Magico Q1
- Thread starter Seta
- Start date
The Q1 is discussed here: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2270-As-expected-the-Q3/page2 post 13
The Q1's are of interest to me also. I would like to hear them and compare to my beloved SF GH's. The Mini's -- original version-- did not make me want to give up the GH's. The Mini 2's were better than the original Mini's but when I heard them, were still not good enough to abandon the G's for. The Q1's are therefore interesting to me, are they good enough to make me want to leave the GH's
Somehow, i have my doubts
Somehow, i have my doubts
Hi DaveyF,
A challenge...the reason is because Guarneri combines 2 things extraordinarily well which is the main reason it has withstood the test of time so well. It is a classic/legend of sorts imho. It has clarity, detail that are extremely good...and get better and better with superior electronics. And yet it has a 'soulfulness' that many have found nearly impossible to instill in their speakers...without the typical inaccuracies, fuzz, that too often come with "warmth".
I dont think the Amatis (until the latest one) shared this finely tuned balance. The Strads were bigger, better, etc, etc...but again, i think even the Strads are not as good (for what they are supposed to deliver) as the Guarneris are.
I lived with both for many years, and enjoyed them immensely. I dont think about the Strads anymore, but I still do admire the G's when i go into the local demo room and happen to hear them. They are special. Enjoy them!
A challenge...the reason is because Guarneri combines 2 things extraordinarily well which is the main reason it has withstood the test of time so well. It is a classic/legend of sorts imho. It has clarity, detail that are extremely good...and get better and better with superior electronics. And yet it has a 'soulfulness' that many have found nearly impossible to instill in their speakers...without the typical inaccuracies, fuzz, that too often come with "warmth".
I dont think the Amatis (until the latest one) shared this finely tuned balance. The Strads were bigger, better, etc, etc...but again, i think even the Strads are not as good (for what they are supposed to deliver) as the Guarneris are.
I lived with both for many years, and enjoyed them immensely. I dont think about the Strads anymore, but I still do admire the G's when i go into the local demo room and happen to hear them. They are special. Enjoy them!
Here we disagree.
I also have owned both, even simultaneously. IMHO, the Guarneris were excellent with some type of music, but, when properly amplified and placed, the Stradivari was in another league. It could recreate a much more complete image of the real, and retrospectively, I can not find any point where the Guarneri was better than the Stradivari. Even playing strings ...
Hi Microstrip,
Actually, i am not sure we do necessarily disagree. I totally agree the Strad is better than the Guarneri in every single aspect. Every single one. My point was that [on a RELATIVE basis] I am not sure the Strad succeeds as well as a full-out, full-range, SOTA cost-no-object speaker, as the Guarneri does as a stand-mount speaker with a small cabinet. In 10 years, i do not think people will speak of the Strad with as much reverence (compared to other fulll-range, SOTA flagship speakers] as they do today (17 years after they were first introduced) of the Guarneri (compared to other stand-mounted speakers].
Even though the Strad surpasses the Guarneri in every single aspect, i feel like ultimately given the size, all-out-assault design and cost of the Strads, i used to nitpick about the quality of the upper bass delivery, and the effortlessness compared to other SOTA, all-out full-range speakers. I have no such nitpicks about the Guarneri as a stand-mounted speaker. IMHO, the Guarneri succeeds better as a standmounted speaker than the Strad does as a full-range, SOTA, statement speaker.
Actually, i am not sure we do necessarily disagree. I totally agree the Strad is better than the Guarneri in every single aspect. Every single one. My point was that [on a RELATIVE basis] I am not sure the Strad succeeds as well as a full-out, full-range, SOTA cost-no-object speaker, as the Guarneri does as a stand-mount speaker with a small cabinet. In 10 years, i do not think people will speak of the Strad with as much reverence (compared to other fulll-range, SOTA flagship speakers] as they do today (17 years after they were first introduced) of the Guarneri (compared to other stand-mounted speakers].
Even though the Strad surpasses the Guarneri in every single aspect, i feel like ultimately given the size, all-out-assault design and cost of the Strads, i used to nitpick about the quality of the upper bass delivery, and the effortlessness compared to other SOTA, all-out full-range speakers. I have no such nitpicks about the Guarneri as a stand-mounted speaker. IMHO, the Guarneri succeeds better as a standmounted speaker than the Strad does as a full-range, SOTA, statement speaker.
Micro and Lloyd, I agree and disagree with you both. The GH's are in the small listening room, superior in every way to the Strads. The Strads in a large room are in many ways superior to the GH's.
Without any question, the Strads can plumb the depths in ways that the GH's cannot even dream of.
However, in the reproduction of the mids from about 100Hz up to and including the highs, the GH's are to my ears far more of a piece and more realistic in their reproduction than the Strads or for that matter almost every other smaller speaker that I have heard; and I have heard numerous speakers in that category, from the aforementioned Magico Mini's to the Dynaudio's to even the TAD's. If, and maybe this is a BIG if, you have the appropriate up stream gear feeding the GH's.
I think it is down to the old saying..."horses for courses" in regards to the Strads vs. the GH's.
. The GH's are in the small listening room, superior in every way to the Strads. The Strads in a large room are in many ways superior to the GH's. Without any question, the Strads can plumb the depths in ways that the GH's cannot even dream of
.However, in the reproduction of the mids from about 100Hz up to and including the highs, the GH's are to my ears far more of a piece and more realistic in their reproduction than the Strads or for that matter almost every other smaller speaker that I have heard; and I have heard numerous speakers in that category, from the aforementioned Magico Mini's to the Dynaudio's to even the TAD's. If, and maybe this is a BIG if, you have the appropriate up stream gear feeding the GH's.
I think it is down to the old saying..."horses for courses" in regards to the Strads vs. the GH's.
Micro and Lloyd, I agree and disagree with you both
Without any question, the Strads can plumb the depths in ways that the GH's cannot even dream of
However, in the reproduction of the mids from about 100Hz up to and including the highs, the GH's are to my ears far more of a piece and more realistic in their reproduction than the Strads or for that matter almost every other smaller speaker that I have heard; and I have heard numerous speakers in that category, from the aforementioned Magico Mini's to the Dynaudio's to even the TAD's. If, and maybe this is a BIG if, you have the appropriate up stream gear feeding the GH's.
I think it is down to the old saying..."horses for courses" in regards to the Strads vs. the GH's.
Yes, i agree...i always noted a slight uneveness in the STrad bass as well. I feel on the uppers, the deliveryon the STrad was fuller because of its heft in the upper mids...which i preferred, but still felt like it could be a touch more linear whereas the Guarneri's delivery while perhaps less fulsome was both very linear as well as very tonally pure and still rich.
DaveyF - the Gs were first reviewed by the STereophile in July 1994 (i still have the issue), and Martin Colloms clearly was smitten. It says a lot when a speaker can still be such a SOTA winner when we are pushing 20 years!!!!! I have been fortunate to have lived with some great speakers...the Celestion SL6si, the Guarneris and the Strads. In their price points, all good speakers...the Celestions were USD600! what a steal for that price! Enjoy your Gs!!!!!!!!!!!!
To keep us on track for this thread...it will be interesting to hear whether technology properly balanced with the alchemy of music making in the Q1 can finally surpass the Guarneri .
lloydelee21;65404 To keep us on track for this thread...it will be interesting to hear whether technology properly balanced with the alchemy of music making in the Q1 can finally surpass the Guarneri .[/QUOTE said:That is the $64K question
Again, IMO, Franco hit one out of the park with the GH's and like many other designer's was unable to follow-up with that kind of success. Many people, including myself, feel the same
way about Peter Walker and the Quads...the original ESL's vs. all of his later efforts.
Seems to show that the art of speaker design, is just that...more art than science.
Drum roll.......Jon Valin loved them!....cymbal crash. How's that for me having a firm grasp on the obvious?
JV should really stop reviewing Magico. Give it to Dick Olsher or someone entirely different.
same thing happened at Sphile with Musical Fidelity.
same thing happened at Sphile with Musical Fidelity.
This is what happens when individual reviewers seek out equipment rather than having pieces assigned to them for review. I know that reviewing can become boring not getting piece (s) that one likes and there has to be some middle ground here. But this doesn't just apply to JV, but many others with ARC, Krell, etc. After all, a "professional" reviewer should be able to separate their prejudices out from the sound of the equipment and give an unbiased accounting of what the gear sounds like. The best at that was John Nork.
This goes hand in hand with "novice" reviewers reviewing SOTA gear. It seems everyone wants to start out reviewing Tidal. Gone are the days when a reviewer had to prove their worth with lesser priced gear and then move up through the ranks of the magazine staff.
Well, i think JV would also agree. He did say this actually about 6 wks ago in a blog regarding the CJ GAT in which i was actively participating. Here's the quotation from JV:
"Jonathan Valin -- Fri, 07/08/2011 - 20:22
Amandela,
I think I've reviewed enough Magico for the year. Next I plan to review the Scaena 3.4s and the Audio Physic Avanteras and, possibly, the Raidho C1.0s. I may comment on the TAD References, too.
Jon"
Hi Myles,
As a reader, i also find it useful to have equipment compared with other equipment and having different reviewers take different brands around to their auditioning rooms provides that spread of comparisons...again, rather than have Technical Brain and Solution on every Magico, and every single Magico against so and so's in-house reference each time.
For example, i dont expect the buyer of Magico is going to be looking at Living Voice necessarily...but i would find it fascinating to have someone compare the supposed strengths of transparency and detail retrieval of Magico to a comparably priced Living Voice...because who knows? one might be surprised to find out just how much detail the Living Voice actually provides, despite its having built its reputation on perhaps different strengths...or how much breathe-of-life magic the Magico is capable of, using the typical amps associated with Living Voice...
I own the Mini 2 and have heard the both the M5 and the Q5 in different stores. I have to agree with JV's conclusion that the Q series speakers are probably more neutral to the source than the Mini/M5 which have a somewhat warmish character but only in direct comparison to a speaker as neutral as the Q5. HOWEVER, I personally prefer the tonal balance of the Mini/M5 over the Q5. The Q5 that I auditioned seemed to have a juiced up top end that despite several months of break in never seemed to fully settle and integrate with the midband. Again, with perfectly top notch recordings, the Q's would probably top the older birch/aluminum constructed speakers. But since we do not live in a perfect world, I have to give my vote to the older models and their somewhat more forgiving nature. And I'm sure many people out there will agree that the unique physical appearance and stature of the Mini makes it one of the prettiest speakers ever produced.
I agree. The stands are a work of art.
If the market price on Mini IIs had been driven down by the Q1 introduction at the time I bought my S3s,
I would have gone for a used pair of Mini IIs.
Similar threads
Staff online
-
treitz3Super Moderator
Members online
- shakey
- Tuckia
- vinyl_mike
- Koetsu123
- the sound of Tao
- No Regrets
- rhyno
- Dvuc
- RoAm
- rpw
- tony22
- Geoffkait
- treitz3
- ricjor1
- Young Skywalker
- hopkins
- Salectric
- trekpilot
- Maril555
- mikld
- kyoya78
- soliver
- LarryK
- budburma
- MPW
- escultor
- Loheswaran
- lwr
- tasadam
- cdka
- Al Stewart
- bryans
- drjimwillie
- usaudiofile
- Robh3606
- sbnx
- RichardA
- Protegimus
- MadFloyd
- ozzzy
- SirVeza
- cmarin
- Foxbat
- LR319
- cuntigh
- Jerome Sabbagh
- alecm
- Don Reid
- ozy
- joaovieira
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |