Amplifiers for Magico Q7

[Roysen]

Hi think the atmaspheres are wonderful though a lot lot lot of heat .....

But if you like the fuller sound consider the Soulution 501 as this has virtually no negative feedback 0.1db and so acts more like a SET with 6000 watts instantaneous power!!!
and amazing bass as per J Valin and my own listening

The other to consider is Devialet 800 which i thought was wonderful in multi amp active system, and Jeff Fritz loved with Q7 !

Instead of the 501 I would consider the Souluiton 701 which is based on the same SMPS technology. In regards to Devialet, I would never in my wildest dreams ever bring any of their products into my home. They don't sound good at all IMHO.

 

[Roysen]

Roysen If the Q 7 is a speaker that needs a minimum of rougly 100 watts to perform , amplification is not a trickle down numbers game like 300 watts for the bass , 30 tube watts for the midbass ( because they are famous for that) and a little single ended 8 watter to get clear highs, to name an example
To make the Q 7 Tri ampable it probably has a parallel filter to start with ,if that is true in tri amped mode the midamps are not connected to anything but the mids( +- ) and those midunits probably only work optimally with 100 watts as well , you cant simply add up all those watts and expect a good result, there is a good chance of dynamic loss

Bi -amping would probably be separate bass , separate mid/highs

Besides that you need a lot of gain adjustability as mike lavigne explained

The bi-amp configuration on my Q7 is one amplifier to drive the bass and another amp to drive the midbass, midrange and treble. Since the impedance of the speaker will vary with frequency, there will be a frequency range with the most demanding impedance for the amplifier(s) driving the Q7. The crossover and the driver providing the output at that frequency range will determine what amplifier needs to be able to drive the toughest load. I am pretty sure that will be the bass. If that is the case the amplifier driving the bass needs to be able to handle a more difficult load than the other amplifier.

 

[Roysen]

I'm sorry, but Soulution sounds nothing like SET.

Royson- think you have analysis paralysis. Get rid of the Arbiters which arent your sound apparently. If you crave lamms or atmas, you have the wrong speaker.

No, I don't crave LAMMs or Atma-Spheres. I am craving the combination of the Q7 with LAMMs or Atma-Spheres. I also crave the transparency of the Q7. So, no I don't have the wrong speakers. I do however agree with you in regards to the Dynaudio Arbiters in combination with the Q7. It is always the combination I have to pay attention to and not the amplifier or the speaker.

 

[Roysen]

awsmone- I think both you and Alex are technically correct. Soulution only uses a small amount of feedback at a given point, but over a much, much smaller timeframe---so uses it much more often. I think Halcro did something similar, but its been awhile. Its a high negative feedback model in my opinion, but I'm not that technically savvy- perhaps Ralph can chime in here. In the Stereophile review of the 710, graph 4 speaks to negative feedback use (declining distortion as power increases) and there are some higher order harmonics (albeit very, very low in nature).

asiufy- Magico recommends 50w on the 7s, but really after looking at a score of measurements on the Qs and Ss lately, I think 30w SET is a tall order. The Lamm ML3 really runs well at 10w according to the Sphile measurements and then distortion rises well over 1%. Since SETs have rising distortion because of no feedback, you really want to run them at a fraction of rated power anyways I'd think. Also, Magico tends to overstate efficiency. Hifi News in the Q3 review stated the 3 has a pretty wicked phase angle (-71 degrees at 57hz)- and that the speaker is more like a 3 ohm nominal load, not 4. The 7 is probably more like 90dbs adjusting for impedance but likely also has a similar phase angle in the bass since it and the 3 are of similar cloth as I recall. So can you do 10-15w on a 90db speaker with impedance dips in the 2s? Maybe, but I'd want to hear it first- and since the amp costs like 150k, frankly I'd demand it. My guess is 50w P/P probably would work.

I keep coming to Ralph's power vs voltage paradigm on this as well- the Q7 is definitely the latter. I can totally understand how the Dartzeel 108 has no problems with this speaker. In fact, as you probably assume, I'd recommend the 458s and be done with it You won't need bi-amping and you get all the benefits of a zero global negative feedback loop in a package as fine as a Vacheron watch. But when I hear how the Arbiter isn't tonally correct and the OP wants to do bi-amping because of it, I think that's the absolute wrong direction and trying to correct a deficiency instead of finding something that works in the first place. I haven't heard the Arbiter (not many have), so I can't really be of more help on that side.

The speaker and the room is always the biggest compromise in terms of sound quality when you are assembling a system and choosing components. Because of that you should always start with speakers when choosing the components for your system. There are two distinct schools in terms of how to proceed from here. One direction is to choose a speaker which has a sound that you like (i.e. has a distortion that you like) or as close to no sound of its own as possible (i.e. as little distortion as possible). I prefer the latter school. However since there is no such thing as a perfect speaker you still have to try to tune the rest of your choices to a character you like no matter what school you have chosen to base your speakerchoice on. In this case I need to tune the sound somewhat towards a fuller and richer sound to fit my taste perfectly when the Magico Q7 is my choice of speakers.

I can't see anything wrong with an approach like this. In fact is is a pretty standard approach.

 

[microstrip]

(...) There are two distinct schools in terms of how to proceed from here. One direction is to choose a speaker which has a sound that you like (i.e. has a distortion that you like) or as close to no sound of its own as possible (i.e. as little distortion as possible) (...)

Roysen,

IMHO such think as close to no sound of its own does not exist.

If a speaker manages to recreate a facsimile of the real sound, due to its excellent management of overall compromises, using the information encoded in the recording, and another with lower absolute measured distortions sounds artificial and unable to create the illusion of reality I will not consider it as sounding "as close to no sound of its own as possible". IMHO Q7, XLF or the TheSonusfaber are all "close to no sound of its own as possible". BTW, I never saw any complete and meaningful measurements of any of these speakers.

 

[Roysen]

Roysen,

IMHO such think as close to no sound of its own does not exist.

If a speaker manages to recreate a facsimile of the real sound, due to its excellent management of overall compromises, using the information encoded in the recording, and another with lower absolute measured distortions sounds artificial and unable to create the illusion of reality I will not consider it as sounding "as close to no sound of its own as possible". IMHO Q7, XLF or the TheSonusfaber are all "close to no sound of its own as possible". BTW, I never saw any complete and meaningful measurements of any of these speakers.

I didn't write that any speaker was close to no sound of its own, Microstrip.

 

[microstrip]

I didn't write that any speaker was close to no sound of its own, Microstrip.

But as far as can see in your post you were referring to people who choose them ...

 

[Roysen]

But as far as can see in your post you were referring to people who choose them ...

Nope, Microstrip. Please read what I wrote more carefully. I have not even mentioned any speakers without any chacter of its own. I have metioned speakers with as little character of their own as possible. That is quite a difference.

 

[Alpinist]

The 501 uses a SMPS like the 701. In fact the 501 were the model for the 701s design. So the 501 is very different from the 700.

Yes, and the 711 too. The 501, 711 and 701 sound significantly better than the 710 and 700. Significantly improved dynamics and much better musicality. I have the 501's in my listening room and they blow me away with their speed, dynamics, musicality and timbral purity every time I listen to them.

Ken

 

[JackD201]

CH Precision M1s in Bi-amp mode should be interesting to try.

 

[awsmone]

Hiya

Keith and Roysen are both correct

I emailed Cyrill today

And his answer

no global feedback
nothing in voltage gain

high speed large quantities nfb thereafter

with wide bandwidth and nfb you have to avoid phase shifts to avoid amplifier oscillation

And yes 501 is similar in some ways to mono 710 but different voltage gain, and two smps, these are not in circuit with output like halcro dm58s

 

[andromedaaudio]

Not nescesarilly it depends a lot of what woofers are used if one uses low eff., low imp woofers you need a real powerhouse to get some dynamics out of it , in general 2 way designs are hard to drive , yours is a 3 way in bi amp mode (midbass included ) but non the less, with the woofers a 4 way design , that would be one reason to put just one big powerfull amp at the helm , another would be integration
I never understood why magico uses a 89 db woofer (iirc)in the ultimate hornsystem all the other drivers are around 110 db , how would that ever integrate well and give sufficient bassinformation ??
In your case you could use dsp( Or another form of gaincontrol ) to tune down the mid/ tweetersection in biampmode , this would give more bass but at the cost of lower overall system efficiency

The bi-amp configuration on my Q7 is one amplifier to drive the bass and another amp to drive the midbass, midrange and treble. Since the impedance of the speaker will vary with frequency, there will be a frequency range with the most demanding impedance for the amplifier(s) driving the Q7. The crossover and the driver providing the output at that frequency range will determine what amplifier needs to be able to drive the toughest load. I am pretty sure that will be the bass. If that is the case the amplifier driving the bass needs to be able to handle a more difficult load than the other amplifier.

 

[stereo]

Not nescesarilly it depends a lot of what woofers are used if one uses low eff., low imp woofers you need a real powerhouse to get some dynamics out of it , in general 2 way designs are hard to drive , yours is a 3 way in bi amp mode (midbass included ) but non the less, with the woofers a 4 way design , that would be one reason to put just one big powerfull amp at the helm , another would be integration
I never understood why magico uses a 89 db woofer (iirc)in the ultimate hornsystem all the other drivers are around 110 db , how would that ever integrate well and give sufficient bassinformation ??
In your case you could use dsp( Or another form of gaincontrol ) to tune down the mid/ tweetersection in biampmode , this would give more bass but at the cost of lower overall system efficiency

Q7 is a 4 ways, not a 3 ways.
Ultimate woofer is not a 89db - and not sure how the woofer sensitivity matters given that it is an active sub anyway... What would matter is how loud they can play at low distortion, impulse response, etc.

I don't think that bi-amping with 2 different amps will make any sense. Yes, you can use a DSP, etc to adjust gain, but it will probably sound like crap compared to using the speaker like it has been designed for. As a side remark, I have nothing against active systems with active XO (this is what I will use on the Ultimate)... but going this way will require much more thinking - it can sound fantastic, but it requires much more effort than playing around with 2 amps and a DSP for gain adjustment....

 

[andromedaaudio]

IF you read my post well , you know i said a 4 way incl the woofers , the upper bi amp section would be 3 way , and the woofers 1 way , 3+1 = if the 2 woofers would work on a different Freq in the bassregion area it woud even be a 5 way
Regarding the ultimate woofers its even lower , 88 db on the first version of the ultimate (2008 ) :

PS but i assume you could respond first hand on how the Ultimates 3 sound regarding the bass ,
since you have them on order since the summer of 2013 , as seen from the other thread on wbf and they should have arrived by now .

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/magico-ultimate-loudspeaker-1/


The advantage of a horn is that the diaphragm in the throat is very small, has extremely low mass, and makes only a tiny excursion to produce a high sound-pressure level. Consequently, very little amplifier power is required, and almost no heat is generated in the voice coil. Indeed, the Ultimate’s sensitivity is rated at a whopping 110dB 1W/1m for the horns, and 88dB for the woofer. The compression drivers mounted in each horn’s throat are unlike conventional dynamic drivers. They feature massive and powerful magnet structures, are built to very tight tolerances, weigh more than 50 pounds each, and cost as much as $10,000 apiece. The super-light diaphragms have miniscule excursion, always operate in the linear range of the voice-coil travel, and consequently, have almost unmeasurable distortion. These compression drivers would not work without the efficiency- increasing effect of the horn structure to which they are attached. The horn also allows the designer to control the loudspeaker’s directivity, decreasing the amount of sidewalland ceiling/floor-reflected energy.