First Listen: Magico Q7 Mk.II - An Unexpected New Direction for Magico
- Thread starter mauidan
- Start date
In some respect, i feel like Robert's comments could be compared to the way some might describe the general overall 'character' of the S series vs the original Q series. It is now that the Q seems to have taken perhaps the best of both worlds and sought to combine into one Mark II speaker. In particular, i think of the quote:
"...This new speaker was decidedly darker in balance, richer in tone color, smoother and softer in the treble, and less incisive. It sounded very much like a difference in frequency response, with the top two-and-a-half octaves shelved down in level compared with the original Q7. However, Magico's Alon Wolf told me that the frequency responses of the two loudspeakers are identical...."
Many who measured the S series (Martin Colloms) found the S series to be remarkably flat (Q of course also being quite flat), and yet i think few seem to have found its 'voicing' the same as the Q.
"...This new speaker was decidedly darker in balance, richer in tone color, smoother and softer in the treble, and less incisive. It sounded very much like a difference in frequency response, with the top two-and-a-half octaves shelved down in level compared with the original Q7. However, Magico's Alon Wolf told me that the frequency responses of the two loudspeakers are identical...."
Many who measured the S series (Martin Colloms) found the S series to be remarkably flat (Q of course also being quite flat), and yet i think few seem to have found its 'voicing' the same as the Q.
Last edited:
It's interesting how speakers with very similar frequency responses can sound so different. Just shows that ears are more sensitive than testing equipment. Strange how Harley keeps describing the new midrange material as the first commercial application of this in any product. Has he forgotten about the M Project? Little or no mention of that speaker in the review. Also, can he really compare the sound of the Q7 and Q7 II based on hearing them in different rooms?
If these tweeters and midranges (or similar versions) migrate to other Q and S speakers, I wonder how different the two lines will really sound from each other. The Q5 vs S7 could be an interesting comparison like the Q3 vs S5.
Yes, I have my doubts, too, and good that you brought this point to our attention. Not just rooms are different, but it also depends where you sit within a given room. Even in my room the perceived frequency response is different if I sit just 3 feet back from my usual spot -- less bright in the highs but also with less body in the low mids. So it is not easily possible to make direct comparisons between different equipment if you do not set it up in the same room and in the same way.
Last edited:
from my recollection of Harley's home listening room, almost any speaker in a sophisticated purpose designed listening room would have more body and be somewhat darker sounding. Harley's room 'appears' to be very bright and slappy sounding based on the visuals of tall hard surfaces, very open in all directions and lots of windows and no strong room boundaries to define the bass. of course, Harley's room might sound absolutely different from how it looks, however unlikely that might be.
which does not mean that his conclusions are necessarily wrong, only that his basis is questionable. if Magico's big boy room is not much better and different than Harley's I would be surprised.
which does not mean that his conclusions are necessarily wrong, only that his basis is questionable. if Magico's big boy room is not much better and different than Harley's I would be surprised.
Last edited:
The two speakers may simply interact differently with any given room, producing in-room response variations that don't show in anechoic measurements.
My guess,
Lee
My guess,
Lee
In my view, Robert Harley's re-assessment of the original Q7 is somewhat of a personal embarrassment. It's interesting to see how he is able to hear the obvious flaws of the Q7 only in retrospect to the revised Mk II version. Although I have read and respected his work for years, I think we need to be honest here and say this raises some concern. It was obvious to many of us that with respect to real music, the top end of the Q7 was quite un-natural, "hot" even,- a trait he was able to identify quite easily only when the Q7 MK II was used as the comparator. This begs asking a very important question which is namely, why was he not able to hear this when attending any decent symphony performance and then going home to listen to reproduced music on the original Q7? Hmmm... I realize that sometimes our best objective efforts are unfortunately biased by subjective issues. It appears that may be the case here. Robert is clearly an experienced and reputable listener, but he is also only human. I'm hoping that in his revised assessment of the original Q7, there is something to be learned here by all of us. BTW, if anyone wishes to hear another remarkable tweeter (and speaker!), have a listen to the Vivid G1's. No revision of that speaker is needed to know that the current model indeed sounds like real music should sound.
I think you bring up some very good points here. Why indeed did RH NOT hear the "hot" top end. That question could also be asked of other reviewers who have not, or cannot, hear the "ringing" of the old Wilson tweet or the "HOT" Beryllium dome in the Magico's and the Focals. One could also ask, what about all the other wrinkles and faults that all gear elicits? IMHO, the a'phile should be very concerned when he/she reads a review that is hyperbole full and then within a short period of time, said reviewer is faulting the old model and waxing again about the new model. A great example being the many hyperbole laden reviews of the old ARC REf 120...so many positives flying around and so much hyperbole, that any one new to the hobby would think that this amp had to be the second coming, LOL
Then we get to read a review of the newer ARC Ref 150 wherein the reviewer states: " the old Ref 120's faults with loss of information, a general haze, and weakness in the bottom octave have all been ameliorated here"....what the heck!!
BTW, I agree with the statement about the Vivid G1's...superb sounding speaker ( the tweeter, even though it is a metal dome is just a pleasure to listen to, no ringing or anything else untoward).
Well first of all i am not a magico owner, also i am not a fanboy. One of my friend has M-Projects, whom i care what he thinks because he is a veteran listener. He says exactly the same things about the m-project, which RH mentions about q7. So as far asmy friends and RH thinks same, i consider RH findings are true. Also, hearing the defects of old q7 now, is not a fault imho, because again my friend told me that new tweater and mid range driver is a brand new experience to him, i think for RH too. It is very unfair judging RH, without hearing q7mkii in my opinion. Maybe it is a very different thing which you may never think a speaker may achive, who knows...
These are very expensive products, few lucky may have, maybe more but again few may hear them. There will always be doubts about that this kind of products, and review about them. Because they are out of reach, they cannot be good enough to justify their price
These are very expensive products, few lucky may have, maybe more but again few may hear them. There will always be doubts about that this kind of products, and review about them. Because they are out of reach, they cannot be good enough to justify their price
I did not listen any of RH's systems in his room so can not comment on it. It should also be the fact that speakers should sound relatively bright compared to acoustically treated rooms. That said, I suppose RH's hearings of Q7mkII can not be fully regarded as room differentials. It is the tweeter and mid driver playing their roles in his description of somewhat darker sounding and better rendition of timbres. Before M Pros, I listened to various Magicos in different setups,. so that accustomed to Magico sound even if each Magico also has its variations over each other. The high freq definition of M Pros via new tweeter is an important step from Magico to diverge to a new positioning in terms of musicality and presentation. It is unlike any other previous Magicos that I heard or any other speakers from any other brands. It has taken a while for me to adapt to the tweeter as one hears better resolution and energy in a way that it does not precede itself ahead of music. On the contrary the highs are somehow melted into mids such that you realize the instruments as a whole similar to a live music rather than your brain hearing first the frequency segments and then combine them to visualize the instrument with the consiousness that you listen to a system, not a live performance.
I have been into hiend for almost 20 years. I am sure there are lots of more experienced listeners in this forum, so I will not pretend as mr X or Y etc. I am just anybody having his opinion. I also understand that good can be better so there is no end to that. There has been very few times that I felt like I do not listen to a system, but instead I am in that venue. For sure that is not to say I was not happy or I was not impressed with any speaker or system, it is far from that. That being said, M Pros musical presentation via their purities, honesty and integration of drivers (especially its tweeter which acts like no tweeter) at least for me are a musical involvement such that I do not think of the system but music itself. Perhaps there are even better speakers out there, Q7mkII may be one of them. There may be some other speakers from other brands also to consider. I just shared my experiences and findings.
My reading of this Q7II mini review is basically this: Harley writes that the best speaker in the world just got better and the new tweeter and midrange are responsible.
Magico makes a wonderful, innovative group of products fully aided by their marketing prowess and massive support from the media, particularly Jeff Fritz and TAS. They have a real industry presence after just ten years, and it seems very likely that they will be around for a long time continuing to innovate. Magico is not a speaker for everyone, but there are quite a few extremely happy owners who are lucky enough to be able to afford a pair of their speakers.
I've heard the M Project a couple of times and I can only imagine how good the new Q7II sounds.
Magico makes a wonderful, innovative group of products fully aided by their marketing prowess and massive support from the media, particularly Jeff Fritz and TAS. They have a real industry presence after just ten years, and it seems very likely that they will be around for a long time continuing to innovate. Magico is not a speaker for everyone, but there are quite a few extremely happy owners who are lucky enough to be able to afford a pair of their speakers.
I've heard the M Project a couple of times and I can only imagine how good the new Q7II sounds.
I have heard quite a few of the speakers that are the audio press's latest darling. I find many of them to be way too bright. Some unlistenable like some of the Focals I have heard. Hopefully I will hear better results at Axpona. Sometimes I have to wonder if some of these reviewers can hear anything above 2khz. Maybe too many years of listening to music at insane volume levels?
I did not find the Q7's to bright. I did however find the bass lacking IMHO. Quite possibly the Jadis amplification at the time...
I find all of the Magico line impressive from top to bottom, looking forward to hearing these.
On the other hand I find the Wilsons tweeters sweet spot extremely small and very "locational". They don't disappear into the music.
I find all of the Magico line impressive from top to bottom, looking forward to hearing these.
On the other hand I find the Wilsons tweeters sweet spot extremely small and very "locational". They don't disappear into the music.
I think you bring up some very good points here. Why indeed did RH NOT hear the "hot" top end. That question could also be asked of other reviewers who have not, or cannot, hear the "ringing" of the old Wilson tweet or the "HOT" Beryllium dome in the Magico's and the Focals. One could also ask, what about all the other wrinkles and faults that all gear elicits? IMHO, the a'phile should be very concerned when he/she reads a review that is hyperbole full and then within a short period of time, said reviewer is faulting the old model and waxing again about the new model. A great example being the many hyperbole laden reviews of the old ARC REf 120...so many positives flying around and so much hyperbole, that any one new to the hobby would think that this amp had to be the second coming, LOL
Then we get to read a review of the newer ARC Ref 150 wherein the reviewer states: " the old Ref 120's faults with loss of information, a general haze, and weakness in the bottom octave have all been ameliorated here"....what the heck!!
BTW, I agree with the statement about the Vivid G1's...superb sounding speaker ( the tweeter, even though it is a metal dome is just a pleasure to listen to, no ringing or anything else untoward).
While my experience on this forum is quite underwhelming, I do always tell those newer to the hobby to pay attention to what the reviews don't say more than what they do say.
Isn't it a shame that you have to do this. A newer hobbyist shouldn't have to pay attention to, and try to comprehend what a reviewer is NOT saying, IMHO. If the dog's got fleas, let's hear about them.
Quoted from the article:
If you're attending the AXPONA show later this month, you can hear the Q7 Mk.II for yourself.
Could not afford them even if I liquidated my kids college fund, but still nice to hear them. I'll be there.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |