Magico M9 vs. Magico Ultimate 3 Horn- Box vs. Horn! Which will be better? In which ways?

[Zeotrope]

I would agree except for the fact that we are discussing the best of the best in this Forum.
It’s my belief that our role as clients and potential clients, is to demand better from manufacturers. Not physically time-aligning and using digital correction is a short-cut that should not be accepted when a speaker costs 6-figures. Just my POV.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Respectfully, even I’m not as dogmatic this.

1) If someone is happy with the sound of his/her digital playback system, then such person likely will not find anathema in theory or in sonic result the sound of these digital conversions.

2) Even if in theory or in sonic result an analog oriented audiophile finds the digital conversions anathema, Carlos may still be correct that the sonic benefits of the time alignment in the digital domain may outweigh the sonic detriment of those digital conversions.

every time a signal is run thru a conversion something is lost. including the first time.

a room and set-up have to be very wanting for the trade-offs from multiple conversions to be worth it. and plenty of sources, rooms and systems are certainly wanting. but it's not the way to find ultimate performance.

there is a reason that the marketplace mostly rejects this approach. yet it might be the right answer in many situations where the room and set-up have challenges.

i have a home theater with the Trinnov (ultimate dsp processor) and 9.3.6 speakers and Dolby Atmos. it makes plenty of sense for many media and sources where the priorities are not corrupted by all the processing. they are enhanced by the processing. but my better 2 channel recordings are not relatively well served by it.

so it all depends on your recording and your expectations.

 

[HenryD]

A speaker that costs over $100K should be physically time-aligned, along with as good phase coherence as possible. But as a start, these are must-haves. We should not accept anything less. It CAN be done.

Please share any evidence of that. The only controlled examination of the subject I could find concluded that “In spite of the considerable engineering appeal of this concept, practical tests have yielded little evidence of listener sensitivity to this factor...” (JA after Toole). JA also continue and say that: "This is also my view. Of the 350 or so loudspeakers I have measured, there is no correlation between whether or not they are time-coherent and whether or not they are recommended by a Stereophile reviewer. "

You can dismiss that, but I doubt you will be able to prove it actually matters.
Subjectively, I never found a so called time-aligned speaker to be superior in any particular way.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Please share any evidence of that. The only controlled examination of the subject I could find concluded that “In spite of the considerable engineering appeal of this concept, practical tests have yielded little evidence of listener sensitivity to this factor...” (JA after Toole). JA also continue and say that: "This is also my view. Of the 350 or so loudspeakers I have measured, there is no correlation between whether or not they are time-coherent and whether or not they are recommended by a Stereophile reviewer. "

You can dismiss that, but I doubt you will be able to prove it actually matters.
Subjectively, I never found a so called time-aligned speaker to be superior in any particular way.

likely requires a speaker designer in his voicing and crossover designing process to answer this question. trying multiple approaches. and even then it's anecdotical. a data point.

OTOH i know my Evolution Acoustic MM7 twin tower speakers are physically time aligned (assuming that the 2 towers are set up that way in room, mine are), and the passive towers use a first order crossover.

my speaker designer, Kevin Malmgren, told me that there is a benefit in physical time alignment in terms of ultimate wave launch impact, so given the right room and sufficient width, it is an advantage. yet installations where the bass towers are not aligned work great too, just not that extra little bit.

my bass performance is particularly coherent....especially considering all the drivers and tall twin towers. how much of that is this issue? don't know.

 

[HenryD]

likely requires a speaker designer in his voicing and crossover designing process to answer this question. trying multiple approaches. and even then it's anecdotical. a data point.

OTOH i know my Evolution Acoustic MM7 twin tower speakers are physically time aligned (assuming that the 2 towers are set up that way in room, mine are), and the passive towers use a first order crossover.

my speaker designer, Kevin Malmgren, told me that there is a benefit in physical time alignment in terms of ultimate wave launch impact, so given the right room and sufficient width, it is an advantage. yet installations where the bass towers are not aligned work great too, just not that extra little bit.

my bass performance is particularly coherent....especially considering all the drivers and tall twin towers. how much of that is this issue? don't know.

Can you share the impulse measurement of your speakers? I would love to see that. The only time coherence impulse I ever seen of a big speaker is the Dunlavy.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Can you share the impulse measurement of your speakers? I would love to see that. The only time coherence impulse I ever seen of a big speaker is the Dunlavy.

i'm not any sort of techie and have never seen any data like that on my speakers. sorry.

 

[morricab]

I agree with Ron:


Digital time alignment is a bad idea for a high-end system. Think about it: you are converting the analog signal to digital, then back to analog - two extra conversions! All the benefit from a nice DAC is lost. All the benefit from vinyl is lost.

For a lower end system, sure: DSP gives you benefits that allows a low cost speaker sound better. But at the high end? No way.

A speaker that costs over $100K should be physically time-aligned, along with as good phase coherence as possible. The rest is how it sounds and cannot be measured. But as a start, these are must-haves. We should not accept anything less. It CAN be done.
Consider that in the 1930s, horn designers time-aligned to 1 msec, which is the time it takes for sound to travel about 1 foot. That's a lot. I'm looking at the Magico M9 now and I can tell it's not time aligned to 1 msec.

If your top high end system is all digital I think you can digitally time align as long as you A) have jitter reduction before the DAC. B) use top notch DAC for the conversion or if you use a digital crossover you need multiple top notch DACs.