Magico Ultimate 3

(...) As someone else mentioned Devialet is probably the only one to have noise ratio better than 120db, but then this sacrifices some aspects in terms of sound quality in comparison to a few other excellent high end amps/DACs.
(...)

Orb,

Let us hope that the Devialet fans do not read Magico threads. ;) Anyway, I was just told that a 240 will land tomorrow in my listening room ...
 
Orb,

Let us hope that the Devialet fans do not read Magico threads. ;) Anyway, I was just told that a 240 will land tomorrow in my listening room ...

I agree that Devialet is not at the level of the very best amps on the market today. My Dartzeel sounds more refined than my Devialet. But at their price point for a complete DAC+pre+power amp, they are very difficult to beat. I see only Hegel which can competes with Devialet in these price points.
The fact that much more costly amps sound better is quite logical, no shame for Devialet owners. And I have also heard a lot of much more costly amps which sound worse that a Devialet 240
 
(...) My Dartzeel sounds more refined than my Devialet. (...)

I can confirm it, but referring to the old Devialet Premier. But the bass extension, articulation and slam of the Devialet made the bass of the Dartzeel sound "thick" - we can not have everything. Anyway, I still dream about a DartZeel with the bass quality of the Devialet ... Even the NH 458 does not manage to do it.
 
I can confirm it, but referring to the old Devialet Premier. But the bass extension, articulation and slam of the Devialet made the bass of the Dartzeel sound "thick" - we can not have everything. Anyway, I still dream about a DartZeel with the bass quality of the Devialet ... Even the NH 458 does not manage to do it.

None of them sounds thick in the bass on my Q1. It may have to do that the bass reflex on Wilson speakers is already a bit on the thick side, as the membrane is less controlled than in a closed enclosure. That may explains that the Devialet gives you more control in the bass. Just guessing!
 
None of them sounds thick in the bass on my Q1. It may have to do that the bass reflex on Wilson speakers is already a bit on the thick side, as the membrane is less controlled than in a closed enclosure. That may explains that the Devialet gives you more control in the bass. Just guessing!

I am comparing the bass quality of both amplifiers in a relative way, not an absolute, it is why the commas - and it is independent of the speaker quality, at that time I did not have a Wilson. And the myth of the less controlled membrane in reflex boxes applies only to poorly designed speakers. You can have great and controlled bass with both type of designs. Although I respect the Q1, I am addressing the type of bass they can not give.
 
So stereo, I'm so intrigued. How does anyone end up with more than one PMS2? And has this only been since you discovered you might need multiple DACs for your dream setup?
 
So stereo, I'm so intrigued. How does anyone end up with more than one PMS2? And has this only been since you discovered you might need multiple DACs for your dream setup?
I ended up with 4... by buying 4. Not recent, I have thought about an active set up a long time ago.
 
Of course Stereo, a stupid q in retrospect, apologies. I'm still stumped by the concept that active needs multiple DACs. Multiple power amps, yes, to each driver, but DACs to each channel, never quite going to get that. How unobtanium are these PS2S's, it must have taken some hunting them down? Too bad for anyone else wanting one!!!
Your mad scientist project is sounding quite something.
 
Of course Stereo, a stupid q in retrospect, apologies. I'm still stumped by the concept that active needs multiple DACs. Multiple power amps, yes, to each driver, but DACs to each channel, never quite going to get that. How unobtanium are these PS2S's, it must have taken some hunting them down? Too bad for anyone else wanting one!!!
Your mad scientist project is sounding quite something.

They are an old technology that is bettered by today's less expensive converters. I never knew what all the hype was about. Every time I've done comparisons with them they had an exacerbated bass with a dry top end compared to the other converters. I wanted one really bad as well until I used one for about a month.

There were a couple people on GearSlutz that had them and soon found out that it was all hype. If I were stereo, I'd get the best 8-channel converter made and be done with it.
 
Last edited:
They are an old technology that is bettered by today's less expensive converters. I never knew what all the hype was about. Every time I've done comparisons with them they had an exacerbated bass with a dry top end compared to the other converters. I wanted one really bad as well until I used one for about a month.

There were a couple people on GearSlutz that had them and soon found out that it was all hype. If I were stereo, I'd get the best 8-channel converter made and be done with it.

The more people think it is obsolete and overrated, the happier I am. So yes, they do fabulous door stoppers!
 
I get you, Stereo ;)! Often when I go to the Hagen Daz parlour, I hope everyone ignores Strawberry Cheesecake. Better for me. More importantly, please tell me, prob again, why one needs a separate DAC per channel? Surely the same signal information overall is going to the spkrs?
 
I get you, Stereo ;)! Often when I go to the Hagen Daz parlour, I hope everyone ignores Strawberry Cheesecake. Better for me. More importantly, please tell me, prob again, why one needs a separate DAC per channel? Surely the same signal information overall is going to the spkrs?

Is each DAC going to be crossed over so only 1 element of the frequency wave goes into a dedicated amp into a dedicated cone for each speaker? for example, 5 DACs (splitting the signal by frequency into 5 discrete signals hi treble, low treble/upper mi, lower mid, upper bass, lo bass) into 5 amps into 5 cones of a given speaker?
 
Is each DAC going to be crossed over so only 1 element of the frequency wave goes into a dedicated amp into a dedicated cone for each speaker? for example, 5 DACs (splitting the signal by frequency into 5 discrete signals hi treble, low treble/upper mi, lower mid, upper bass, lo bass) into 5 amps into 5 cones of a given speaker?
yes
 
To Stereo
You have stated that your are going the 5 way active route with 4 amps & sub amp and 5 DACs with only one D to A converting right at the amplifiers. The question is besides using 2 DEQX units or a Behold system with each amplifier having the DAC for a 5 way setup with digital input, what other system can do this in the digital domain before converting? . I am aware of the 5 way Marchand but that has to convert A to D then D to A again.
 
To Stereo
You have stated that your are going the 5 way active route with 4 amps & sub amp and 5 DACs with only one D to A converting right at the amplifiers. The question is besides using 2 DEQX units or a Behold system with each amplifier having the DAC for a 5 way setup with digital input, what other system can do this in the digital domain before converting? . I am aware of the 5 way Marchand but that has to convert A to D then D to A again.

Digital XO, EQ (if needed), time alignment between drivers and crosstalk cancellation (if wanted) are done directly in Audeeva Conbrio server... (using Fourier transformations). Everything that enters the (Conbrio) XO exits it at the same time, separated into the various freq components. We control that with sub-sample delay shiftings.
No analog XO could ever do that... and most conventional XO introduce horrible phase shifts. Additionally, all active analog XO have input and output buffers, which are also not fully transparent. We eliminate that problem.

The server directly outputs 5 digital signals to 5 DACs synched by the same word clock. Each DAC is connected to a different analog integrated amp (the sub amp + 4 amps to be chosen).
 
Last edited:
Digital XO, EQ (if needed), time alignment between drivers and crosstalk cancellation (if wanted) are done directly in Audeeva Conbrio server... (using Fourier transformations). Everything that enters the (Conbrio) XO exits it at the same time, separated into the various freq components. We control that with sub-sample delay shiftings.
No analog XO could ever do that... and most conventional XO introduce horrible phase shifts. Additionally, all active analog XO have input and output buffers, which are also not fully transparent. We eliminate that problem.

The server directly outputs 5 digital signals to 5 DACs synched by the same word clock. Each DAC is connected to a different analog integrated amp (the sub amp + 4 amps to be chosen).

What about feeding drivers with souch high sensitivity from some strong preamp directly? >for low level SPL ofc.
The server and XO are in one case together or separate?
 
listening_IMG_7044_1000w.jpglistening_IMG_7048_1000w.jpglistening_IMG_6982_1000w.jpglistening_IMG_6988_1000w.jpg
 
thanks for posting the link, didn't see it. The full report on factory tour is quite instructive!

I'll be out there next week. :)
 

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