More on the Q5s
- Thread starter mauidan
- Start date
Hi
While I am in favor of ALLWAYS using multiple subs in a system regardless of the bass capabilities of the main speakers ... I , also, find the reported lack of bass of the Magico Q5 disturbing... For that kind of money one should get 20~20 KHz at any sane SPL, certainly not limited , it's-there-but-you-have-to-strain-to hear-it bass ... the M5 is above the $100 K mark .. The Q5 half that ...
The thread is about the Q5 and it seems to be a very good, albeit limited speaker ... The only thing I do find interesting is how much one brand seem to captivate the imagination of us, Audiophiles, while others producing gear of excellence and in the view of many, superior gears are not discussed at all. I have rarely seen for example mention of the superlative Rockport speakers, whose entire lineup is an example of balance and excellence .. I have heard several models not the Arakis or the Altair, however based on what I heard from the Ankara ...if I am to spend close to 100 K on a speaker the Altair would be the one (Serious, dedicated subwoofer challenging bass) but I digress and am wildly OT .. Back to the Q5
While I am in favor of ALLWAYS using multiple subs in a system regardless of the bass capabilities of the main speakers ... I , also, find the reported lack of bass of the Magico Q5 disturbing... For that kind of money one should get 20~20 KHz at any sane SPL, certainly not limited , it's-there-but-you-have-to-strain-to hear-it bass ... the M5 is above the $100 K mark .. The Q5 half that ...
The thread is about the Q5 and it seems to be a very good, albeit limited speaker ... The only thing I do find interesting is how much one brand seem to captivate the imagination of us, Audiophiles, while others producing gear of excellence and in the view of many, superior gears are not discussed at all. I have rarely seen for example mention of the superlative Rockport speakers, whose entire lineup is an example of balance and excellence .. I have heard several models not the Arakis or the Altair, however based on what I heard from the Ankara ...if I am to spend close to 100 K on a speaker the Altair would be the one (Serious, dedicated subwoofer challenging bass) but I digress and am wildly OT .. Back to the Q5
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Yeah, it amazes me that a "nearly full-range" $60k speaker needs subs. On top of that, you'll need LOTS of power to get them moving at 84dB sensitivity at BELOW 4 ohms. That's one reason I crossed the Avalon ISIS off my list. I "only" have 100wpc monoblocs. Forget about the guys with 18wpc SET amps. That's one thing I can give Wilson in that the Alexandrias are a very easy load. I don't know why more manufacturers don't follow suit.
I have not been apointed as defender of the day of the M5, but as I listen mainly to classical, jazz, vocal and no electronic music I find the M5 promising ... I only heard them once with the Dartzeel monoblocks for a short time and they seemed great, but is was in show conditions, that is not meaningful for me.
The clarification you added is very important in this discussion - for you that M5's would be an incomplete speaker at any price, even at one tenth of what they cost. Although I do not listen frequently to rock music, it sounded much better when I heard it decades ago in my JBL 4311's. But Monteverdi madrigals sound at less one thousand times better in my current system!
First time posting here, so I hope I am not stepping on anyone's toes, but did anyone here actually looked at the Q5 measurements? I mean, if I read it correctly, they do extend almost an octave lower (and higher) than the MAXX 3, so why would you need a sub with one and not with the other? If anything, it looks like it will be the MAXX that will need a sub in this context. Not trying to be facetious here but should the facts be given some weight? I found more interesting comments in http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=97559&Main=97484#Post97559
Hi
I have never heard the JBL you are referring to so cannot comment. I am a classical music lover too. Although I consider myself eclectic, my Western classical music pieces accountfor 55% of my music collection. So indeed I would like a speaker capable of playing classical. What my many years in this hobby have taught me however is that a full range speaker plays EVERY music better than those with limited range.. Even small formation chamber music come out more realistically with a full range speaker. I don't know what is in your system but the Montervedi pieces would be quite realistic with competent bass reproduction, if you don't have that yet...
I still think for the price involved more output in the bass is warranted... whether for the Q5 or the M5, at these prices there are several speakers of excellence, actuqlly much under that: Rockport Ankaara, Von Shwikert VR5 and 9, Evolution Acoustics MM2 and MM3, Revel Salon, Wilson MAXX3, very long list ... very, very long list.. It is not a matter of bass-love: Accurate bass brings more realism in music reproduction.
On another front... 84 dB is toome on the low side, very low side alhtough my former speakers (MG 20.1) were in the vicinity but they were planar and the fall off of SPL with distance is less sever than with quasi-point sources like the Magico , Such low sensibility calls for really stout amplifier and to play at serious SPL those required for say your very basic Classical music, say a Beethoven 5 for example, you need to pump some serious watts in the speakers and at these power levels, the strange phenomenon called thermal compression rears its ugly head. I don't know how Magico addresses that but , a more efficient speaker has inherently less of this problem...if you like them ....as Raul (Silviajulietta) would say: Enjoy the music ...
I have never heard the JBL you are referring to so cannot comment. I am a classical music lover too. Although I consider myself eclectic, my Western classical music pieces accountfor 55% of my music collection. So indeed I would like a speaker capable of playing classical. What my many years in this hobby have taught me however is that a full range speaker plays EVERY music better than those with limited range.. Even small formation chamber music come out more realistically with a full range speaker. I don't know what is in your system but the Montervedi pieces would be quite realistic with competent bass reproduction, if you don't have that yet...
I still think for the price involved more output in the bass is warranted... whether for the Q5 or the M5, at these prices there are several speakers of excellence, actuqlly much under that: Rockport Ankaara, Von Shwikert VR5 and 9, Evolution Acoustics MM2 and MM3, Revel Salon, Wilson MAXX3, very long list ... very, very long list.. It is not a matter of bass-love: Accurate bass brings more realism in music reproduction.
On another front... 84 dB is toome on the low side, very low side alhtough my former speakers (MG 20.1) were in the vicinity but they were planar and the fall off of SPL with distance is less sever than with quasi-point sources like the Magico , Such low sensibility calls for really stout amplifier and to play at serious SPL those required for say your very basic Classical music, say a Beethoven 5 for example, you need to pump some serious watts in the speakers and at these power levels, the strange phenomenon called thermal compression rears its ugly head. I don't know how Magico addresses that but , a more efficient speaker has inherently less of this problem...if you like them ....as Raul (Silviajulietta) would say: Enjoy the music ...
Hi Frantz,
I agree with you about competent bass reproduction. But from what I had seen in the comparative graphs of Stereophile between the Maxx3 and the Q5, now also referred by PhilipK, I can not see great difference in the bass performance. May be they are not able to play very loud at these frequencies, but I heard them playing a Mahler Symphony at show levels, typically 10 dB over my normal listening levels and could not detect compression other than in my head!
The Alexandria's are more full bodied, but they are three times more expensive. The big problem seems to separate bass quantity and quality from measurements - I would swear that a Maxx3 has better bass than the Q5, but is does not seem evident from the known graphs.
I agree with you about competent bass reproduction. But from what I had seen in the comparative graphs of Stereophile between the Maxx3 and the Q5, now also referred by PhilipK, I can not see great difference in the bass performance. May be they are not able to play very loud at these frequencies, but I heard them playing a Mahler Symphony at show levels, typically 10 dB over my normal listening levels and could not detect compression other than in my head!
The Alexandria's are more full bodied, but they are three times more expensive. The big problem seems to separate bass quantity and quality from measurements - I would swear that a Maxx3 has better bass than the Q5, but is does not seem evident from the known graphs.
If I may point out to the fact that, all-things-equal, acoustic suspension bass (Sealed enclosure) is indeed more accurate (Meaning it will introduce less "changes" to the input signal then ported bass will). This is not an opinion, it is physics and there are plenty of explanations to why that is the case in literature or on-line to those who wish to understand what they are hearing. However, accurate bass, in some cases, may not be as exciting as exaggerated, less accurate bass. MF in his review, claims a Cello should growl. I do not believe that is the case, since I have never heard a rumbling cello, nor have I seen any physical evident to such a phenomena. MF should have said, perhaps more clearly than he did, that he LIKES his Cello to growl. If the objective is to be faithful to the source (Remember the "Fi" in "Hi-Fi"), reviewers should take better care in disclosing their personal likes and biases. I, personally, am not so keen to take any personal preferences seriously without any support from some empirical evidences. MF, personal biases, in this review, are not supported well by neither his reasoning (stomach churning cellos) nor by JA measurements.
I received my copy of Michael Fremers review of the Q5 in the mail on Saturday. First of all it did not get the cover of Stereophile. I found MF's praise to be tepid, equivocal and qualified. I think he'll keep his MAXX 3. oh well you can't buy love.
Just to make it more equivocal, look at the measurements Stereophile published of the Maxx2 in two different reviewers listening rooms - PB and MF
http://www.stereophile.com/audaciousaudio/805wilson/index6.html
Then read the comments about bass from PB - the response in RED - about bass:
"Its bass was in a different class from virtually the entire world's collection of statement speakers. I have no doubt that I was getting usable response down into the mid-twenties with the likes of Kruder & Dorfmeister's The K&D Sessions (EU CD, K7 K7073). But, as MF pointed out in his review last August, what sets the MAXX 2's bass apart from the crowd is its continuousness and control. The timbral quality of the midrange—superbly differentiated, holistic, and never, ever strained—extended waaay down into the subbasement. It's the same performance, in style and quality, no matter how low the deep bass extends. "
http://www.stereophile.com/audaciousaudio/805wilson/index5.html
Do you know the dimensions of MF listening room? It could explain a lot.
BTW, if you read the review of any of the Quad ESL63 variants available in the net you will find many similarities with the Q5 Stereophile review.
i think its pretty simple folks---MF prefers the tilted up upper bass that JA points out in the measurements. this gives the illusion of more slam and is a hallmark of Wilson design. there is nothing wrong with his opinion either---to each his own, especially at this level.
as far as MF's room---it is very small, but apparently quite good.
i am looking forward to hearing the Q5s. looks-wise, much prefer the M5s.
as far as MF's room---it is very small, but apparently quite good.
i am looking forward to hearing the Q5s. looks-wise, much prefer the M5s.
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Quote from PF online:
"Marutani Consulting, The Audio Salon, Magico, Nagra
However, this room, with the big Magico floorstanders and some very expensive electronics, including a Nagra tape deck, just didn't do it for me. The tone was dry; the soundstage was flat. I even went back the next day to double-check my impression. "
"Marutani Consulting, The Audio Salon, Magico, Nagra
However, this room, with the big Magico floorstanders and some very expensive electronics, including a Nagra tape deck, just didn't do it for me. The tone was dry; the soundstage was flat. I even went back the next day to double-check my impression. "
Bruce, decorum...please
Um, did you mean you prefer busty blondes to speakers as a personal "thing"?
Just learned from this forum that two distinct members who own Alexandria X2 use them with high quality sub-woofers. It seems that the discussion about the bass of the Q5 is of limited practical interest - most surely they will be used with sub-woofers. May be the question should be - what is the best sub for the Q5?
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |