ack's system - end of round 1

[PeterA]

Tasos, Have you heard the M3 with any amp other than the Spectral DMA-500s? If not, are you confident that the impression of a lack of bass is because of the M3 and not something else like the room size, the amps, the cables, etc? When I heard the Q3 in Goodwin's big room it was with the Boulder 1000 watt monsters. They told me before that demo that they had tried some Spectral monos and there was not enough power. I don't know if the issue was related to the bass or something else.

Thanks for the report and let us know if you impressions change with different auditions.

 

[Al M.]

When JV says:

"The shorter, smaller M3 sounds markedly fuller, warmer and more lifelike than the MPro everywhere save for the bottom octaves"

he is mistaken. The MPro is like a chameleon, transparent to source and amplification. I have heard it sound very full, warm and life-like -- and at the same time with incredible resolution, which is most striking on orchestral material.

Tasos, Have you heard the M3 with any amp other than the Spectral DMA-500s? If not, are you confident that the impression of a lack of bass is because of the M3 and not something else like the room size, the amps, the cables, etc? When I heard the Q3 in Goodwin's big room it was with the Boulder 1000 watt monsters. They told me before that demo that they had tried some Spectral monos and there was not enough power. I don't know if the issue was related to the bass or something else.

As far as I know, the M series is more efficient than the Q series, so I would be surprised if there were to be a problem.

 

[PeterA]

When JV says:

"The shorter, smaller M3 sounds markedly fuller, warmer and more lifelike than the MPro everywhere save for the bottom octaves"

he is mistaken. The MPro is like a chameleon, transparent to source and amplification. I have heard it sound very full, warm and life-like -- and at the same time with incredible resolution, which is most striking on orchestral material.



As far as I know, the M series is more efficient than the Q series, so I would be surprised if there were to be a problem.

Al, I just looked up the specs. M3: 91dB, Q3: 90dB. Not much difference. I don't know about real world loading. The Q7II is 94dB, so more efficient. That big room at Goodwins is huge and the M3/Q3 are not big speakers.

 

[ack]

Tasos, Have you heard the M3 with any amp other than the Spectral DMA-500s? If not, are you confident that the impression of a lack of bass is because of the M3 and not something else like the room size, the amps, the cables, etc? When I heard the Q3 in Goodwin's big room it was with the Boulder 1000 watt monsters. They told me before that demo that they had tried some Spectral monos and there was not enough power. I don't know if the issue was related to the bass or something else.

Thanks for the report and let us know if you impressions change with different auditions.

Yes, I've heard them with my set-up, the 30SV/400RS. Power is not an issue and as Al says, they are more efficient. The Q3s also sounded superb with the 400s, also in the big room. You need to listen to the M3s and see what you think. I am very much in agreement with Valin here. The M3/500s were killer in dynamics, I mean killer.

 

[Al M.]

Al, I just looked up the specs. M3: 91dB, Q3: 90dB. Not much difference. I don't know about real world loading. The Q7II is 94dB, so more efficient. That big room at Goodwins is huge and the M3/Q3 are not big speakers.

Real world loading is different from dB specs, for sure. My 15 W/channel push-pull triode amps could rather easily carry my previous monitor speakers of 90 dB efficiency (and they have an even easier time with my current 92 dB ones), but they sure would absolutely 'die' on a Q7II of nominally 94 dB efficiency... Those massive bass drivers would be an emphatic no-no.

But I can't imagine the 7 inch bass drivers of the M3 to be an issue for a Spectral amp, especially since its larger sibling, the MPro, is also relatively easy to drive -- with 10 inch bass units.

 

[ack]

Another point to consider is that no Spectral amp I've had, had a problem driving my 84dB efficient speakers, which also go down to 1ohm

 

[Al M.]

Another point to consider is that no Spectral amp I've had, had a problem driving my 84dB efficient speakers, which also go down to 1ohm

Not just having no problem, but making your electrostats sound dynamic as hell -- with macrodynamics that most would think impossible from electrostatic speakers *). Hearing is believing.

__________

*) didn't Myles Astor abandon his beloved electrostats because of dynamics?

 

[ack]

Yes, quite true - you have to hear these dynamics to believe it. Unfortunately, as I have said for many years, it's very hard to drive electrostatics properly, and I mean really hard. I can't blame anyone who abandons them. BTW, dynamic headroom has improved another 1dB with the current Alpha volume setting, and micro-dynamics are to die for - my jaw drops with every CD I play.

 

[ack]

OK, let me also throw you a bait Al -you say digital can't do sax. Come down in a couple of weeks if you can, and let's see what you think now.

 

[Al M.]

OK, let me also throw you a bait Al -you say digital can't do sax. Come down in a couple of weeks if you can, and let's see what you think now.

Sure, will do. Yeah, digital can do sax, alright -- I have heard it a couple times now in different settings. Opinions change...

 

[ack]

I'll ping all the locals in due time; right now the house is a mess due to construction...

 

[PeterA]

Real world loading is different from dB specs, for sure. My 15 W/channel push-pull triode amps could rather easily carry my previous monitor speakers of 90 dB efficiency (and they have an even easier time with my current 92 dB ones), but they sure would absolutely 'die' on a Q7II of nominally 94 dB efficiency... Those massive bass drivers would be an emphatic no-no.

But I can't imagine the 7 inch bass drivers of the M3 to be an issue for a Spectral amp, especially since its larger sibling, the MPro, is also relatively easy to drive -- with 10 inch bass units.

I'm not suggesting that under normal circumstances that the Spectral amps could not properly drive the M3 or Q3. What I am suggesting is that the large room is not normal circumstances. Either Alon Wolf or the Goodwin's staff decided that the Q3 could not properly fill that room with whatever model amp they were planning to use, so they switched over to the massive Boulder 1000 watt monos to better show off the Q3 for the public demo. At least that is what they told me as I took my seat.

I once owned the Eggleston Rosa speakers which had two 6" woofers and two 6" midrange drivers. That was enough to overload my small room at the time. I will try to audition the M3s in the smaller room at Goodwins or hear them in NYC.

I can not speak to the quality or quantity of the M3 bass performance since I have not heard a pair. I will try to hear them at some point.

 

[Al M.]

I'm not suggesting that under normal circumstances that the Spectral amps could not properly drive the M3 or Q3. What I am suggesting is that the large room is not normal circumstances. Either Alon Wolf or the Goodwin's staff decided that the Q3 could not properly fill that room with whatever model amp they were planning to use, so they switched over to the massive Boulder 1000 watt monos to better show off the Q3 for the public demo. At least that is what they told me as I took my seat.

I once owned the Eggleston Rosa speakers which had two 6" woofers and two 6" midrange drivers. That was enough to overload my small room at the time. I will try to audition the M3s in the smaller room at Goodwins or hear them in NYC.

I can not speak to the quality or quantity of the M3 bass performance since I have not heard a pair. I will try to hear them at some point.

Good points. Were the M3s demo'ed only in the large room? Then forget it. Almost ANY speaker will sound anemic in the bass there, unless:

a) it is very close to the side walls for bass reinforcement, which ruins other aspects of the sound, or
b) it is augmented with sub.

You will remember that Peter Mackay from Magico deliberately moved the S7 speakers for his demo away from the side walls for better sound, but augmented those rather large speakers with an S sub.

The Magico M3 speakers stand no chance there without a sub. Confident prediction without even having heard them there (not that my predictions have always worked out in the past ).

 

[Folsom]

Not sure I believe that Al... I don't see why the M3 would have a crossover for a small room.

 

[ack]

The only thing I can add right now is that Myles told me the same thing about the M3's bass, and I assume he heard them in NYC in a small room. It's just that the M3's asking price is high enough that it invites scrutiny. BTW, I am pretty sure the Goodwin's demo with the Boulder amps was the Q5, not the Q3, in the big room; and sure enough, the 360s back then could not drive their bass well enough.

 

[marty]

I think the comment on the room size is key. I was at Myles' last week for some listening. He uses the Magico S5 MkII in a small room and the bass was just spectacular (with CJ monobloc tube amps!). In fact the bass was so good, I asked where the subs were hidden!

 

[PeterA]

The only thing I can add right now is that Myles told me the same thing about the M3's bass, and I assume he heard them in NYC in a small room. It's just that the M3's asking price is high enough that it invites scrutiny. BTW, I am pretty sure the Goodwin's demo with the Boulder amps was the Q5, not the Q3, in the big room; and sure enough, the 360s back then could not drive their bass well enough.

I think we have different memories of the same event. I went to both the Q5 and Q3 premiers at Goodwins and my recollection is that the 1000 watts were needed for the Q3 because of their small drivers and the large room. The Q5 is much more difficult to drive, so that would make sense too. Regardless, the point is the size of that room and the ability for small speakers to produce adequate bass in such a large volume. I'll make an effort to hear the M3s at some point. I have never heard better speakers than the M Pro, so I may be exhibiting an obvious bias toward the M3, which does have some advances over the M Pro like the copper coupling rings for the drivers.

I agree that they are very expensive, so for that amount of money, they should provide stellar performance. The room/speaker interphase and matching is key to good performance which sounds like what you and Marty heard at Myles' place.

 

[MadFloyd]

I think we have different memories of the same event. I went to both the Q5 and Q3 premiers at Goodwins and my recollection is that the 1000 watts were needed for the Q3 because of their small drivers and the large room. The Q5 is much more difficult to drive, so that would make sense too. Regardless, the point is the size of that room and the ability for small speakers to produce adequate bass in such a large volume. I'll make an effort to hear the M3s at some point. I have never heard better speakers than the M Pro, so I may be exhibiting an obvious bias toward the M3, which does have some advances over the M Pro like the copper coupling rings for the drivers.

I agree that they are very expensive, so for that amount of money, they should provide stellar performance. The room/speaker interphase and matching is key to good performance which sounds like what you and Marty heard at Myles' place.

Peter, I do believe you are wrong and Ack is correct. The Q5 is very hard to drive and I remember Alon talking about the need for the Boulder.

 

[ack]

Peter, I do believe you are wrong and Ack is correct. The Q5 is very hard to drive and I remember Alon talking about the need for the Boulder.

Yap, I remember Alon saying the same thing too. And the reason is the wild impedance curve of the Q5. I've heard the Q3 numerous times with the 360s and 400s since then, with no problems, and in the big room as I said.

Peter, you should go listen to the M3s asap, but at the same time, do visit Myles as well, and you may just be scratching your head in the end...

 

[DaveyF]

Tasos, I remember a few years back having a conversation with Alon wherein we discussed his new Q1’s. Alon related that his Q series differed from his S series, most markedly in the bass. He told me that the Q series was more refined in the bass but that the S series would appeal to more people, as they would prefer the bass response due, he said, to the less articulate and less accurate but warmer aspect of it. Alon told me that the Q series might appear to be a little thin in the bass, compared to the S series, but that this aspect was more accurate in bass response.
His design philosophy may well still be continuing with the new M3’s. I would bet that the current S5mk2’s are probably a more “enticing” speaker in the bass than his M3’s. Possibly the same with the new S3mk2’s....??