Has Magico lost its Touch?

[bonzo75]

Those speakers are very easy to make in wood. The design is very straightforward to cut and assemble in wood. No need for any craftsman for those - very simple.

Anima mid range horn is a lovely built / produced thing imho.

Below you will see a backloaded horn using AER driver that is indeed very difficult to fabricate from Charney audio:

View attachment 79912

Then a front loaded horn from the incomparable John Inlow in solid maple - a total work of genius:

View attachment 79913

 

[bonzo75]

Inlow's videos are awful

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Tima, my question was in the context of the conversation. Different materials get chosen for different strategies. I am a fan of shun mook but not of quadraspire or other wooden racks. There are many shun mook fans who tried ebony alternates and failed.

The Yamamura owner told me that there were 4 speakers made by Yamamura and he liked the 4th. Material was the same. What yamamura was doing was fine tuning his design, the size of the speaker etc. This is always the case, irrespective of the material. What designers who succeed have done well is fine tune their design, whatever the material of the speaker. All materials have a voicing. There are so many ways to make a speaker sound bad (overall design, crossover, drivers), that it is impossible for someone to say wood sounds better than composite, same is claiming epoxy resin as the magic material because Rockport Arrakis uses it. There is just no way someone can establish that. Rockport can do it for their rockport speaker that's all.

There are some things in audio that are difficult to confirm. Confirming speaker material is probably the toughest. Anyone can list the speakers they like and the ones they dislike, the least pattern you will find is with speaker material. It is also the toughest to practically research, because you cannot replace the material of a speaker with another and see if like changes to dislike or vice versa.

The other thing in audio difficult to do is making statements on DDs vs idlers vs belts and generalizing them. I summarized why I think this is difficult to do here https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/belt-drive-turntable-sucks-what-do-u-thk.32980/post-721032 .

It is very easy to test the sound of different substrates. The geometry of a horn is known. One can build their chosen horn at the selected fc (as well as other factors) in say carbon fibre, metal, plastic, gel composite, wood. You can then listen and measure.
So one could build a Trio in carbon fibre in same exact spec and compare to plastic etc. This is all possible.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Inlow's videos are awful

What has a video from Inlow got to do with his ability to make an incredibly difficult structure out of wood - absolutely nothing.

 

[bonzo75]

It is very easy to test the sound of different substrates. The geometry of a horn is known. One can build their chosen horn at the selected fc (as well as other factors) in say carbon fibre, metal, plastic, gel composite, wood. You can then listen and measure.
So one could build a Trio in carbon fibre in same exact spec and compare to plastic etc. This is all possible.

do they? also, do they have similar skills? Can all horn makers get wooden horns? And if they do would wooden horns from different people sound the same? Do wooden horn manufacturers then try composite or other materials?

 

[Audiophile Bill]

do they? also, do they have similar skills? Can all horn makers get wooden horns? And do all wooden horns sound the same? Do wooden horn manufacturers then try composite or other materials?

Do they what? You are answering a question when I no question.

I am stating a fact that horns can be made in different materials.

In response to your other question:

“All wood sound same” - absolutely not - there are many factors at play.

“Do wooden horn manufacturers try” - I don’t know because I haven’t spoken to all manufacturers of all horns. I tried plastic myself and it was poor. But as I keep repeating, there are other factors such as desired aesthetics, ease of vacuum forming, stability, shipping weight, etc. List is massive.

 

[Addicted to hifi]

Inlow's videos are awful

Great clip and music. Thanks bonzo.

 

[Addicted to hifi]

Got the whole set of fresh air by Mannheim steamroller.

 

[tima]

Tima, my question was in the context of the conversation.

Sorry, but your question was not about speaker material - you changed the context to vibration control, not moi. You should ask a different question to get the answer you wanted to pontificate respond to.

 

[rando]

What exactly is the "Touch" that Magico had and how does one establish a diminuendo?

Personally I can’t ever see the situation where one would actively prefer a plastic horn over a wooden one if all other parameters are held constant. A plastic resonance profile is what it is and not optimal. Same as why you wouldn’t ideally want your driver membrane made out of plastic or you speaker cabinet that way.

Plastic (Melamine/carbon fibre/...), I do think you are right no matter what supposed properties are bred into the synthetic building block. At least in the sense of traditional designs for producing a horn MAGICO (cabinet, driver membrane,...) from naturally occurring objects.

New music and new designs rising from shared spheres of thought are inevitable.

 

[PeterA]

@PeterA why are you using steel for vibration control not wood? And if steel why not stillpoints?

I tried wood and Stillpoints. David suggested steel so I experimented, extensively. Steel sounds better but it needs tuning. The other big reason is mass loading. Can’t get that with wood or plastic or rubber.

I would prefer a complete steel rack like David’s but expense and aesthetics in my traditional room drove me to use a wood rack mass loaded with 600 lbs of steel. The Nothing rack is a good value considering what it does and what it costs to manufacture.

Why do you ask? Nothing to do with Magico or advanced technologies.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

I tried wood and Stillpoints. David suggested steel so I experimented, extensively. Steel sounds better but it needs tuning. The other big reason is mass loading. Can’t get that with wood or plastic or rubber.

I would prefer a complete steel rack like David’s but expense and aesthetics in my traditional room drove me to use a wood rack mass loaded with 600 lbs of steel.

Why do you ask? Nothing to do with Magico or advanced technologies.

Hi Peter,

The use of steel on the wood rack actually provides a constrained layering, which in and of itself is also helpful depending on what you are trying to achieve.

 

[PeterA]

Hi Peter,

The use of steel on the wood rack actually provides a constrained layering, which in and of itself is also helpful depending on what you are trying to achieve.

I agree Bill. My rack is not just steel on wood. There are other materials and layers involved just like David’s rack is not simply rigid steel.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

I agree Bill. My rack is not just steel on wood. There are other materials and layers involved just like David’s rack is not simply rigid steel.

The bronze + Lignum I am using in my clamp right now sounds so much better than bronze alone or bronze + composite.
It is amazing how the resonance profiles of all things impact the desired outcomes.

In terms of the Magico philosophy - I think their design objective is in part to make cabinets inert / as inert as possible to only allow the driver to be heard.

 

[microstrip]

(...) in the end, I think the measure of progress should be the degree of enjoyment and pleasure derived from the product.

We fully agree on that aspect. But then you need proper statistical analysis to look at data and get proper results. The first thing we will see is that the high-end community is a too small to support any valid conclusions. So here in WBF we just present individual or small group opinions. It is why the how's and why's become so relevant.

 

[PeterA]

We fully agree on that aspect. But then you need proper statistical analysis to look at data and get proper results. The first thing we will see is that the high-end community is a too small to support any valid conclusions. So here in WBF we just present individual or small group opinions. It is why the how's and why's become so relevant.

No Francisco, I do not “need” analysis and data. I can simply buy what sounds good to me. Let the designers do the design work, the do it yourselfers the experimentation and fiddling, and the consumers audition and purchase. I don’t need to see data and the results of studies. The designers and others can do that if they choose.

 

[microstrip]

I agree with Ron's perspective, to summarize (let me know if I'm off), there's been advancements but they don't necessarily correlate to preference. But, to dive a little deeper into why...

IMO the reason for this is a lack of understanding of what drives preference as well as a lack of understanding psychoacoustics.

I think we still don't understand the largest driver of preference and exactly what creates it: The feeling of immersion in the music and being in the venue the music was recorded in. Most other things people proclaim as preference can be derived from the former...

Toole might say we prefer a flat frequency response and smooth off-axis response, but I don't think he can tell you how the quality of resistors and capacitors in your amplifier effects resolution of your system, but in my experience these things along with cables are key to being able to provide the feeling of immersion. So he does testing with low-grade cables and amplification with the speakers all being driven with the same amps and in the same positions, and he thinks he can derive useful conclusions from such massively flawed experiments? No, you only get confusion. And the result of that confusion has been muddled sound for decades.

If you remember YG, Wilson and many other high end brands using new materials used to sound much worse than they do today, to the point they were far worse vs the best vintage systems. It's only been recently that these brands have actually realized the end-result of their design goals, and IMO it has not lived up to what the supposed benefits would be because of confusion.

In speaker design there are always compromises and the designer has to be able to. 1. Articulate design priorities, and 2. Come up with a physical design that embodies the design priorities. But if the design priorities are confused then the end result will be a speaker that prioritizes design goals that don't contribute to the enjoyment of the listener at the expense of other things that DO matter.

So, it's not an issue of whether we have better tech, it's an issue of designers lack of understanding clear priorities for their designs because they don't actually understand what drives preference or if they do, how to achieve it. I don't think anyone understands these issues entirely, hence the "art" in producing audio gear. It's not art so much as individual understanding born of experience and thought about how to best engineer a component. This really ISN'T art. It's engineering using trial and error because we don't have better understanding. The casework is art.

I think people often misunderstand and misrepresent Floyd Toole research - his book is entitled "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms" and uses and quotes tens of psychoacoustic studies. He deeply analyses the stereo physiscs and psychoacoustcs - and also clearly explains the aim and target of his excellent book - and he clearly says that the target are not the high-end audiophile community. He fully understands preference is a subjective matter and must be addressed as such.

People who have not read the complete book and just know about the Harman marketing claims of it or the freely accessible pdf articles will never be able to do justice to his research.
I learned a lot from expert comments on his book, either agreeing or disagreeing.

The book is about speakers and psychoacoustics, but Toole is a scientist and an engineer - he is only interested in reliable facts and aspects that are able to be foreseen or predicted. And IMHO he has influenced a lot many designers of current successful speakers.

 

[DaveC]

I think you are partially misunderstanding and misrepresenting Floyd Toole research - his book is entitled "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms" and uses and quotes tens of psychoacoustic studies. He deeply analyses the stereo physiscs and psychoacoustcs - and also clearly explains the aim and target of his excellent book - and he clearly says that the target are not the high-end audiophile community. He fully understands preference is a subjective matter and must be addressed as such.

People who have not read the complete book and just know about the Harman marketing claims of it or the freely accessible pdf articles will never be able to do justice to his research.
I learned a lot from expert comments on his book, either agreeing or disagreeing.

The book is about speakers and psychoacoustics, but Toole is a scientist and an engineer - he is only interested in reliable facts and aspects that are able to be foreseen or predicted. And IMHO he has influenced a lot many designers of current successful speakers.

Just nevermind... this isn't worth ANY reply.

 

[microstrip]

(...) If you remember YG, Wilson and many other high end brands using new materials used to sound much worse than they do today, to the point they were far worse vs the best vintage systems. It's only been recently that these brands have actually realized the end-result of their design goals, and IMO it has not lived up to what the supposed benefits would be because of confusion. (...)

IMHO Wilson sounded top since I knew about them - the time I got my Wilson system V. This only shows how diverse can be our opinions. BTW the friend who got them much later still loves them.

In speaker design there are always compromises and the designer has to be able to. 1. Articulate design priorities, and 2. Come up with a physical design that embodies the design priorities. But if the design priorities are confused then the end result will be a speaker that prioritizes design goals that don't contribute to the enjoyment of the listener at the expense of other things that DO matter.

So, it's not an issue of whether we have better tech, it's an issue of designers lack of understanding clear priorities for their designs because they don't actually understand what drives preference or if they do, how to achieve it. I don't think anyone understands these issues entirely, hence the "art" in producing audio gear. It's not art so much as individual understanding born of experience and thought about how to best engineer a component. This really ISN'T art. It's engineering using trial and error because we don't have better understanding. The casework is art.

Well, now we enter semantics on what is art ... Many people consider that the sound engineer work in a recording is art, why should the quality work of an high-end audio designer not be considered art? And, sorry but for me equipment casework is not art - not even the Metronome Kalsista.

 

[microstrip]

Just nevermind... this isn't worth ANY reply.

Curiously it was and I read it. But you deleted it, and I am deleting my answer. Apologies if you feel offended, it was not personnel - just edited the post.