Did any one of our members perform a direct comparison between the Mini II and the Q1?
I would like to hear about it!
I would like to hear about it!
Magico Mini II versus Q1
- Thread starter microstrip
- Start date
Yes, I did a direct comparison. Both are excellent speakers, but you would be shocked how much the Q1 further improve on the Mini 2 (I wouldn't have thought it is possible). Even more transparency (must come from the more inert cabinet), more bass extension. Also, more refined tweeter, integrating better with the medium, less in your face. I have sold my pair of evolution Acoustics MM3 and am now using a pair of Q1. Replacing a 600lbs speaker by a small 2 ways... it can sound as a strange move, but I haven't regretted it for a minute. I have heard many many 2 ways, nothing at the level of the Q1.
Can I ask you some more details about your system, including cables and source? Are you keeping the NH 108b?
One a reasons I started the thread is that a some people I know are considering similar moves. But all of them warned me that the Q1 needs a high quality synergistically matched amplifier - not only power, but mostly quality!
You seem quite skeptical ;-)
To answer your question, IMO any speaker within the Magico Q range paired with the right source sounds better than the MM3. This doesn't mean that the MM3 are bad speaker or that I was unhappy with them (sound wise, manufacturing quality is a different topic): I kept them for 4 years, driven by a great amp (Dartzeel) in a fully treated room. The point is that what I lose in bass extension on the Q1 vs. the MM3, I gain it on precision of imaging, transparency, speed, coherency between drivers, lack of parasite enclosure resonance. Now that my ears have been recalibrated, there is no way back, I just realize what I have been missing for all these years. 4 years ago, I really hesitated buying the mini, and I was stupid enough to think that by buying the MM3 I get "more speaker for the money". Of course it was nice to be able to show off with my monster speaker but I have finally learned that big and heavy doesn't necessarily mean better (the Q7 being an exception!). I am listening mainly to jazz and baroque music so the lack of bass extension of a 12" or 15" is not really an issue.
Now on your question regarding the choice of Q1 vs. Q3 or Q5: all of them are great, and as always in life, what you gain on one side, you lose it on the other side.... Of course the Q3 or Q5 have more weight in the bass and are fantastic speakers, but nothing beats the imaging precision and coherency of a great 2 ways: even the Q7 (which is a much better speaker than the Q1 on all other parameters) cannot achieve the same. This is just physics....
Besides, I am moving in a new home with a new dedicated listening room, and the Q1 will become my second system in living room as it will be completed with a Magico "(very) big brother" for the dedicated room...
I hope it explains better what can sound as a strange choice.
PS: not being a native English speaker, you will have to explain to me what you mean by "your mileage did vary"....
Last edited:
Right now I am using the Q1 with a Devialet amp fed directly from my network: cannot be simpler in term of system. I still have the Dartzeel (which was directly fed by a APL NWO-M source when used with the MM3) and a few other amps (Gryphon, APL...) and DAC ( Berkeley)... I didn't have time yet to play with different configurations to hear what sounds best.
The Devialet works very well with the Q1. I heard it when used in mono configuration, even better!
A lot of people think that Magico speakers are difficult to drive. It is to a certain extent true on the Q5, which requires a lot of good power. But the Q1, Q3, S5 and Q7 are not particularly difficult loads. What has made such a "difficult to match" reputation to Magico is their exceptional transparency. To give you an easy comparison, whatever amp you use with a Sonus Faber, it will still pretty much sound like a Sonus Faber, because the speaker act as a veil which will smooth differences between amps. On a pair of Magico, and in particular for the Q serie, the speaker will disappear, and let you see the strengths or weaknesses of different amps. In my humble experience hearing plenty of different amps with different Magico speakers (please keep in mind that each of us have different ears...):
- Spectral 260 or 360: extremely transparent, good highs, very fast but lacks a bit of bass and sounds a bit monochromatic/fatiguing. Too cold for me to feel involved
- Constellation Centaur: very nice. A slightly bit less transparent than Spectral, but much better bass, warmer
- Hegel: heard it on Q3 and S5: very nice sound for the money, but not as good as Constellation (not same price!)
- Vitus signature serie: very musical, warm. Typical Class A sound like my old Gryphon Antileon, but with much more speed. Probably my top choice with the Constellation Centaur and the Dartzeel 458.
- Dartzeel: excellent: fast, musical. The big one on the Q7 is pure heaven. The NHB-108 is excellent with the Q1 if your room is not too big. I still have to make a close comparison with the Devialet over the next few months
- Soulution: also nice, extremely transparent and fast - better than Spectral. A bit on the cold side to my taste... need to listen more to it, in particular when they are going to launch the new models beginning of the year.
- VAC reference 450: listen to it on Q7: nice mid, but sluggish bass, lack of extension.... no go
- big Pass with S5: heard the S5 with Hegel in same room, was much much better... Pass was slow, sluggish, bloated bass. Surprised me a lot.
- Ayre monoblocks: also very nice on Q3, but I prefer the Devialet.
hope it helps.
On sources, I am really moving towards music servers..... so I am not sure I am as updated on latest CD players and DAC.
Stereo, I can assure you that my SF GH's do NOT act as a veil. You need to be careful with a wide ranging statement like that. Akin, to me saying that all Magico's sound hard and brittle due to their use of a hard ringing tweeter.
We both know that some of them do, BUT not all
BTW, I do agree with your statement about big doesn't always mean better and the precision of imaging, transparency and speed with regards to most larger speakers. ( Including the MM3's).
Stereo
A wordplay from YMMV, the "May" in the acronym suggesting a probability of occurrence not a certainty .. whereas "did" suggest an actual occurrence in the past. it seemed to have fallen flat.
I do find extremely unusual the move from the music presentations of a large full range speaker to that of a 2-way, most any 2-way speakers. I am somewhat curious enough to ask you if in your evaluation the MM3 did image better than the, then available, Mini II or did the MM3 image better than most other 2-ways you have auditioned. Imaging seems to be something very high on your priority list to the extent of choosing the Q1 over the Q3, a speaker I have heard and whose imaging characteristics (and sonic character) I find extraordinary.
As for physics a small speaker doesn't necessarily image better than a larger one
A wordplay from YMMV, the "May" in the acronym suggesting a probability of occurrence not a certainty .. whereas "did" suggest an actual occurrence in the past. it seemed to have fallen flat.
I do find extremely unusual the move from the music presentations of a large full range speaker to that of a 2-way, most any 2-way speakers. I am somewhat curious enough to ask you if in your evaluation the MM3 did image better than the, then available, Mini II or did the MM3 image better than most other 2-ways you have auditioned. Imaging seems to be something very high on your priority list to the extent of choosing the Q1 over the Q3, a speaker I have heard and whose imaging characteristics (and sonic character) I find extraordinary.
As for physics a small speaker doesn't necessarily image better than a larger one
We all heard or own SF at one point or another so please... You are just a bit behind the curve, that is all (I would say 8 years or so
). Time move on DaveyF...We all heard or own SF at one point or another so please... You are just a bit behind the curve, that is all (I would say 8 years or so
Move on...to what, an inferior system? Have you heard a properly set up pair of GH's? Philip, I know for sure you haven't heard my system. Next time you're in San Diego, you are invited for a listen....
Hi Frantz,
thanks for taking the time to explain the wordplay, it was beyond my English capabilities ;-)
Before answering your question, let me clarify again that the Q1 is my second system, and I will have a "big" Magico in the main system when the building of my new dedicated room is done in a few months (box-in-box design, all walls and ceiling extensively treated with diffusers and helmholtz resonators from SMT, power supplied from an equitech 10kW panel...). After having listened to most of the very big speakers on the market, I have decided that speaker for the big room will be for sure a Magico, model is not fully decided yet, but probably a Q7. In my new flat, the Q1 will be in a smaller room than used today. I agree that the Q3 is an extraordinary speaker, but in my case, Q1 will probably work better than a Q3 which may overpower the room... and it has a higher WAF, which is fundamental when I already had to negotiate the building of a new dedicated room with my wife! If I would have bought a single system, in a large enough room, I would have chosen one of the floorstanding Q over the Q1.
Now to answer your question on imaging of Mini II vs. MM3: I cannot honestly express a fair judgment, as I listened to them in different rooms 4 years back. But on the comparison of Q1 and MM3:
- the Q1 has a broad image, as broad as the MM3.
- the image is more precise on location of the different musicians (when I mentioned physics of small 2 ways, it was specifically on precision of image, not width or depth)
- the Q1 disappears better as a source, image is more "free hanging"
- on image, the Q1 may not have the same "halo effect" than a big speaker like the MM3 when there is a lot of micro information at low frequency.
But more important than difference in imaging, the reason why I prefer the Q1 over the MM3 is the coherency across the full range and the much higher speed & transparency.
DaveyF,
sorry if my comparison with Sonus Faber was perceived as a bashing exercise. It was not my intention- I just wanted to explain why Magico speakers are much more sensitive to amplifier quality. Question is not about which speaker is superior or not, it really depends on personal taste:
- all of the Magico Q speakers are "brutally honest". They are cost no object projects, the lowest distortion, most transparent, fastest electrodynamic speakers on the market. A Q series buyer is not looking for a "pleasing sound", but for a completely neutral speaker which extracts the maximum information available from the source material (as a side note, the S5 is also very transparent but slightly less than Q3 or Q5 and voiced to be more tolerant to poor sources). On my familiar recordings, I am hearing things on Magico speakers that I never heard before on any other speaker brand.
- to my ears, SF speakers are voiced to give a pleasing, "musical" and non fatiguing sound. Of course I have not heard all SF, but a broad range: Guarnieri, Amati Futura, Aida, the Sonus Faber. All of them are voiced similarly: their sound is rounder, there is less top octave energy and less high extension, the sound is more mellow, the bass is a bit slow and inflated (like a lot of ported designs). Also, the cabinet generates more background noise, there is more distortion from drivers and that's why it is more difficult to hear difference in amp used (provided watt and current available are sufficient)
If you give me a poor quality CD, I would enjoy it much more on a SF speaker- in particular in case of a CD with over-cooked high frequency. But with a good recording, I would take the Magico for sure: it reveals so much more information!
Personally I prefer to listen to poor CDs while driving my cars or on my small Usher BE718 system, and have my audiophile systems being as transparent as possible- but I can understand other people may have different priorities and chose a less precise but more "pleasing" speaker.
On your second remark on some Magico highs being hard and brittle, I agree with you that on the Mini, the Scan- Speak revelator tweeter was a bit too much "in your face". I didn't experience something similar on the latest Magicos (when not powered by a bright amp like Spectral), seems that they have made a lot of progress here.
Stereo, I agree with some of what you say in relation to the Magico's. However, I really do not think that the silk dome in the GH's is any way rounder or less able to extend into the highs or throw off less top octave energy. I have a feeling you may be referring to the GM's...in which case I would agree with you. I also don't agree with your 'voicing' comment...there is no way that the GH is voiced like the Amati Futura or the Amati Futura to the Aida etc. The GH's don't really do bass, BUT neither do the Q1's, IMO. Personally, I much prefer a silk dome to any of the current crop of metal domes, including the Beryllium dome that the Q's use. But as you point out, that's a personal choice.
Some refer to the Lindemann BL10 as the poor man's Q1, and I really liked the Linds last year at RMAF!
http://www.lindemann-audio.de/en/products/birdland-series-loudspeakers/bl-10/
http://www.lindemann-audio.de/en/products/birdland-series-loudspeakers/bl-10/
I listened to them yesterday, just taken from the boxes, positioning not optimized, and with some also brand new components, as the dealer was only carrying burn-in of part of the system with an inappropriate cheap source. They had a fantastic presence, but I could not stand them more than five minutes. I hope to re-listen to them next month, with a proper system, after full burn-in. One thing was sure, they do not seem to be forgiving speakers ...
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |