speakers may lend themselves nicely to them. We will see. I might have to move the amps and their stands to the basement and run the cables through the floor to make room for two subs and to appease my wife. She often thinks are living room looks like a hifi shop. Al has had great success with his two JL subs and I might go in that direction one day, but right now I am just enjoying the music, and it is almost sailing season, so things will change.