First Listen: Magico Q7 Mk.II - An Unexpected New Direction for Magico

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
In some respect, i feel like Robert's comments could be compared to the way some might describe the general overall 'character' of the S series vs the original Q series. It is now that the Q seems to have taken perhaps the best of both worlds and sought to combine into one Mark II speaker. In particular, i think of the quote:

"...This new speaker was decidedly darker in balance, richer in tone color, smoother and softer in the treble, and less incisive. It sounded very much like a difference in frequency response, with the top two-and-a-half octaves shelved down in level compared with the original Q7. However, Magico's Alon Wolf told me that the frequency responses of the two loudspeakers are identical...."

Many who measured the S series (Martin Colloms) found the S series to be remarkably flat (Q of course also being quite flat), and yet i think few seem to have found its 'voicing' the same as the Q.
 
Last edited:

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,522
10,688
3,515
USA
In some respect, i feel like Robert's comments could be compared to the way some might describe the general overall 'character' of the S series vs the original Q series. It is now that the Q seems to have taken perhaps the best of both worlds and sought to combine into one Mark II speaker. In particular, i think of the quote:

"...This new speaker was decidedly darker in balance, richer in tone color, smoother and softer in the treble, and less incisive. It sounded very much like a difference in frequency response, with the top two-and-a-half octaves shelved down in level compared with the original Q7. However, Magico's Alon Wolf told me that the frequency responses of the two loudspeakers are identical...."

Many who measured the S series (Martin Colloms) found the S series to be remarkably flat (Q of course also being quite flat), and yet i think few seem to have found its 'voicing' the same as the Q.

It's interesting how speakers with very similar frequency responses can sound so different. Just shows that ears are more sensitive than testing equipment. Strange how Harley keeps describing the new midrange material as the first commercial application of this in any product. Has he forgotten about the M Project? Little or no mention of that speaker in the review. Also, can he really compare the sound of the Q7 and Q7 II based on hearing them in different rooms?

If these tweeters and midranges (or similar versions) migrate to other Q and S speakers, I wonder how different the two lines will really sound from each other. The Q5 vs S7 could be an interesting comparison like the Q3 vs S5.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,680
4,468
963
Greater Boston
Also, can he really compare the sound of the Q7 and Q7 II based on hearing them in different rooms?

Yes, I have my doubts, too, and good that you brought this point to our attention. Not just rooms are different, but it also depends where you sit within a given room. Even in my room the perceived frequency response is different if I sit just 3 feet back from my usual spot -- less bright in the highs but also with less body in the low mids. So it is not easily possible to make direct comparisons between different equipment if you do not set it up in the same room and in the same way.
 
Last edited:

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,467
11,363
4,410
from my recollection of Harley's home listening room, almost any speaker in a sophisticated purpose designed listening room would have more body and be somewhat darker sounding. Harley's room 'appears' to be very bright and slappy sounding based on the visuals of tall hard surfaces, very open in all directions and lots of windows and no strong room boundaries to define the bass. of course, Harley's room might sound absolutely different from how it looks, however unlikely that might be.

which does not mean that his conclusions are necessarily wrong, only that his basis is questionable. if Magico's big boy room is not much better and different than Harley's I would be surprised.
 
Last edited:

marty

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
3,025
4,171
2,520
United States
In my view, Robert Harley's re-assessment of the original Q7 is somewhat of a personal embarrassment. It's interesting to see how he is able to hear the obvious flaws of the Q7 only in retrospect to the revised Mk II version. Although I have read and respected his work for years, I think we need to be honest here and say this raises some concern. It was obvious to many of us that with respect to real music, the top end of the Q7 was quite un-natural, "hot" even,- a trait he was able to identify quite easily only when the Q7 MK II was used as the comparator. This begs asking a very important question which is namely, why was he not able to hear this when attending any decent symphony performance and then going home to listen to reproduced music on the original Q7? Hmmm... I realize that sometimes our best objective efforts are unfortunately biased by subjective issues. It appears that may be the case here. Robert is clearly an experienced and reputable listener, but he is also only human. I'm hoping that in his revised assessment of the original Q7, there is something to be learned here by all of us. BTW, if anyone wishes to hear another remarkable tweeter (and speaker!), have a listen to the Vivid G1's. No revision of that speaker is needed to know that the current model indeed sounds like real music should sound.
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
In my view, Robert Harley's re-assessment of the original Q7 is somewhat of a personal embarrassment. It's interesting to see how he is able to hear the obvious flaws of the Q7 only in retrospect to the revised Mk II version. Although I have read and respected his work for years, I think we need to be honest here and say this raises some concern. It was obvious to many of us that with respect to real music, the top end of the Q7 was quite un-natural, "hot" even,- a trait he was able to identify quite easily only when the Q7 MK II was used as the comparator. This begs asking a very important question which is namely, why was he not able to hear this when attending any decent symphony performance and then going home to listen to reproduced music on the original Q7? Hmmm... I realize that sometimes our best objective efforts are unfortunately biased by subjective issues. It appears that may be the case here. Robert is clearly an experienced and reputable listener, but he is also only human. I'm hoping that in his revised assessment of the original Q7, there is something to be learned here by all of us. BTW, if anyone wishes to hear another remarkable tweeter (and speaker!), have a listen to the Vivid G1's. No revision of that speaker is needed to know that the current model indeed sounds like real music should sound.

I think you bring up some very good points here. Why indeed did RH NOT hear the "hot" top end. That question could also be asked of other reviewers who have not, or cannot, hear the "ringing" of the old Wilson tweet or the "HOT" Beryllium dome in the Magico's and the Focals. One could also ask, what about all the other wrinkles and faults that all gear elicits? IMHO, the a'phile should be very concerned when he/she reads a review that is hyperbole full and then within a short period of time, said reviewer is faulting the old model and waxing again about the new model. A great example being the many hyperbole laden reviews of the old ARC REf 120...so many positives flying around and so much hyperbole, that any one new to the hobby would think that this amp had to be the second coming, LOL:rolleyes:
Then we get to read a review of the newer ARC Ref 150 wherein the reviewer states: " the old Ref 120's faults with loss of information, a general haze, and weakness in the bottom octave have all been ameliorated here"....what the heck!!
BTW, I agree with the statement about the Vivid G1's...superb sounding speaker ( the tweeter, even though it is a metal dome is just a pleasure to listen to, no ringing or anything else untoward).
 

Altanpsx

Member
Sep 10, 2014
75
2
6
Well first of all i am not a magico owner, also i am not a fanboy. One of my friend has M-Projects, whom i care what he thinks because he is a veteran listener. He says exactly the same things about the m-project, which RH mentions about q7. So as far asmy friends and RH thinks same, i consider RH findings are true. Also, hearing the defects of old q7 now, is not a fault imho, because again my friend told me that new tweater and mid range driver is a brand new experience to him, i think for RH too. It is very unfair judging RH, without hearing q7mkii in my opinion. Maybe it is a very different thing which you may never think a speaker may achive, who knows...

These are very expensive products, few lucky may have, maybe more but again few may hear them. There will always be doubts about that this kind of products, and review about them. Because they are out of reach, they cannot be good enough to justify their price :)
 

number95

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2014
384
7
250
from my recollection of Harley's home listening room, almost any speaker in a sophisticated purpose designed listening room would have more body and be somewhat darker sounding. Harley's room 'appears' to be very bright and slappy sounding based on the visuals of tall hard surfaces, very open in all directions and lots of windows and no strong room boundaries to define the bass. of course, Harley's room might sound absolutely different from how it looks, however unlikely that might be.

which does not mean that his conclusions are necessarily wrong, only that his basis is questionable. if Magico's big boy room is not much better and different than Harley's I would be surprised.

I did not listen any of RH's systems in his room so can not comment on it. It should also be the fact that speakers should sound relatively bright compared to acoustically treated rooms. That said, I suppose RH's hearings of Q7mkII can not be fully regarded as room differentials. It is the tweeter and mid driver playing their roles in his description of somewhat darker sounding and better rendition of timbres. Before M Pros, I listened to various Magicos in different setups,. so that accustomed to Magico sound even if each Magico also has its variations over each other. The high freq definition of M Pros via new tweeter is an important step from Magico to diverge to a new positioning in terms of musicality and presentation. It is unlike any other previous Magicos that I heard or any other speakers from any other brands. It has taken a while for me to adapt to the tweeter as one hears better resolution and energy in a way that it does not precede itself ahead of music. On the contrary the highs are somehow melted into mids such that you realize the instruments as a whole similar to a live music rather than your brain hearing first the frequency segments and then combine them to visualize the instrument with the consiousness that you listen to a system, not a live performance.

I have been into hiend for almost 20 years. I am sure there are lots of more experienced listeners in this forum, so I will not pretend as mr X or Y etc. I am just anybody having his opinion. I also understand that good can be better so there is no end to that. There has been very few times that I felt like I do not listen to a system, but instead I am in that venue. For sure that is not to say I was not happy or I was not impressed with any speaker or system, it is far from that. That being said, M Pros musical presentation via their purities, honesty and integration of drivers (especially its tweeter which acts like no tweeter) at least for me are a musical involvement such that I do not think of the system but music itself. Perhaps there are even better speakers out there, Q7mkII may be one of them. There may be some other speakers from other brands also to consider. I just shared my experiences and findings.
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,522
10,688
3,515
USA
My reading of this Q7II mini review is basically this: Harley writes that the best speaker in the world just got better and the new tweeter and midrange are responsible.

Magico makes a wonderful, innovative group of products fully aided by their marketing prowess and massive support from the media, particularly Jeff Fritz and TAS. They have a real industry presence after just ten years, and it seems very likely that they will be around for a long time continuing to innovate. Magico is not a speaker for everyone, but there are quite a few extremely happy owners who are lucky enough to be able to afford a pair of their speakers.

I've heard the M Project a couple of times and I can only imagine how good the new Q7II sounds.
 

Joe Whip

Well-Known Member
Feb 8, 2014
1,735
557
405
Wayne, PA
I have heard quite a few of the speakers that are the audio press's latest darling. I find many of them to be way too bright. Some unlistenable like some of the Focals I have heard. Hopefully I will hear better results at Axpona. Sometimes I have to wonder if some of these reviewers can hear anything above 2khz. Maybe too many years of listening to music at insane volume levels?
 

Hi-FiGuy

Member Sponsor
Feb 23, 2015
2,235
754
385
I did not find the Q7's to bright. I did however find the bass lacking IMHO. Quite possibly the Jadis amplification at the time...

I find all of the Magico line impressive from top to bottom, looking forward to hearing these.

On the other hand I find the Wilsons tweeters sweet spot extremely small and very "locational". They don't disappear into the music.
 

DSkip

Industry Expert
Aug 26, 2013
442
194
350
Arlington, TX
www.audiothesis.com
I think you bring up some very good points here. Why indeed did RH NOT hear the "hot" top end. That question could also be asked of other reviewers who have not, or cannot, hear the "ringing" of the old Wilson tweet or the "HOT" Beryllium dome in the Magico's and the Focals. One could also ask, what about all the other wrinkles and faults that all gear elicits? IMHO, the a'phile should be very concerned when he/she reads a review that is hyperbole full and then within a short period of time, said reviewer is faulting the old model and waxing again about the new model. A great example being the many hyperbole laden reviews of the old ARC REf 120...so many positives flying around and so much hyperbole, that any one new to the hobby would think that this amp had to be the second coming, LOL:rolleyes:
Then we get to read a review of the newer ARC Ref 150 wherein the reviewer states: " the old Ref 120's faults with loss of information, a general haze, and weakness in the bottom octave have all been ameliorated here"....what the heck!!
BTW, I agree with the statement about the Vivid G1's...superb sounding speaker ( the tweeter, even though it is a metal dome is just a pleasure to listen to, no ringing or anything else untoward).

While my experience on this forum is quite underwhelming, I do always tell those newer to the hobby to pay attention to what the reviews don't say more than what they do say.
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
While my experience on this forum is quite underwhelming, I do always tell those newer to the hobby to pay attention to what the reviews don't say more than what they do say.
Isn't it a shame that you have to do this. A newer hobbyist shouldn't have to pay attention to, and try to comprehend what a reviewer is NOT saying, IMHO. If the dog's got fleas, let's hear about them.
 

MadFloyd

Member Sponsor
May 30, 2010
3,076
774
1,700
Mass
Anyone knows what model Magico will be demo'ing at Axpona in a few weeks?

Someone said it would be the Q7MkII. If this is true, I might actually go...
 

Frank750

VIP/Donor
Jul 8, 2011
821
1
928
Q7 Mk II will be on the 12th floor in the O'hare 2 meeting room at the Westin. Quintessence Audio is the dealer. Also the Sonus Faber Lilium and Audio Research will be in O'hare 1 meeting room.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing