More on the Q5s

[FrantzM]

Interesting that some are inferring from the review that the Magicos don't have "visceral impact", yet the reviewer freely admits that he sets up other speakers to have prominent bass boost. So, it seems that we are left to interpret what the Q5 really sounds like by "guessing" what it would do with bass-reinforcing room positioning.

Apples to apples, PLEASE audio reviewers.

Lee

I agree .. For all practical purposes this is an extremely positive review ... Bass impact notwithstanding ... could be a non-issue if one uses one or better more subwoofers .. Sensitivity is on the low side however, which mandates powerful amps .. Would like to know if there is any sign of power compression in this speaker (not that the review implied such). Guess we have to wait for Soundstage's measurements ...

An interesting aside the reviewer spoke of Cymbals splashes being almost painful .. well I find them that way in real life .. they literally seem to jump at your face, not painful but there is an amount of tactile impression with these ... I first notice this phenomenon with the the Magnepan 20 ribbon tweeters an effect one seems to lose with most other tweeters .. interesting

 

[Gregadd]

JV of tas has now paired the Q5 with the technical brain amps. He is fastly becoming the Hugh Hefner of audio review. His other amp is a ARC 610 and Solution 700.

 

[mauidan]

The babes just want to touch his Acoustic ART Vibratron.

"The thing is it seems to render enough of an improvement in stereo separation, image focus, stage depth and width, image depth and width, and overall richness of timbre to make the slight visual annoyance worth putting up with." - JV

 

[Bruce B]

"The thing is it seems to render enough of an improvement in stereo separation, image focus, stage depth and width, image depth and width, and overall richness of timbre to make the slight visual annoyance worth putting up with." - JV

No wonder audiophiles listen with their eyes closed!

 

[FrantzM]

The babes just want to touch his Acoustic ART Vibratron.

"The thing is it seems to render enough of an improvement in stereo separation, image focus, stage depth and width, image depth and width, and overall richness of timbre to make the slight visual annoyance worth putting up with." - JV

This is really but really stretching people gullibility .. yet .. they sell and this reviewer continues to write ...reviews ...

 

[microstrip]

Coincident Pure Reference Extreme TAS review

It seems the Magico Q5 has an opponent at less than half the price.

Read the conclusion from the fresh TAS209 Coincident Pure Reference Extreme review:

"Think about it. A faster speaker, with better imaging, and close
to zero colorations that sounds as realistic as a Magico and can
be driven with 8 watts per channel. That is exactly what we have
here. Israel Blume’s Coincident Pure Reference Extreme is an
extraordinary achievement "

 

[Orb]

So what are peoples thoughts about the bass characteristic being influenced by the design of the speaker/driver; specifically comparing sealed-ported-ATL-isobaric (and other forms such as used in Dyn's Compound Bass System in the Consequence Ultimate).

From my own experiences there are characteristic/trait differences and IMO this may be one of the aspects MF was picking up on with the Q5 being sealed (high quality-texture of bass but does not present such deep or "energetic" bass), on top of this but to a lesser extent in this discussion is size IMO and not everyone wants the largest speakers in their house.
As an example the Dyn Consequence uses a comparable Isobaric arrangement of two 300mm drivers to reach 17hz and that is a large box.

But relating to the review and bass in general, do others feel there is a noticable difference in bass sound when comparing different designs as mentioned in the 1st sentence.

What I find of interest is comparing the Wilson Audio to the Magico in MF room importantly at listening position - Figure 4: http://www.stereophile.com/content/magico-q5-loudspeaker-measurements
Here we see that 20hz to 40hz they are near identical at the seating position, now what makes this interesting is that MF may had picked up on the differences between 200hz to 400hz and this can be seen in figure 4, maybe suggesting that while the bass was near comparable at 20-40hz maybe the port vs sealed design affected bass trait and MF preferred the ported sound.
Here is the quote about the 200-400hz that may (stress may as this is not proven) validate that it is the bass-speaker design of ported vs sealed charactersitics MF was picking up on for the lowest bass;

As Michael noted, the Q5's tweeter was "not shy or polite" and the presence region was slightly forward.
While the Magico speakers don't excite the low-frequency modes in Michael's room quite as much as the Wilsons do, they do have a slight lack of energy between 200 and 400Hz, which is where the Wilsons have an excess.
Could this explain why the Q5s didn't cause Michael's stomach to churn as much as he was used to with cello recordings?

Thanks
Or

 

[Jeff Fritz]

So what are peoples thoughts about the bass characteristic being influenced by the design of the speaker/driver

I think you've hit upon an important point, but I'm not completely sure for the correct reason. While there are certainly differences in sealed versus ported designs, like roll-off characteristics in the bass, the voicing of the speaker still ultimately determines what most listeners will think. Going back to some of the more popular "target curves," we commonly see a smoothly rising response from about 200Hz down to 20Hz, maybe in the neighborhood of 6dB. This is heard as "neutral" by most.

Flat response in the bass will seem lightweight, likely the culprit here. However, wildly fluctuating bass with major peaks and valleys, is not good either. The term "smoothly rising" being critical to the best sound.

 

[Orb]

Yeah I agree Jeff, but what I find interesting is looking at figure 4, the bass FR seems to be near identical at 20-40hz, where I thought MF states in the bottom octave he felt greater bass/slam from the Wilsons.
However this does not necessarily reflect the FR 20-40hz at the listening position (appreciate there is more of a bump at 50hz in the Wilsons but would this affect the bottom octave perception as also having more bass-energy-slam).

Just doing side by side comparisons between isobaric/ported/sealed/ATL I have noticed the bass is different in characteristic, but I appreciate this could be argued to be FR differences more than anything else and is anecdotal (closest in terms of validation is MF bottom octave comment and the figure 4 measurements I guess).

Would be interesting if someone like you/JA/etc did a subjective comparison between a few different designs that have very close measurements for the bottom 1 or 2 octaves at listening position and what you felt you perceived, if any difference.
For me this would be an interesting article, and hopefully to others.
Thanks
Orb

 

[RBFC]

Orb brought up a few thoughts:

1. Even though the measured frequency response of the two speakers is ~identical from 20-40 Hz, the response at the listening position may well be different due to the radiation patterns of the two speakers and room interactions. Therefore, the experience may be quite different when listening.

2. When using terms like slam, is it possible that the effect described is not a product of the 20-40 Hz response, but rather the differences higher up in FR?

Lee

 

[Jeff Fritz]

Orb brought up a few thoughts:

When using terms like slam, is it possible that the effect described is not a product of the 20-40 Hz response, but rather the differences higher up in FR?

I think this is a key. First, the extra energy at 50Hz might be more responsible for the additional slam. Second, the Magico is elevated basically from 400Hz on up, meaning that it is more "weighted" to the higher frequencies. This certainly seems to be the case if you read the listening impressions where the Magico had great resolution and presence in the highs and mids.

Most people prefer a left-to-right downward sloping, but smooth, in-room response. Rasing the bass on the Magico by 3dB, which certainly appears more linear, would accomplish this nicely. As is, it's not surprising to me that it would sound bass-light given the curve.

 

[Jeff Fritz]

Yeah I agree Jeff, but what I find interesting is looking at figure 4, the bass FR seems to be near identical at 20-40hz, where I thought MF states in the bottom octave he felt greater bass/slam from the Wilsons.

Yeah, I think what's going on well above that is what's giving the impression. Again, from 400Hz up, that's where the Magico is quite elevated by comparison.

 

[Bruce B]

2. When using terms like slam, is it possible that the effect described is not a product of the 20-40 Hz response, but rather the differences higher up in FR?
Lee

Definitely...you don't get bass "slam" from 20-40. The bass slam I'm thinking about doesn't happen 'til another octive up ~80 or so.

 

[RBFC]

This is just another example of having to interpret the language and circumstances of a review to arrive at some semblance of an objective outcome.

Lee

 

[Orb]

Indeed,
thanks guys for clarifying.
So interestingly maybe some of the criticism of the Q5 should be a bit more balanced and also take into consideration that the "bass lightness" is more linked to its more smooth-neutral FR around 50hz and above when considering listening position for the MF review.

I guess no-one else feels sealed vs ported vs isobaric vs ATL sound subtly different in terms of bass?
Thanks
Orb

 

[Jeff Fritz]

the "bass lightness" is more linked to its more smooth-neutral FR around 50hz and above when considering listening position for the MF review.

I thought I would open this discussion back up. At CES I went to hear the Q3 in Magico's suite, partially to hear how their bass alignment sounded. Frankly, I was quite shocked. The Q3 had extremely deep, solid, linear, articulate bass -- with excellent slam. I was so impressed, overall, that I arranged to get the first pair in for review.

How does the Q3 compare to the Q5? I don't know. You'd certainly expect the Q5 to better in every regard. But who's to say.

 

[rblnr]

I was very impressed w/the Q3 as well, agreed about the bass. I thought it was one of the top two or three rooms in the show.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I was so impressed, overall, that I arranged to get the first pair in for review.
How does the Q3 compare to the Q5? I don't know. You'd certainly expect the Q5 to better in every regard. But who's to say.

Excellent news. I hope you can get a measurement of the speaker efficiency - I was very disappointed when I read in the Fremer review that the Q5 true efficiency was 84 dB/W, excluding the possibility of using average power amplifiers.

 

[Jeff Fritz]

Excellent news. I hope you can get a measurement of the speaker efficiency - I was very disappointed when I read in the Fremer review that the Q5 true efficiency was 84 dB/W, excluding the possibility of using average power amplifiers.

Our plan is for full NRC measurements.

 

[Gregadd]

Again my experience with Q5 revealed exemplary bass response. It does require a hefty well designed amplifier.