Magico Q1 (Mini II) plus sub or Magico Q3?

[PeterA]

I was not sure whether I should post this in the general speaker forum or the Magico forum. My interest is specifically in my own system, but I think this is an interesting choice in a broader sense. I have owned the Mini IIs for about five years now and love their sound in my system. However, when I visit my good friend MadFloyd and hear his M Pro (both systems with Pass electronics and turntables) I appreciate what a full range speaker has to offer, especially one that is as coherent and resolving as the M Pro and Magico speakers in general.

That has me curious about what the Q3 would sound like in my room versus my Mini II plus subs. I did once try to integrate a pair of JL Audio F110 subs in my system. After a lot of experimenting, it came down to the added extension of the subs versus the clarity of the Mini II. Adding the subs detracted from the overall coherence, clarity, and resolution of my Mini II. So based on my subjective preferences, and I decided to sell the subs. I think the integration issue was a result of my strange room which has an alcove to each side of a protruding fireplace. These create a kind of echo chamber which was subtle, but detracted from the midrange clarity of the Minis.

I have heard the very successful integration of a subwoofer with monitor speakers in my friend Al M.'s system, so the idea has me curious again. At a recent demonstration of the Magico S7, I asked the Magico rep if I should add subs to the Mini II, or Q1 or simply buy a larger Magico speaker like the Q3. Without hesitation, he suggested to buy the larger, fuller range Magico speaker. He said that Magico recommends using subs with their three way speakers but not with their smaller two ways. I think it was a concern with integration and coherence and not asking the sub to play up too much, but I can't be sure.

Here are some general observations:

1. Given a sufficiently large room, large full range speakers may sound best, especially with large scale music and may or may not scale down rivaling monitors for solo instruments. Regardless, a sub will augment a large full range system and should only be beneficial.

2. Given a small room, a monitor will sound best, and may or may not sound better with the addition of a good sub. My suspicion is that in most cases, it will sound better as evidenced by Al’s system. In the rare case of my system, the subs added something and detracted something, and it was a matter of priorities and preferences which dictated the final solution.

3. This is the big question for me at this point. If one has a medium sized room, loosely defined, and has a small floor standing speaker like the Q3, like the larger speaker, it should benefit from a good and well integrated sub. However, and this is the key question: In this same room, would the Q3 sound better alone or a Q1 (Mini II) with a good, well integrated sub?

So, I am interested in your thoughts in general about monitors plus subs versus a full range speaker, and more specifically, the Q3 versus the Q1 (Mini II) with subs.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Ok i ll bite , i ll just give my limited magico expirience answer .
Subs ....havent heard a good integration yet , whatever the price .
If you want " full range" ( in the magico line ) the S 5 is better , the Q 3 sounded very lean / limited , on devialet i think it was.,

please dont tell cannata

 

[FrantzM]

Ok i ll bite , i ll just give my limited magico experience answer .
Subs ....havent heard a good integration yet , whatever the price .
If you want " full range" ( in the magico line ) the S 5 is better , the Q 3 sounded very lean / limited , on devialet i think it was.

please dont tell cannata

The Q3 never sounded "lean" even less "limited" to those ears ...

Somewhere, somehow we need to start dropping those myths about subs. I believe they take us away from the superb results that a well conceived and assembled system can provide.
My $.02 on this and Peter I am trying not trying to hijack your thread if you think my contribution not constructive then by all means ignore it and let me know please

The Q3 is a spectacular/wonderful/magical transducer. What it does to my ear is present a clear windows. It is like many Magico speakers, a "just-the-facts-Ma'am" speaker. if you need some Ketchup on your steak please add it but it is not part of the steak. Clear, clean, accurate and truly transparent. It is linear as they get in speaker-land, with electronics-like level of distortion and a very high S/N ratio. I know such measurements don't apply to speakers but what one experiences with the Magico Q series is an absence of .. noise.. those darn speakers play without adding any "noise', a spooky feeling that needs to be experienced and is quite unusual in speaker-land. They play clean, loud and strong and can energize a room if positioned in such way to do so .... and there comes an issue that audiophiles have faced for years: In most rooms you will have great staging or great bass from a one-piece speaker but rarely optimal bass and optimal staging simultaneously. For that you need 4-pieces speakers, those with low bass towers or ... much better IMHO subs. Multi-subs can take care of many things. One of these is the propension of most listening rooms (a 50 x 30 x 15 is in Acoustics parlance remains a "small" room) to screw up big time with the bass response. You can avoid it at great cost and care .. bass traps and other acoustics treatments need to be yuuuuge , The-Donald-huge to be truly effective in the low frequencies.. Doable of course and even then you end up in irregular response outside of the sweet spot .. This is IMO more important than we commonly think. I have come to believe that good bass equate regular response in many positions in the room.. Venturing an explanation here, we hear bass with a slight delay .. our ear/brain takes a certain mount of time upwards of 50 ms to perceive low bass but you can dismiss that .. not germane to the discussion ... Then again it is ..
So coming back to multi subs. It is not easy to integrate subs with any speaker but yes it can be doen to the extent of invisibility notice I didn't use any adverb. the transition can be inaudible . The requirement, strangely, for that is that the main speaker be capable of great bass down low and at a level commensurable with that of the subs itself. The Q3 qualifies on all those aspects. And again here I will rattle a few feathers, you do not need audiophile-approved subwoofers. You need good subwoofers. The JL Audio E Series, two pairs of those, would be a good match...
Of course i will wait for the posts claiming that some subs are better than others and of course they would be right but 3 properly DSP'ed and configured <$1000 each subs can do a job one $15,000 subs may not be able to do in a given room.. The response with a single sub cannot be as good as that with multiple subs .. You can be as audiophile as you want and cross-over at 40 Hz .. the Q3 will oblige or you can leave it alone and drive the system in "augmentation", that is leaving the full range speaker untouched with no crossover and the subs crossed at 40 H or up if you want.. with the Q3 going as low as they can (and that wihtout distorting I must say because that is one thing they don't do ) and use subs to flatten the low bass .
THis is of course possible with the Q1 but my hunch is that power compression has to set in earlier in the Q1 than in the Q3 especially in the low bass. The subs will be doing their things that is playing low and clean while the smaller speaker may begin to power-compress (it sets in earlier than people realize and due to the nature of every human hearing , we need rather high SPL to perceive low bass as clearly as mid-frequencies .. for example if for a signal of 3 KHz at 80 is perceived as loud to have equal loudness sensation at 20 Hz would require close to 100 dB!!! So while the Q3 may take the 20 Hz with not much strain at 100 dB the Q1 has to be straining to keep up.. down low ..

Of course this will take work , lot of work. That is not a 15 mins later everything is done and you start loving it ... Not it will take a while likely weeks, even month of measuring and pushing and moving and measuring again. If you are not into "measurements' then don't go into multi- subs .. It is quite interesting that many will abandon after having heard subs for a few mins, they decide it is not for them, no optimization no, trying several times and for weeks .. Same people will accept with no problem that a wire needs to be broken-up for weeks before sounding good. Ironic isn't it?

I would go for the Q3 . I suggest you to run the Q3 with a quatuor of modestly-priced subs for a few months. If you do not succeed in integrating these with the Q3 you would be left with a superlative speaker with serious low bass capabilities...

 

[LL21]

For me, its a priority thing...there is no perfection in audio. i choose based on my priorities, and whenever i had bookshelves (Celestion SL6si's and Guarneris)...i always chose big subs. Eventually the Guarneri plus Velodyne. It was not seamless, it was not even...it was as close as i could get it...but when i played deep house, i got real PULSE, and that was what drove me to drive big subs. without them, there was no way to get deep rumble, and i enjoyed it. And i have continued to use subs with Strads and now the X1...but always lowering and lowering the crossover point, volume, etc. But i have never yet found in any of my systems where i did not prefer the sub in than out. In fact, when my sub broke twice over the last 15 years...it was tortuous to listen to certain kinds of music with out it.

But thats a personal priority.

 

[microstrip]

(...) So, I am interested in your thoughts in general about monitors plus subs versus a full range speaker, and more specifically, the Q3 versus the Q1 (Mini II) with subs.

Peter,

You are mostly a vinyl listener - this implies that you will not be able to use most of the resources that people use to adapt subs to their system, mainly DSP filters and equalizers. In such case I think that using a subwoofer of the same brand of the main speakers, developed be used with these speakers, would be much more promising than a general good quality sub. Also you should remember that your sound preferences will probably be different from those of people listening mainly to digital.

I have limited experience with subs - my best result was by far using the Wilson Watt/Puppy 7 with the Wilson Watchdog subwoofer. I remember also a great experience using the Martin Logan Descent subwoofer with their panels. My own experiences with multi sub distributed systems using a Behringer DSP crossover/equalizer was not successful at all subjectively, although the FR graphs were nice. But I must say I did not persist for many long months ...

 

[Sauerball]

Don't suppose there's an easy way to demo either or both in your room? The answer is: what works best for you in your room. As much as I'd like to say one or the other, not sure I can with much conviction. This is where dealing with a great dealer and an expert installer can make a big difference. I think

 

[ricjor1]

I've had subs a couple of times and no matter how great my system sounds with subs, I'm never completely satisfied. My room is L shaped, short wall width 20', 27' length, long wall is 24' wide. I had Aerial 7Ts with dual JL Audio F110s V2 and the JL Audio CR1 crossover. It was great, but I thought a full range speaker would be better. I finally sold my speakers and subs to purchase Monitor Audio PL500s. In my situation, the PL500s out performs the Aerial 7Ts with subs. I submit in most cases a good full range speaker will out perform a smaller speaker with subs.

 

[DaveyF]

Peter, I think you have asked some excellent questions. Frantz's comments jive with my thoughts on this matter.
I do think that the room that your system is in is the bigger determinant than what speaker works well with what sub. The VOLUME of the room is probably the biggest factor, IME. I think the Q3's are an excellent speaker and would bring some additional things to the table over your current Mini 2's...even if you added a sub to the Mini 2's. However, the question is whether the Q3's will play nice in your particular room...and that can only be determined through happenstance. In my room, which is a lot smaller than yours, but has decent volume, the SF GH"s are able to blend seamlessly with my little REL sub. BTW, i do think that part of that trick has to do with the way the REL connects to the amp output and not to the preamp output. Something that I believe sets the REL subs apart from most others.
Q3's vs. Q1's and subs....that's an interesting question. I suspect in any particular room, one could get better sound from either one, if the room synergy locked to that particular model.....therein lies the conundrum.

 

[bonzo75]

Peter,

You are mostly a vinyl listener - this implies that you will not be able to use most of the resources that people use to adapt subs to their system, mainly DSP filters and equalizers. .

Marty used vinyl via a modded Tact to room correct and crossover to subs with great success. Though now the TacT's gone and he is using the JL with the CR1 crossover, but that is more expensive. Subs sound good only if they can be crossed over well, otherwise they create problems

 

[Tand]

I have a room with the measure 15 x 18 x 9 and an opening to my kitchen about the same size. Before my M Pros I had Q3s, Q5s and back again to Q3s with Qsub15. The Q3s are really great but more lean than the Q5. But togheter with the excellent Qsub its a totaly different ball game. Even with my M Pros the Qsub ads dimension and size. Sadly I have not testet a smaller speaker with the Qsub but the integration with both Q3 and M Pro were/are excellent running full range and the Qsub LPF at 50 hz / Bessel 24db.

If you want an easy to integrate reference bass , I think the Qsub is the way to go!

Tommy

 

[Sauerball]

I have a room with the measure 15 x 18 x 9 and an opening to my kitchen about the same size. Before my M Pros I had Q3s, Q5s and back again to Q3s with Qsub15. The Q3s are really great but more lean than the Q5. But togheter with the excellent Qsub its a totaly different ball game. Even with my M Pros the Qsub ads dimension and size. Sadly I have not testet a smaller speaker with the Qsub but the integration with both Q3 and M Pro were/are excellent running full range and the Qsub LPF at 50 hz / Bessel 24db.

If you want an easy to integrate reference bass , I think the Qsub is the way to go!

Tommy

This is not helping my attempted resistance to the Q-Sub!

 

[sbo6]

Reading the specs, it looks like the Q1 goes to mid 30s easily which is quite impressive. However, since you are considering like drivers (e.g.: same brand) I would think the stand alone full range speakers would be better because:
a) The mid/woofer in the Q1 is working double duty and at moderate - high volume would not have the ease and clarity of a dedicated mid and woofers.
b) Crossover integration is seamless with the full range vs sub(s) being manipulated to integrate with the 2 way monitors.

1 caviat to above is that - it also depends where you'd cross the subs. If you crossed them at, say, 32Hz you'd likely gain low end extension up and above the full range Magicos and integration would be easier than at higher frequencies if that makes sense.

Either way, it sounds like you are in for an upgrade and I'd love to have any Magicos. Good luck in our new adventure!

 

[Mart100]

i'm a newbie here but have been following for ages - i can feel appreciate PeterA's dilemma. My own journey in speaker land started seriously with ML SL3's, the Kharma 3.2, to Wilson sophia 3s, and now Magico Q1. At all times I've been adding subs in the equation, and needed up with the passive Torus driven by Boulders 850 monos. I run full range on the Q1 using a Velodyne sms 1 (now discontinued i believe) to adjust many parameters - i can't count the hours I've spent tweaking!

Every speaker I've had has issues in the bass the Q1 less so - i expect this is of course room driven and my use of iPad based software to look at room responses confirm the dips and peaks circa 50Hz and of course 80 (ish) that impact significantly on perceived balance.

I recently ordered the DSpeaker Antimode - but find out i can't really run this without going though a A-D-A conversion that i can't philosophically accept given the front end dCS, i could but it in the digital domain but that would negate NAS connectivity.

My prime interest now is the Pass crossover - id like to cross the Q1's maybe 45Hz and prevent any damage - I've been told that i play load and the Q1 does have limitations.

Looking forward to the continued debate here.

 

[FrantzM]

Mart100

Welcome to WBF!
@everyone , PeterA in particular.

It is important to know what one is looking for. Good sound that mimic life or clinging to preconceived ideas. D to A in the low bass bass is as benign as technologically possible and humanly perceivable. DSP in the bass can help, does help and once the psychological and social barrier (there is one , audiophile s as many are subject to this) most who have used and persevere to see the results cannot come back.
The thing however good the Q1 the relatively small driver is working a lot in the bass. And in the bass that heats its voice coil, that is not an opinion it is a fact, inthe Q3 you have a midrange driver about the size of the Q1 lone woofer/midrange and three more drivers to handles the bass... more ways for the heat to dissipate for power compression to set-up. One can always get a ha! moment and ask why isn't it the case for speakers such as the JBL M2 or the 4367? THeir woofer midrange are big, very big and they are constructed in such a way to almost do away with power compression. Avoiding power compression is part of their design parameters. Pro speakers have to be able to play loud and clean... Back to the Q1 and Q3 ... While I can see a Q3 [laying at ease under 50 Hz with not much power compression , the Q1 will power compress, I haven't seen the measurements but the people at Magico know what they are talking about when they advise to use their 3-ways with subs rather than their 2-ways with subs.

On subs there is a lot of myths and some of these have taken hold to the extent of becoming the Orthodoxy:

One is the loathing of DSP.
Another is the use of same brand of subs as the mains as the best way to integrate.
another again is the impossibility to match some "fast" speakers with a "slow" woofer
Another is to use the speaker output from an amp so that it keeps the same "flavor" of signal; fed to the mains. REL has successfully implanted this diea and is seen by many as The subwofer of choice for many purist audiophiles who up to then would not imagine using a subwoofer. REL subs can be good but not because they use the speaker output.

Back to the subwoofer and speaker integration. I will not repeat my previous post but once you get to use an active crossover in the signal path be it analog like the Pass or Digital (Gasp! for some ) you add complexity. I have no doubt that correctly crossed over the Q1 could be stellar. In my book I would limit it to play no lower than 80 Hz and use a pair of good subwoofer capable of clean output from 20 to 100 Hz. i do not know how the Pass deals with delay and EQ, I guess not very well being analog and all that but it would be an interesting system.
yet the Q3 remains the better choice IMHO. To remain as purist as possible ... Use stereo subs and run the Q3 full range pure to the speaker kind of signal path. On the subs use DSP and EQ. Leave the mains alone and be prepared for a feat to the ears (after several hous of measuring and of listening and of moving and choosing level and slopes and ...)
. My view of digital is quite different. I use to tame the subs and the low end of the mains and leave the rest of the spectrum from 500 Hz and untouched. I will use software such as DIRAC (demoing it right now) or Acourate (at its low price will acquire) for crossover, EQ and DRC duties in any configuration of system I will have.

The more I am discussing about the Q3 the more I am waiting for its replacement to come out so that more Q3 show up at delicious prices. There is an upshot in the audiophiles tendencies to go for the newest and shiniest .. At this point in time my next system will be a choice between the Q3 + subs and horns + subs (of course) ...

 

[PeterA]

Thank you for all of your replies. I particularly appreciate Frantz's posts given his experience with Q3 speakers and the good advice and observations he has offered. I understand the argument for monitors located in the best spot for imaging and disappearing and then placing subs in a different location for optimal bass performance. But, this approach needs to be balanced against perhaps the better coherence and completeness that I hear from really good full range speakers.

My room is on the smaller side, and there are two reasons I hesitate to get the Q3. I once owned Eggleston Works Rosa speakers. They were similar in size to the Q3. I thought at the time that they slightly overpowered my room, given its small volume, though that was before I had my Tube Traps. So I sold them and bought the Mini IIs. In hindsight, I now think that I never really experienced the Rosa playing optimally in my room, but there is nothing that can be done about that now. I love the Mini IIs in part because of their size and aesthetics. I have even designed my amp stands and equipment rack to match their look.

But there is completeness to the sound of fuller range speakers that I hear in the Q3 and the M Pro and that I sometimes miss with my speakers. Absent actually hearing the two options in my room, and based on my own experience trying to integrate subs in my system before, I tend to agree with Frantz and Magico about buying a full range floor standing speaker rather than trying to integrate subs with my two-ways.

I am confident that the combination of the Q3 plus two subs with digital crossover would be a great solution, but given my existing room constraints, I just don't have the floor space or willingness to put that much audio gear in our living room, which is why I am asking about the two specific options.

I am planning a tour of the Magico facilities next week and I will ask them for more clarification about this choice.

 

[standingwave]

Why not get the a pair of the TAD CE1's? I was faced with the choice between Magico Q1's and TAD CE1 not too long ago and bought the TADs.

 

[jfrech]

...when I visit my good friend MadFloyd and hear his M Pro (both systems with Pass electronics and turntables) I appreciate what a full range speaker has to offer, especially one that is as coherent and resolving as the M Pro and Magico speakers in general...

Hi Peter,

Since I've heard your system and your room and the fantastic results you're getting, this is a tough one. I worry about being able to place larger speakers and getting the end result you're looking for. I hate to bring up another brand, but I only do this because of their extreme adjustability. If you could somehow hear a pair of Wilson's, properly set up, their adjustments may deliver a superior result. Focal is another, but offering less adjustments.

The systems I've heard with subs I've never fallen in love with. While I could hear some benefits, I could also hear some negatives. I think you're best sticking with speakers/no subs.

I know this is way off topic...but I've always been curious what Transparent Opus would do for your set up. It's pricey, but it may deliver a profound improvement exactly in the areas you're mentioning (extension, coherence, and resolving power) while maintaining the careful/precise set up magic you already have with your Magico's. Again off topic by a mile...

 

[microstrip]

Peter,

Although I have very little experience with the Q3 - I have listened more often to the Q5 - I also feel that the Q3 is an excellent speaker. However, considering that the current system you have has been optimized for the Mini II, IMHO only an home audition will answer to your questions.

When I got the Mini II's I took measurements of each speaker using REW in order to check if they were in perfect condition - they had a very good matching. Comparing my rough and misleading measurements with the Soundstage also rough and misleading measurements I can however risk that the Mini II and the Q3 have a different tonal balance.

Mini monitors are usually used in medium or small rooms, where they sound like mini monitors. But I have found that, sometimes, when used in large rooms, that have room gain at low frequencies, they can sound like bigger speakers, however without the dynamic capability usually associated to such designs. The Mini'II s can sound impressively "big" when placed in my 30 feet long room.