Does Magico have a "house sound", and if so, how would you describe it?

[andromedaaudio]

Haha. Yup, there's not much toe in that pic... although believe me I did try it...

If its the case that your tweeter sounds a bit sharp / hot , there is a solution of putting some woolfelt around the tweeter ( 3-4 mm thick)
It can reduce out put by 1-2 db .
its a low cost/ easy to remove tweak without changing the X over , it will also improve image focus at the cost of some liveliness

 

[Blackmorec]

If the tweeter on an A5 is similar to the S1MkII, then its extremely extended and energetic but that translates into huge transparency, sparkle, shimmer, purity and air. If it sounds a bit sharp/hot then you’re modifying your tweeter in order to offset something with the signal because this recent generation of Magico tweeters fall right into the Goldilock‘s Mama Bear territory.....MMmmm just right.
In my experience, if a very neutral tweeter like the Magico’s is sounding ‘uncomfortable‘ you generally need to go looking for whatever is causing the slight loss of HF resolution, because its probably that unresolved part of the signal that’s causing the slight distortion.... the first place to look is the network feed but there can be many other places where a little resolution can go missing for example vibration control, cables, dirty connectors or a nearby source of EMI. And of course anything new, that’s running in

 

[morricab]

If the tweeter on an A5 is similar to the S1MkII, then its extremely extended and energetic but that translates into huge transparency, sparkle, shimmer, purity and air. If it sounds a bit sharp/hot then you’re modifying your tweeter in order to offset something with the signal because this recent generation of Magico tweeters fall right into the Goldilock‘s Mama Bear territory.....MMmmm just right.
In my experience, if a very neutral tweeter like the Magico’s is sounding ‘uncomfortable‘ you generally need to go looking for whatever is causing the slight loss of HF resolution, because its probably that unresolved part of the signal that’s causing the slight distortion.... the first place to look is the network feed but there can be many other places where a little resolution can go missing for example vibration control, cables, dirty connectors or a nearby source of EMI. And of course anything new, that’s running in

OR, the output is just a bit too hot...if they tuned the speaker to be truly flat to 20khz it can easily sound too bright in the in-room response depending on the dispersion pattern.

 

[MadFloyd]

Blackmorec, thank you for your comments!

I have no doubt that a lot of what you're saying could be true. While the room was an upgrade from where my main system is (in terms of dimensions etc) I have no doubt that the electrical and networking were not my friends.

And I did consider the glass AV stand wasn't do me any favors.

I didn't know about the cups underneath the spikes but think I tried them both ways and didn't hear much difference - I could be wrong though.

In any case, I will stick to my pair of KEF LS50 active/wireless speakers for that location and continue to invest in my main system.

 

[tima]

I read comments saying "what you are describing is a Magico speaker from the past." Other comments say "it can't be the speakers, whatever is problematic must be elsewhere in your system." It would seem those comments could be made at any time.

Based on reading this thread I find I have the same view from 10 months and 216 posts later: there is no Magico 'house sound'.

Stepping back, the way I read this thread is Magico changes the technology and sonics of their speakers regularly. Some characterize the change from one line to another as drastic. I gather there is more consistency of sonics within a given line or model set. Whether you like a Magico sound may depend on when you heard them. Some characterize the regular change as purposeful and evolving though it is unclear if the evolution has a direction and thus difficult to assess there is 'a house sound.'

It seems that criticism is often met with 'the need to have the appropriate amplification'. It's not clear there is agreement on appropriate amplification across the various lines.

All of this makes me wonder if the manufacturer is very purposeful but doesn't know quite what he wants. Or more kindly, he is still in the process of clarifying his vision. Or perhaps the manufacturer is saying 'well, I did that, what can I do next', on the other hand I wonder if perhaps continual change is the core of the Magico business model.

 

[jeff1225]

I read comments saying "what you are describing is a Magico speaker from the past." Other comments say "it can't be the speakers, whatever is problematic must be elsewhere in your system." It would seem those comments could be made at any time.

Based on reading this thread I find I have the same view from 10 months and 216 posts later: there is no Magico 'house sound'.

Tima,
Don't you believe that current Magico and YG's have a house sound? They sure sound similar to me. High resolution, precise imaging, low dynamics and constrained bass.

IMO of course.

 

[tima]

Tima,
Don't you believe that current Magico and YG's have a house sound? They sure sound similar to me. High resolution, precise imaging, low dynamics and constrained bass.

IMO of course.

Of course

The bass varies but overall, yes. I can't speak on YG. Like was said in my quote, based on reading this thread there is more sonic similarity within a particular Magico line (Ss, As, Qs, Ms, etc.) at a given point in time than from line to line across the years.

 

[Frenchrooster]

I have heard different Magico in different systems, as with Soulution, CH Precision and Constellation. I found the sound very neutral, precise, and with a great soundstaging.
But to my tastes, the sound was too lean and lacking textures. A bit soulless. But great on Hifi criterias.
some will probably find that i prefer a more coloured sound. They may be right. I don’t know.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I have heard different Magico in different systems, as with Soulution, CH Precision and Constellation. I found the sound very neutral, precise, and with a great soundstaging.
But to my tastes, the sound was too lean and lacking textures. A bit soulless. But great on Hifi criterias.
some will probably find that i prefer a more coloured sound. They may be right. I don’t know.

I appreciate that you recognize that other people may have different subjective sonic tastes than you do. You are correct that one audiophile's "colored" sound is another audiophile's "musical" sound. One audiophile's "transparent, detailed and highly resolving" is another audiophile's "clinical and soulless."

Thank you for being introspective and for understanding that different audiophiles have different tastes, and, in this subjective hobby, that these questions typically are not matters of objective right or wrong

 

[morricab]

Tima,
Don't you believe that current Magico and YG's have a house sound? They sure sound similar to me. High resolution, precise imaging, low dynamics and constrained bass.

IMO of course.

It is interesting that with the new M9 in the company ad copy there is specific mention of thermal compression as being a big thief of dynamics and that they have specifically designed the new drivers to combat this issue...something profi drivers have strived for for a long time. Perhaps they are trying to shed that “buttoned down “ sound image?

 

[morricab]

I appreciate that you recognize that other people may have different subjective sonic tastes than you do. You are correct that one audiophile's "colored" sound is another audiophile's "musical" sound. One audiophile's "transparent, detailed and highly resolving" is another audiophile's "clinical and soulless."

Thank you for being introspective and for understanding that different audiophiles have different tastes, and, in this subjective hobby, that these questions typically are not matters of objective right or wrong

Next time I am at a live classical concert I will be sure to tell them when their sound is too lean and lacks texture...oh wait I don’t hear that live...

 

[Skanda]

Tima,
Don't you believe that current Magico and YG's have a house sound? They sure sound similar to me. High resolution, precise imaging, low dynamics and constrained bass.

IMO of course.

genuine question as i was looking at some yg's: if you could have a yg sonja or magico m series (lets say m3) with one at a substantial discount to the other would you just buy the cheaper one?

would anyone say magicos are better (just compared to themselves and not other speakers) at unamplified bass vs amplified/synthesized bass? i listen to alot of synthesized/amplified bass and less so unamplified and am wondering if the magico sound is just tuned to prefer one to the other. don't get me wrong, i love whatever this house sound is.

most magicos i've heard are good all rounders but my recent experience with alexx v's and xvx have me wondering if wilson or some other brand have an edge for the type of music i like or if i was just taken by a new sound that i'm not used to

 

[gds7368]

Tima,
Don't you believe that current Magico and YG's have a house sound? They sure sound similar to me. High resolution, precise imaging, low dynamics and constrained bass.

IMO of course.

I own both M6s and M Projects, and I agree with high resolution with good imaging. However, I would describe the dynamics and bass as equal to the recording. Well recorded material, even 16/44, can sound outstanding in regards to both. For just one example, I played rap music for my 7 year old nephew last weekend and couldn't imagine wanting more exciting bass or a more alive and dynamic sound.

However, lesser recordings aren't warmed up at all, and if those recordings aren't full in bass then you won't hear full bass. I could see where people with many such recordings, or in a less lively room, would say the sound is lean and would want a tube and probably a subwoofer in the system.

IMHO and in my (currently all digital) room.

 

[Skanda]

I own both M6s and M Projects, and I agree with high resolution with good imaging. However, I would describe the dynamics and bass as equal to the recording. Well recorded material, even 16/44, can sound outstanding in regards to both. For just one example, I played rap music for my 7 year old nephew last weekend and couldn't imagine wanting more exciting bass or a more alive and dynamic sound.

However, lesser recordings aren't warmed up at all, and if those recordings aren't full in bass then you won't hear full bass. I could see where people with many such recordings, or in a less lively room, would say the sound is lean and would want a tube and probably a subwoofer in the system.

IMHO and in my (currently all digital) room.

yep especially with the taiko i am not left wanting for any dynamics or anything like that. i'm not left wanting for anything really. but that doesn't mean i won't pursue an upgrade

 

[microstrip]

I have heard different Magico in different systems, as with Soulution, CH Precision and Constellation. I found the sound very neutral, precise, and with a great soundstaging.
But to my tastes, the sound was too lean and lacking textures. A bit soulless. But great on Hifi criterias.
some will probably find that i prefer a more coloured sound. They may be right. I don’t know.

I appreciate that you recognize that other people may have different subjective sonic tastes than you do. You are correct that one audiophile's "colored" sound is another audiophile's "musical" sound. One audiophile's "transparent, detailed and highly resolving" is another audiophile's "clinical and soulless."

Thank you for being introspective and for understanding that different audiophiles have different tastes, and, in this subjective hobby, that these questions typically are not matters of objective right or wrong

Ron,

IMHO we all know that the high-end is a matter of preference and he share a subjective hobby. But is nice to learn that if we write it we can than refer to high-end components using extremely pejorative words such as "Great on Hifi criterias" and be considered as an introspective audiophile ...

Sorry, I am ready to accept all other clear subjective attributes, but I think that this is the type of comment that poisons a thread ...

 

[andromedaaudio]

I'd like to hear your speakers.

Even better if you can persuade a dealer .
I prefer to work through a dealer .

 

[andromedaaudio]

Sorry, I am ready to accept all other clear subjective attributes, but I think that this is the type of comment that poisons a thread ...

I think Frenchrooster and Ron just nailed it .
Magico and wilson or Avalon and Kharma to name a few well known brands , all deliver a version of the truth that they see fit as the norm .
Its just the consumers task to pick the flavour they like.
Some consumers are good at it , some keep on swapping untill the wallet is empty and they still haven t found what they re looking for .
The choice is enormous regarding loudspeakers which is only better for consumers .

 

[DaveC]

genuine question as i was looking at some yg's: if you could have a yg sonja or magico m series (lets say m3) with one at a substantial discount to the other would you just buy the cheaper one?

would anyone say magicos are better (just compared to themselves and not other speakers) at unamplified bass vs amplified/synthesized bass? i listen to alot of synthesized/amplified bass and less so unamplified and am wondering if the magico sound is just tuned to prefer one to the other. don't get me wrong, i love whatever this house sound is.

most magicos i've heard are good all rounders but my recent experience with alexx v's and xvx have me wondering if wilson or some other brand have an edge for the type of music i like or if i was just taken by a new sound that i'm not used to

I haven't heard the newest Magicos, but FWIW the Sonja is certainly in the running for the best cone n dome speaker on the market, especially the XV.

 

[Carlos269]

I think Frenchrooster and Ron just nailed it .
Magico and wilson or Avalon and Kharma to name a few well known brands , all deliver a version of the truth that they see fit as the norm .
Its just the consumers task to pick the flavour they like .
Some consumers are good at it , some keep on swapping untill the wallet is empty and they still haven t found what they re looking for .
The choice is enormous regarding loudspeakers which is only better for consumers .

The “trial and error” approach is part of the “fun” for most audiophiles but when you really understand what is going on it is really a silly process at best. As I see it, the majority of audiophiles do not posses a high degree of technical acumen and follow the approach of reviewers, which is to swap out components until a combination of equipment produces a result that they are after or in most cases just gets them closer to that result. Then they further perform tone control on the sound by swapping out cables, adding or removing room treatments and so on. If most Audiophiles simply spent a day in the studio and see how much change a few twist of some knobs can do to the sound presentation and that you can dial in just about every audiophile attribute: soundstage depth/width/height, image focus, bass depth/tightness, presentation warmth/clean, high-frequency sparkle/detail and so on, they would scratch their heads and realize how silly the trial and error approach is. The catch is knowing what knob to twist to produce the result that you are after.

Now don’t get me wrong, I like the equipment just as much as everyone else, God knows that I have a ton of it but it can all be dialed-in in a predictable and repeatable/defeatable way without having to resort to the “trial and error” approach. I would suggest as a minimum the use of HQPLAYER to massage or tailor your sound goes a long ways.

Just like our wives love their high-end purses and shoes and they can’t seem to ever have enough, we love our equipment and some love the pride-in-ownership that comes with having the magazines’ or online forum’s flavor of the month components. Trophy hunting with stereo equipment is all the rage here. I think we all have seen the fancy walk in closets were women display their high-end handbags and shoes, well similarly some get nice custom built listening rooms to display their systems. Most of what goes on in most hobbies, whether it be high-end stereos, cars, watches, cigars, guns is mostly about vanity and not really about function. I said it once and I will say it again, this game is like Scientology and once you make it to the top of the hill and look back you realize just how silly most of it is. Sorry to burst some bubbles, but hey pride-in-ownership still means a lot to most of us.

 

[Blackmorec]

Ron,

IMHO we all know that the high-end is a matter of preference and he share a subjective hobby. But is nice to learn that if we write it we can than refer to high-end components using extremely pejorative words such as "Great on Hifi criterias" and be considered as an introspective audiophile ...

Sorry, I am ready to accept all other clear subjective attributes, but I think that this is the type of comment that poisons a thread ...

Hi Microstrip,
I once said about an early iteration of the Wilson Watt Puppy driven by Krell that it sounded like ’big hi-fi’. I wasn’t being complementary. The system was extremely impressive but absolutely failed to involve me in the music.

But these days, sound quality has moved on, but what hasn’t evolved at the same pace is the vocabulary and language we use to describe it. We use words like ‘soundstage’, bass extension, layering, frequency extremes etc. But those terms are no longer sufficient to describe why one component or system sounds ‘magical’ or natural and highly involving, while another doesn’t.
Two systems can both deliver all the hi-if attributes, but if one makes us feel different to the other, what is the typical reviewer language used to describe those differences?
I was describing the effects of upgrading 3 network power supplies and it went something like, “it didn’t have a great effect on the typical hi-fi attributes, which were already excellent. Rather it changed how the listener perceives and responds to the system.....”. In other words, there was no “more or deeper bass”, no “change in frequency extremes”, no “additional soundstage width”, but what there was, which is difficult to describe, was a far greater level of emotional response and listener connection and involvement. So when someone says, “it does all the hi-fi stuff but......” I take that to mean that it has all the attributes we look for and report related to a hi-fi but somehow didn’t “light the listener’s fire“
What I have also learned is that this ability to let us ‘feel the music’s emotions’ doesn’t seem to lie so much with the speaker itself but rather with the signal the speakers are playing. For example, a system with an abundance of this characteristic loses it as soon as a new component is introduced into the signal or data stream path that first needs to run in.