Of course it does not. All I am saying is that "avoiding/minimizing complexity" is not a design constraint. You may still end up with a less complex best sounding architecture.
Magico Ultimate 3
- Thread starter stereo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- magico ultimate
Of course it does not. All I am saying is that "avoiding/minimizing complexity" is not a design constraint. You may still end up with a less complex best sounding architecture.
Sorry, what am I missing here? EVERY other ambitious horn I've heard, or have read about, is quite happy with a passive configuration/often with an active sub. On the day of my multimillion lottery win, I'd love to buy these beauties/beasties, but as a die-hard analog man, it seems that the digital xover really precludes a simple analogue signal path/chain.
What is SO different about these that a passive xover couldn't suffice? I mean, the Vox Olympian, Cessaro Liszt, Avantgarde Trio, OMA Imperia all have 3-4 horns drivers per spkr with powered subs, why does this horn have to be SO complicated?
What is SO different about these that a passive xover couldn't suffice? I mean, the Vox Olympian, Cessaro Liszt, Avantgarde Trio, OMA Imperia all have 3-4 horns drivers per spkr with powered subs, why does this horn have to be SO complicated?
I believe you didn't read my answer to exactly the same question... or maybe I was not clear enough. Not sure how to explain you better, I tried to simplify as much as possible.
With all respect, your comparison with all these other horn systems misses the point. The Ultimate sound VERY different from any other horns: it is like comparing a Formula 1 and a Porsche 911. Just analyze the BoM and you will get my point. Also, I have lived in Japan for a few years, heard quite a few very big horn systems. Never liked any of them.
Btw, nothing prevents you to order them with a passive XO- it would just be too bad. And it wouldn't really fit with Magico philosophy which his not about designing a "sufficient solution" but striving for the "best solution".
Nothing obliges you also to go with a 5 ways active system. It may sound better with a simple 2 or 3 way active set up, with one DAC. Depends of implementation of the concept, as I already mentioned.
Stereo, I don't doubt the aim for an advanced sound. And I imagine the 3s sound phenomenal. If you were a vinyl afficionado such as myself, with 10000 lps, would this spkr in effect NOT be the one to choose because of the need to go digital at a critical part of the chain. It would go against the grain with me to "digitise" the sound. Or is a digital XO more subtle than this?
So, you don't like horns - the 3s doesn't sound like any other horn. Is it indeed closer to Magico's flagship Q7, or is it totally in a class of it's own? Hard to talk about comparisons I guess when an item is in a class of it's own.
Btw, what is "BoM"? Thanks for your patience, just trying to get a handle - now where's that lottery ticket?!
So, you don't like horns - the 3s doesn't sound like any other horn. Is it indeed closer to Magico's flagship Q7, or is it totally in a class of it's own? Hard to talk about comparisons I guess when an item is in a class of it's own.
Btw, what is "BoM"? Thanks for your patience, just trying to get a handle - now where's that lottery ticket?!
Sorry, I cannot help with the lottery ticket ;-)
BoM stands for "Bill of Material". It means the cost of all components composing a product (without cost for manufacturing, product development, sales, marketing, etc).
I am ready to bet that a turntable feeding the system through a top of the class ADC like the Pacific Microsonics Model 2, with 192kHz sampling cannot be distinguished from direct feed. Actually, I would even bet that you will gain sonically by recording the turntable feed onto the HD of the server, with the speakers disconnected, and then play the digital copy of your LP from the server. Air movement while playing music induces vibrations which are detrimental to the reading of the stylus... we keep focusing on anti-vibration platforms, but in particular in case of turntables, airborne vibrations are also a significant problem.
Of course, that's will be possible only with a top notch digital XO, with full synchronization between channels. This is very difficult to achieve with most of the commercially available solutions, which have been more designed with cost optimization in mind. That's why we are integrating the XO in the Conbrio itself, it gives us total control on quality of implementation.
Keep in mind that there are also problems with any analog XO. Any caps, resistance or coil in the signal path will degrade the sound. That's why serious companies like Magico invest in very pricey Mundorf XO components such as the M-Caps Supreme Gold, to try to preserve the source as much as possible (don't want to start a bashing exercise, but talking about BoM, I can give you names of very famous loudspeakers companies who invest less in the full speaker BoM than what Magico would pay for their XO... but that's lead us to a completely different topic, which is how much the view of 90% of audiophiles is completely distorted on what is "good design" and "good value for money"... just read this forum). You may find a pure analog path as more "pure": again, it may be the case or not, it just depends on quality of implementation.
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Stereo;
i'm very excited for you with these Ultimates.
however; i can tell you i've 'been there, done that' with needle drops from my Rockport with the Pacific Microsonics Model 2 and it is far from 'indistinguishable' from the direct feed from a turntable. not even close.
5 years ago i had 3 Pro Audio guys (including Bruce) in my room with 2 hirez units one of which was the PM2 recording off my Rockport. you can go buy the CD right now that is the result of that session. during the session when we played back the hirez tracks and compared them to playing the Rockport 'live' it was not very close to my ears. i've had other situations where dsd or double dsd was used and that gets much closer.
and if you are worried about feedback to the turntable you can use the active isolation completely to solve that issue. my experience is that digital dacs are similarly effected by air borne reasonance as turntables. it's the floor borne resonace where turntables (and silver disc transports) are dramatically effected more and where the active isolation solves that problem.
i'm not commenting on the whole 'active crossover' issue at all. i have my biases but i'm sure with the assets you are committing to that you will end up with an outstanding result.
Last edited:
``Keep in mind that there are also problems with any analog XO. Any caps, resistance or coil in the signal path will degrade the sound. That's why serious companies like Magico invest in very pricey Mundorf XO components such as the M-Caps Supreme Gold, to try to preserve the source as much as possible (don't want to start a bashing exercise, but talking about BoM,```
i am a complete nobody and i also use top of the line mundorf components among others or duelund even more expensive so nothing special .
a couple of coils and caps in the signalpath,hmmm i try to imagine how much stuff there will be with 5 dacs amps active xovers in the signalpath
if you re into expensive x overs this the summit;http://www.duelundaudio.com/News.asp
PICT4246 by andromeda61, on Flickr
PICT4246 by andromeda61, on Flickr
i am a complete nobody and i also use top of the line mundorf components among others or duelund even more expensive so nothing special .
a couple of coils and caps in the signalpath,hmmm i try to imagine how much stuff there will be with 5 dacs amps active xovers in the signalpath
if you re into expensive x overs this the summit;http://www.duelundaudio.com/News.asp
PICT4246 by andromeda61, on Flickr
PICT4246 by andromeda61, on Flickr
Last edited:
thanks for your comments Mike. The thing we need to keep in mind is you were comparing a direct feed and a digitized version of the analog signal using the same downstream system. So it makes sense that avoiding two AD and DA conversions (the second one being through an unknown DAC, so not sure how good it was) would improve the sound.
In my case, it is a bit different: the choice is between a full analog system or a full digital system. I believe that a well implemented digital crossover is superior than a 4 ways analog one, thanks to the flexibility it gives to optimize phase and timing alignment, as well as XO slopes . I may lose a bit on the digital conversion of the turntable signal, question is how much I gain downstream. Only implementation will show! And right now, I don't have the time for a serious analog setup
Last edited:
So what else do you recommend as a better ADC today?
Btw, the PM2 was just taken as an example. Nothing prevents you to take a Burl 2192, a B2 or a Lavry Gold if you prefer...
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
The best ADC's I've heard, in no particular order:
Grimm AD1
Horus
MSB Studio
Stage Tec
The Emperor Wears No Clothes. "Time Alignment" of the drivers
The Emperor Wears No Clothes.
OK - I am sure that your system will be one of the top 100 in the world / I am sure that you will greatly enjoy it, BUT >>>
No one has mentioned the >>> "Time Alignment" of the drivers [post 55 & 57 for photos]
Am I missing something??? or Will the time alignment be adjusted in the active crossover???
Super knowledgeable people - fill me in /// but not concrete shoes.
zz
The Emperor Wears No Clothes.
OK - I am sure that your system will be one of the top 100 in the world / I am sure that you will greatly enjoy it, BUT >>>
No one has mentioned the >>> "Time Alignment" of the drivers [post 55 & 57 for photos]
Am I missing something??? or Will the time alignment be adjusted in the active crossover???
Super knowledgeable people - fill me in /// but not concrete shoes.
zz
Yes. As I mentioned, this is one of the reasons why I am doing a 5 ways digital crossover
Stereo, please let me demonstrate my total lack of information re your system. You're going to run a server in effect as source direct into a digital xover. From this into a combination of five dacs, and up to 8 monoblocks, with onboard sub amps already provided, and finally an active xover, then loudspeakers. Can you describe the chain in sequence from the server first, spkrs last. Ie is it going to be: server/digital xover - 5 separate feeds into 5 dacs - 5 separate feeds into a preamp - 5 separate feeds into the active xover - 5 separate feeds into 4 channels/8 monoblocks + onboard active sub - final feeds to 4 horns? Is the Ultimate xover built into the spkrs, or a separate 'black box'? Btw, on the publicity photos for the 3s, there appear to be 3 circles on the rear vertical structure that houses the cabling terminals - it almost looks like a side-firing 3 way spkr, or are they ports?
I get the five separate amps for each horn/cone/driver. Why the 5 DACs though? Is it better to split the signal from one DAC into 5 separate frequency ranges, or to split the digital into 5 separate lines and then convert from D to A after?
here the first version iirc,still miss the 12 inch woofer stereo mentioned in the first post http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/magico/magico.html
remarkable;woofer 88 db while the rest is 110 db definetively a lot of alignment needed
http://www.thesoundchamber.com.hk/en/products/magico/images/the_ultimate2.pdf
Last edited:
the woofer is a 15", custom Magico design. Not 12". In previous versions of Ultimate it was an Aura I believe.
there are two options.
1) My configuration:
Digital source -> Digital crossover with 5 digital outputs for each frequency range -> 5 DACs -> 10 channels pre -> 5 amplifiers (one of them being the sub amp) -> 5 drivers
The digital crossover is built in the box of the Conbrio digital source.
I bought the speakers without any XO
2) Standard Magico configuration:
analog source (from turntable, from DAC...) -> stereo preamplifier -> digital crossover supplied by Magico (inputs analog, outputs analog) -> 3 analog outputs for tweeter, sub and the 3 other drivers -> 3 amps -(one of them being the internal sub amp) -> direct feed of the tweeter and sub, the 3 other drivers go through a 3-way analog filter.
I think that both options will sound great.
Thanks Stereo. You just answered my question (Post #124). If you end up trying both ways...would be interested in knowing which you prefer. I suspect implementation will matter more than the theory. Good luck and look forward to reading more.
Yes, I will try both ways. In theory, my option should be better, but implementation will be more tricky. And as you said, implementation is more important than theory!
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |