Magico S5

[FrantzM]

Of course they are , but if you feel otherwise, please point to supporting data. BTW, none of the Magico loudspeakers that I have seen measurements of (excluding the old V/M), measure “much poorer”.

+1

 

[MylesBAstor]

No they are not , although the distortion measurement is exceptional. And IMHO several Magico speakers with much poorer measurements sound better than the S5. YMMV.

But were the measurement all done the same way? I guess it also would be of use to define exactly what speaker measurements one is referring to as there's a boatload of them and they arguably don't all carry the same weight. That might complicate the interpretation of the results or the correlation.

 

[Orb]

I think Micro may be thinking of the German audio magazine that does extensive tests (appreciate other publications also do extensive testing and some use external labs) with their reviews.
Sure in some of their test parameters a couple of other speakers either matched or were better (however this is pick and choosing test parameters) but if looking at all the measurements then Magico are IMO top of the table.

Apologies if thinking wrong on this Micro.
Cheers
Orb

 

[puroagave]

Rob they were such totally different circumstances as to make any comparison unfair and impossible. Bigger room, totally different equipment, etc. other than to say wish could hear this 50 watt AN Kagura amp in my system.

the salesman form Brooks Berdan running the demo at t.h.e. show stated the S3's midrange was better than the S5 due to a new "chamber" and the difference was not subtle. according to him hearing them side by side would favor the S3 and more difficult to sell the S5. two other guys standing there were nodding in the affirmative as if this was common knowledge

 

[cannata]

I think Micro may be thinking of the German audio magazine that does extensive tests (appreciate other publications also do extensive testing and some use external labs) with their reviews.
Sure in some of their test parameters a couple of other speakers either matched or were better (however this is pick and choosing test parameters) but if looking at all the measurements then Magico are IMO top of the table.

Apologies if thinking wrong on this Micro.
Cheers
Orb

You are not wrong. I read these German magazines as well. In fact, Stereoplay do rate components, and if I remember correctly, 4 out of the speakers top 5-6 listing, are Magicos.

 

[PeterA]

the salesman form Brooks Berdan running the demo at t.h.e. show stated the S3's midrange was better than the S5 due to a new "chamber" and the difference was not subtle. according to him hearing them side by side would favor the S3 and more difficult to sell the S5. two other guys standing there were nodding in the affirmative as if this was common knowledge

puroagave, did you hear this demo? Did the salesman elaborate on exactly how the "midrange was better"? I wonder if they will be adding similar chambers to the other speakers in S and Q lines and then releasing a MK2 version of each. With the M Project, material, shape, and driver developments and this midrange chamber, the next generation of Magico speakers seems awfully promising.

 

[puroagave]

Peter, I was there and heard the demo twice. imho, it was one of the best sounds at the show and one of my top picks. I was under the assumption Myles had access to both speakers and could hear them side by side. apparently this new "chamber" has not yet trickled up to the S5, maybe its already in the Q series, dunno.

 

[microstrip]

But were the measurement all done the same way? I guess it also would be of use to define exactly what speaker measurements one is referring to as there's a boatload of them and they arguably don't all carry the same weight. That might complicate the interpretation of the results or the correlation.

Myles,

You are spot on. There are many measurements in loudpeakers, and a victorious statement of the "best overall measuring" can be easily challenged. No way the directivity measurements of the S5 are textbook and many people have different interpretations on what is the ideal directivity for stereo speakers.
Although we are used to tolerate the so called subjective hyperbole, I think we should be more careful when referring to measurements.

BTW, people should remember that all these nice flat measured curves become tortuous when the S5 is used with your great ART's.

 

[asiufy]

Myles,

You are spot on. There are many measurements in loudpeakers, and a victorious statement of the "best overall measuring" can be easily challenged. No way the directivity measurements of the S5 are textbook and many people have different interpretations on what is the ideal directivity for stereo speakers.
Although we are used to tolerate the so called subjective hyperbole, I think we should be more careful when referring to measurements.

BTW, people should remember that all these nice flat measured curves become tortuous when the S5 is used with your great ART's.

microstrip,

OK, as you say, people differ on what "good measuraments" are. So, please, what would be a speaker with better measured result, overall, in your opinion, and why?


alexandre

 

[microstrip]

microstrip,

OK, as you say, people differ on what "good measuraments" are. So, please, what would be a speaker with better measured result, overall, in your opinion, and why?


alexandre

Alexandre,


I do not have access to the F.Toole book now, but I remember seeing better looking directivity measurements there than those shown in the Soundstage S5 measurements. Also, some Vivid Audio speakers show a set of measurements that could be considered better.
If we ignore the bass and dynamic range limitations, even the vintage Quad ESL 63 measures exceptionaly well in a few areas!

 

[MylesBAstor]

Peter, I was there and heard the demo twice. imho, it was one of the best sounds at the show and one of my top picks. I was under the assumption Myles had access to both speakers and could hear them side by side. apparently this new "chamber" has not yet trickled up to the S5, maybe its already in the Q series, dunno.

I'm not sure if it will be incorporated into the S5s. As far as the Q-series goes, it's a totally different internal design IIRC.

 

[cannata]

microstrip,

OK, as you say, people differ on what "good measuraments" are. So, please, what would be a speaker with better measured result, overall, in your opinion, and why?


alexandre

+1
BTW, no one should be looking at “flat measured curves” and make conclusions. We are talking about overall measurements. If a speaker is flat on-axis, but a train wreck off-axis, it is not “overall” a good (measuring) speaker. Same goes for THD. Take for example a speaker like YG, that measures very nicely in the frq domain, but reveal a very ugly side when it comes to THD (http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/yg_anat_ref_main_module/). This is why you can’t just look at frq response measurements and make any valid assessment on performance. Some will give YG as an example to why flat response is bright and aggressive and therefore not a good thing, were in fact the YG aggressive etched sound has nothing to do with its frq response (Well, perhaps with what it took to get there). The trick is to get it all right, and I don’t think anyone is doing it better than Magico today.

 

[PeterA]

I'm not sure if it will be incorporated into the S5s. As far as the Q-series goes, it's a totally different internal design IIRC.

Yes, I think the Q7 has a sealed midrange enclosure, though, judging from the photos, it is not a chamber like that in the S3.

 

[stereo]

Yes, I think the Q7 has a sealed midrange enclosure, though, judging from the photos, it is not a chamber like that in the S3.

Any Magico speaker with a woofer has a sealed enclosure for the mid range.... With a sealed bass, the pressure building in the cabinet is very high, it would pop out the mid range!
Where the S3 is different is that they use a new form factor and new material for the enclosure which reduces internal reflection.

 

[PeterA]

Any Magico speaker with a woofer has a sealed enclosure for the mid range.... With a sealed bass, the pressure building in the cabinet is very high, it would pop out the mid range!
Where the S3 is different is that they use a new form factor and new material for the enclosure which reduces internal reflection.

Thanks Stereo. So you are saying the Q5 has a solid plate internally to seal and separate completely the midrange driver from the woofers in the bottom of the cabinet? I did not see that in the photograph of the cut away Q5. I had thought the Q7, with that copper band indicated that the midrange above the tweeter was in its separate enclosure and that this feature is unique to the Q7. Thank you for clarifying my mistake.

I was also unaware that the Q3 has a sealed enclosure for the midrange. Is the midrange completely sealed, or does it share the space with the tweeter? I'll look for this plate in the photos of the Q3 separating the bottom three woofers.

 

[stereo]

On S5, Q3, Q5, Q7: the enclosure is like a separate "box in a box". Aluminum enclosure. The medium enclosure doesn't take the full depth of the speaker.
On Magico tweeters: they are closed by design (the back cover of the tweeter is the enclosure) so not an issue.

 

[microstrip]

+1
BTW, no one should be looking at “flat measured curves” and make conclusions. We are talking about overall measurements. If a speaker is flat on-axis, but a train wreck off-axis, it is not “overall” a good (measuring) speaker. Same goes for THD. Take for example a speaker like YG, that measures very nicely in the frq domain, but reveal a very ugly side when it comes to THD (http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/yg_anat_ref_main_module/). This is why you can’t just look at frq response measurements and make any valid assessment on performance. Some will give YG as an example to why flat response is bright and aggressive and therefore not a good thing, were in fact the YG aggressive etched sound has nothing to do with its frq response (Well, perhaps with what it took to get there). The trick is to get it all right, and I don’t think anyone is doing it better than Magico today.

I answered the question above, and you choose to ignore the answer... Anyway it is nice to know that "overall measurements" just means a set of measurements that makes S5 fans happy. . Sorry I prefer the tailored response of the Q series- I surely do not pretend that a purposed non flat tailored axial response is an excellent measurement.

 

[cannata]

I answered the question above, and you choose to ignore the answer... Anyway it is nice to know that "overall measurements" just means a set of measurements that makes S5 fans happy. . Sorry I prefer the tailored response of the Q series- I surely do not pretend that a purposed non flat tailored axial response is an excellent measurement.

No, I did not ignored it, I just don't think you are right. The Vivid, are not overall better measured, sorry - look at SS data again (and the Quad?? - http://www.stereophile.com/content/quad-esl-63-loudspeaker-measurements). Also, I don't think that the Qs are tailored, on the contrary they seems to be more linear then the S.

 

[microstrip]

No, I did not ignored it, I just don't think you are right. The Vivid, are not overall better measured, sorry - look at SS data again (and the Quad?? - http://www.stereophile.com/content/quad-esl-63-loudspeaker-measurements). Also, I don't think that the Qs are tailored, on the contrary they seems to be more linear then the S.

Anyone knowing about the ESL63 knows you can not judge them on these very limited Stereophile measurements, as acknowledged in the review you quote. Do you really think that the Q5 is flat?

http://www.stereophile.com/content/magico-q5-loudspeaker-measurements

 

[MylesBAstor]

Anyone knowing about the ESL63 knows you can not judge them on these very limited Stereophile measurements, as acknowledged in the review you quote. Do you really think that the Q5 is flat?

http://www.stereophile.com/content/magico-q5-loudspeaker-measurements

I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the Magico's impedance and farfield frequency response, and an Earthworks QTC-40 for the nearfield and spatially averaged room responses. The sheer bulk of the Q5—it weighs almost 400 lbs—precluded my being able to place it on my Outline turntable for the acoustic measurements. I therefore performed the quasi-anechoic measurements with the speaker sitting on a dolly in Michael Fremer's driveway (scroll down the page). The inevitable reflection of the speaker's output from the ground between it and the microphone will therefore reduce the resolution of the measurements in the midrange; it was also not possible to do a full set of lateral-dispersion measurements, due to the need to keep to a minimum the time the speaker was left standing in direct sunlight.

Don't you think that's a rather large chunk or boulder of salt?

And I seem to remember a similar caveat when John measured the XLFs. It would seem that SS's measurements are of a more consistent quality?