Yes, Magico speakers seem inconsistent. I did not like the V3 for instance. But the M3 is their flagship line with the latest technology and it costs $85K or something. Given that, my expectations are higher. The A, S and V lines are/were clearly built to a lower price point with compromises in place. The A3, V3, S3, S3 II, Q3 and M3 are all in this mid size, full range category, but they are very different designs which sound different.
ack's system - end of round 1
- Thread starter ack
- Start date
Yes, Magico speakers seem inconsistent. I did not like the V3 for instance. But the M3 is their flagship line with the latest technology and it costs $85K or something. Given that, my expectations are higher. The A, S and V lines are/were clearly built to a lower price point with compromises in place. The A3, V3, S3, S3 II, Q3 and M3 are all in this mid size, full range category, but they are very different designs which sound different.
The only thing that is consistent in all your findings is that you hate Magico products when presented at dealers or shows but you love them when they are in your homes. You should know by now that when you listen to a Magico product, more than any other loudspeaker out there, you are listening to an entire system. Most speakers coloration are so gross that they typically take over the sound characteristics, and therefor are more 'consistence' from a setup to a setup. You are hearing the speakers not the system. It is a bit of an oxymoron you get the best loudspeakers you can only to realize that the speakers are no longer the most important part of the system.
Peter, I had the Q3 in my house for few weeks while I was waiting for my M3, fantastic speakers, but I preferred the midrange and the tweeter on my S5 (Mk2 that is). I can also assure you the M3 are in a different league all together (But they don’t do S5 big dynamics, they are not built for that). Don’t know about the V series, these must be over 10 years old by now.
Peter, I had the Q3 in my house for few weeks while I was waiting for my M3, fantastic speakers, but I preferred the midrange and the tweeter on my S5 (Mk2 that is). I can also assure you the M3 are in a different league all together (But they don’t do S5 big dynamics, they are not built for that). Don’t know about the V series, these must be over 10 years old by now.
Last edited:
Cannata, I don't know to whom you are addressing your post. I actually loved the V2 at a dealer, and the M5, and the Q3, so you must not be speaking to me. I also liked the Mini 2 at three different dealerships prompting me to buy a pair for my system.
People seem to want to compare the S5 to the Q3. Perhaps it is because of price, but I would think that the S3/Q3 and S5/Q5 would be a more appropriate comparisons, based on size and drivers and specifications. Have you compared the S3 to either the M3 or Q3? I recently heard a well set up pair of S5 mk 2s. They and the system in which they were a part, both sounded excellent. As you write, I think I was hearing more about the system than I was about the speakers, yet there are clear differences between my Q3s and this guy's S5s. The front baffle and cabinet construction are certainly different. So are the drivers. The Q3 is a pretty old design by now. They remain very high quality and are extremely revealing speakers. I love the way they sound in my system and room. I also like the Q5 mk2 as set up in my friend's system. I've never heard the S3s.
One guy who owns S3s came to Boston to hear the M3s at Goodwins, and then, on the same day he visited me to hear my Q3s. He is a musician. He told me that the Q3, as heard in my system, told him exactly what was on the recording. The M3s at Goodwins sounded more like music to him. That is one opinion, but it speaks to perhaps different design goals for the two speakers. My Q3s have sounded remarkably different depending on how they are set up in the room.
Alon Wolf describes the differences and advantages of both the Q and the S in the pages of TAS. I think Magico has two lines for a reason, because they sound different. Of course, the Q is slowly being replaced by the M series. I hope to one day hear the M3 in a good system. Congratulations on your new M3s.
People seem to want to compare the S5 to the Q3. Perhaps it is because of price, but I would think that the S3/Q3 and S5/Q5 would be a more appropriate comparisons, based on size and drivers and specifications. Have you compared the S3 to either the M3 or Q3? I recently heard a well set up pair of S5 mk 2s. They and the system in which they were a part, both sounded excellent. As you write, I think I was hearing more about the system than I was about the speakers, yet there are clear differences between my Q3s and this guy's S5s. The front baffle and cabinet construction are certainly different. So are the drivers. The Q3 is a pretty old design by now. They remain very high quality and are extremely revealing speakers. I love the way they sound in my system and room. I also like the Q5 mk2 as set up in my friend's system. I've never heard the S3s.
One guy who owns S3s came to Boston to hear the M3s at Goodwins, and then, on the same day he visited me to hear my Q3s. He is a musician. He told me that the Q3, as heard in my system, told him exactly what was on the recording. The M3s at Goodwins sounded more like music to him. That is one opinion, but it speaks to perhaps different design goals for the two speakers. My Q3s have sounded remarkably different depending on how they are set up in the room.
Alon Wolf describes the differences and advantages of both the Q and the S in the pages of TAS. I think Magico has two lines for a reason, because they sound different. Of course, the Q is slowly being replaced by the M series. I hope to one day hear the M3 in a good system. Congratulations on your new M3s.
IMHO you should quote whom you are answering. However I disagree in general with your words that Magico are unique and so special that we can forget about their contribution to sound quality. Just consider that the S series, Q series and M series sound very different. I have no doubts that I could live with a Magico speaker, but my system would be very different to please my preferences.
And, considering sound reproduction, since long I do not believe in the tale that we are the only ones doing it properly, all others are doing it wrong and you must love us. I also know since long that there is no best in this hobby. Why do some people always try to transform it in a race?
If we find that our local official dealers that can not demo one brand to our satisfaction, why should we insist on it?
IMHO you should quote whom you are answering, it will allow us to understand better your ideas. However I disagree in general with your words that Magico are unique and so special that we can forget about their contribution to sound quality. Just consider that the S series, Q series and M series sound very different. I have no doubts that I could live with a Magico speaker, but my system would be very different to please my preferences.
And, considering sound reproduction, since long I do not believe in the tale that we are the only ones doing it properly, all others are doing it wrong and you must love us. I also know since long that there is no best in this hobby. Why do some people always try to transform it in a race?
BTW, if we find that our local officially appointed dealers can not demo one brand to our satisfaction, why should we insist on it?
Since I had 4 different Magicos in my system lately I will tell you that they are not that different from one another. The Q/M are more refine and quiet, and the S (5 that is), is more robust, but slightly more ‘fussy’. However, they do resemble each other in the sense that I can hear my system better through them and that is now the critical factor (my system has not changed much). At this point I feel now that if I want to upgrade my sound I need to look into my electronics.
I don't know to whom you are addressing this either, but suffice it to say that there have been plenty of accolades by me on this this site about various dealer demos of Magico speakers, such as the M5, Q3, Q5, Q7, all at the same dealer. I have in fact started many threads on Magico speakers I really loved.
I am glad you are enjoying your M3s, but this speaker is not cutting it for anyone over here, for whatever the reason; it may be the dealer demo room that's too big. But the reason they are not working for me is quite simple: I have better sound at home, using the same amps and preamp, lesser sources and cables. That speaks volumes.
Having said this, I am slowly starting to suspect that lack of dynamics may be part of the problem here, as is lack of low end.
That is fine. It is not like we never hard ML (or any other electrostatics) before. If ack likes it, good for him. But to say that something is seriously wrong with Magico products, including some ridicules claims to faulty design (No midrange enclosure on an S5 
) is a bit much.
) is a bit much.
Last edited:
This was just posted. Doesn't quite looks like a company who does not know what they are doing...
You must missed what Ack said above, in favor of Magico. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but it should not make you blind to others' actual opinions. It also makes you look trying too hard to be defensive. And I say this as someone who likes Magico as well.
As for ML, yes you may have heard some, but you haven't heard the pair modified by Ack. Entirely different ballgame of coherence.
That is fine. It is not like we never hard ML (or any other electrostatics) before. If ack likes it, good for him. But to say that something is seriously wrong with Magico products, including some ridicules claims to faulty design (No midrange enclosure on an S5
Sorry but this is just incorrect. Yes, there was no midrange enclosure in the original S5 save for the very last few serial numbers, according to Peter Macay, and there are pictures to prove it. Magico started advertising that enclosure in the Mk II version, it's really that simple. We call this "rolling changes" and a lot of manufacturers do it, and FWIW, including Spectral. We really need to be calling things for what they are, instead for getting emotional. I never lose sight of the fact that we are talking about material things.
If you care to know, I do think sometimes Magico rushes to market
Last edited:
Looking at the system, it's to the right. Not sure if it really matters. For panels, you either absorb the rear wave, or attenuate it with a large space behind them. I would rather be absorbing, but can't.
Ack will appreciate the fine coffee maker at the end of the video. He makes a superb espresso.
What is clear is that Magico produces and must sell many pairs of speakers. One might not appreciate that by simply reading the posts here on WBF. I suspect most Magico customers never spend time on audio forums.
Not only do I appreciate the end of the video, but I can also tell you, the local Google office uses the exact same espresso machine, and their espresso is out of this world.
Since this is your system thread, it might be an appropriate place to discuss this. Can you talk a bit more about this aspect of panel speakers? I had thought they behave like dipole designs and the back wave reflection is best handled by judicious placement in a conventional room with solid walls and boundaries. Controlling this back wave or reflection relative to the direct sound is what makes or breaks the perceived quality of the sound at the listening seat. I thought the reflection adds to a sense of space and can reinforce certain frequencies for a more balanced, solid sound. Is this completely wrong? Reading your comment about absorption or attenuation of this back wave is not what I suspected at all. Just curious. I have only heard panel speakers a few times and surely do not have your experience with the design.
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |