Magico Q7:" most impressive product in 23 years of TAS reviews" (R. Harley)

[jap]

well; it is a professional reviewer's home....so you ought to be able to be a bit less sensitive about things as it's represented as an ideal of some sort and invites comments as such. and no doubt the room while beautiful, is not ideal as a listening space. lots of hard flat surfaces, no way to control bass, certainly not at all asymetric, high ceilings don't appear to be treated. the saving grace is a likely near-field listening set-up where reflected sound is minimal.

unknown to me is maybe that the Q7 works in a space like that better than other speakers.

but i gotta agree with Lee's perspective simply based on the pictures. if it's not a reviewer then maybe we do keep the comments to ourselves unless prompted.

RH quotes-

"When Alon Wolf set up the Q7 he left happy with the sound"

"The room is 25' by 28' (including the adjacent hallway) with a ceiling that slopes from 13' to 18'."

"Treated with only two ASC 16" Full Round Tube Traps and one Tower Trap, the room sounds significantly better than my previous room that had been built from the ground up with optimum dimensional ratios and had been computer modeled by an acoustician. The previous room was a rectangle. The new room has a high sloped ceiling, a much greater volume of air between the room and the adjacent rooms to which it couples, and large structural elements that help break up low-frequencies. I got really lucky."

His listening position is 13' from the Q7s.

 

[A.wayne]

Those silver ones? According to the article, Constellation Centaur monoblocks.

View attachment 7299

thanks .......

 

[KBK]

It would be equally boring if he had said the Q7 are a "bit above average". One calls it an unnecessary hyperbole, the other a sign of utter enthusiasm. Poor guy, can't win

This is so true.

If one sticks their face out in public, and says a few words, someone will always disagree. Then there is the issue of a developed method and way of communication within the given idiom or circle. this brings in even more disparaging remarks.

One must remember that language and meaning are shared, not owned. Besides the above issue, of context.

Being too literal minded is a great way to incite one's self via the reflection of one's own incapacities.

 

[NorthStar]

Knock yourself out Bob.

I'll bow out.

---- Happy New Year Bruce! :b

 

[RBFC]

RH quotes-

"When Alon Wolf set up the Q7 he left happy with the sound"

"The room is 25' by 28' (including the adjacent hallway) with a ceiling that slopes from 13' to 18'."

"Treated with only two ASC 16" Full Round Tube Traps and one Tower Trap, the room sounds significantly better than my previous room that had been built from the ground up with optimum dimensional ratios and had been computer modeled by an acoustician. The previous room was a rectangle. The new room has a high sloped ceiling, a much greater volume of air between the room and the adjacent rooms to which it couples, and large structural elements that help break up low-frequencies. I got really lucky."

For a reviewer to publicly state that the room (in which state-of-the-art equipment is evaluated) is sub-standard would be career suicide. A better question would be, "Does Alon Wolf feel that this room allowed the Q7 to demonstrate its full potential "

Lee

 

[NorthStar]

Harley wrote extensively in a previous issue of TAS about his new home (pictured) and about how what he missed most about his previous residence was that home's dedicated listening room.

---- That's right; Robert Harley had a dedicated listening/viewing room in his previous home, with $30,000 spent professionally on room acoustic treatments alone.

But knowing Robert, he'll get into it eventually in his new home as well. ...But that living room of his right now is real nice, with great possibilities.
...Much nicer than mine anyway. :b

And those Magicos look gorgeous in it. ...La creme de la creme.

 

[jap]

A better question would be, "Does Alon Wolf feel that this room allowed the Q7 to demonstrate its full potential "

Lee

Good question, you should ask Mr.Wolf.

 

[RBFC]

Good question, you should ask Mr.Wolf.

While I personally feel your attitude is a bit defensive, I have done just that. I sent Alon Wolf a message and asked about the room. If I don't hear back via email, I'll call Magico personally.

A great purpose of this forum is to support discussions that further the understanding of audio reproduction. To refuse to ask questions is to refuse to progress. If one invests in a Magico Q7 pair, should we not be very curious what listening room conditions would best allow them to demonstrate their abilities? Conventional audiophile wisdom would tell us that the pictured listening room would not be ideal. It would therefore be extremely valuable to understand how an "exception" to the rules can perform superbly.

Lee

 

[jap]

While I personally feel your attitude is a bit defensive, I have done just that. I sent Alon Wolf a message and asked about the room. If I don't hear back via email, I'll call Magico personally.

A great purpose of this forum is to support discussions that further the understanding of audio reproduction. To refuse to ask questions is to refuse to progress. If one invests in a Magico Q7 pair, should we not be very curious what listening room conditions would best allow them to demonstrate their abilities? Conventional audiophile wisdom would tell us that the pictured listening room would not be ideal. It would therefore be extremely valuable to understand how an "exception" to the rules can perform superbly.

Lee

Good for you.

Common sense should tell us that a manufacturer who just got an ultra-rave review is not going to dump on the reviewer's listening room.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Good for you.

Common sense should tell us that a manufacturer who just got an ultra-rave review is not going to dump on the reviewer's listening room.

Yeah funny how that works

 

[asiufy]

RBFC,

Good move contacting Mr.Wolf/Magico!
By the same token, I think it'd be great to get in touch with Wilson, and check the conditions they found in Michael Fremer's room, since, from all reports, his room is even more "incompatible" than Robert Harley's lovely room.
I've heard big speakers set up in small rooms, and I've heard set ups that wouldn't work, on paper, and yet they do. The Q7 is one such case, it was put in a big 10m x 8m room, close to the back wall (like 1m close), with glass windows in one side and a large opening on the other side. Played beautifully



alexandre

 

[FrantzM]

RBFC,

Good move contacting Mr.Wolf/Magico!
By the same token, I think it'd be great to get in touch with Wilson, and check the conditions they found in Michael Fremer's room, since, from all reports, his room is even more "incompatible" than Robert Harley's lovely room.
I've heard big speakers set up in small rooms, and I've heard set ups that wouldn't work, on paper, and yet they do. The Q7 is one such case, it was put in a big 10m x 8m room, close to the back wall (like 1m close), with glass windows in one side and a large opening on the other side. Played beautifully



alexandre

Hi

Agreed. Although I don't expect Wolf to say much about RH room. It simply will not happen. Whether we want to admit it or not, the reviewing process is part of the marketing loop.

The question since our quest is for the best, not the merely good,: How much better would the Q7 have sounded were they in a better room?

What I do see happening more and more though is that more and more audiophiles rooms seem to routinely surpass that of many reviewers. There is a level of care taken in addressing room issues here (and elsewhere) that beg the question of who's truly in front. I could be wrong but I see many reviewers touting the most "advanced" (read expensive) gears with rooms that at first glance seem suspect. If one wants to test the handling of a sports car, you don;t test it in NYC during rush traffic hours I would suppose that those that are the trend setters should have the better tools and to me, it starts with a good room.

To stay On Topic I am looking forward to listen to the Q5 and Q7. The Q3 had me spooked.

 

[Jeff Fritz]

The question since our quest is for the best, not the merely good,: How much better would the Q7 have sounded were they in a better room?

The Value of a Reference Listening Room:

http://ultraaudio.com/index.php/fea...0-and-the-value-of-a-reference-listening-room

The Q7 as reviewed in that reference listening room:

http://ultraaudio.com/index.php/twbas-menu/252-inevitable-magico-q7-loudspeakers

 

[RBFC]

Good for you.

Common sense should tell us that a manufacturer who just got an ultra-rave review is not going to dump on the reviewer's listening room.

Since RH reported that some small tweaks further improved the sound of the Q7 in his room, it's suspect as to whether they were optimized in the time that Mr. Wolf was on site. My speakers are sounding good in my room, but I have zero doubt that they would sound better in a more suitable, well-designed space.

The root of my displeasure with the "challenger's" comments is that an inquisitive stance is beneficial to all of us. First, this poster makes a defensive statement about Mr. Wolf being pleased with the sound of the Q7 in RH's room, and then makes the comment above (which, in effect, retracts his previous position). Perhaps the Q7s sound better in RH's room than in any other application (highly doubt this) and perhaps they don't. Since acoustics of rooms are so critical, many of us want to know what's going on!

My message to Alon Wolf asked if he felt that the Q7s were able to perform at their best in that space, not if they sounded good there. I have nothing against Magico, I'd love to own a pair. I want to know how much of a review is marketing (RH's visibility in the audiophile community) and how much is actual performance in a given space.

Lee

 

[steve williams]

Well Jeff Fritz has probably written the best and most authoritative review of the Q7

 

[RBFC]

Since Jeff posted the link to the article, I'll take the liberty of quoting a salient part:

It’s easy to understand why a reviewer would want to listen to audio gear in a room that’s as sonically neutral as possible. I’ve never bought the argument that because speakers must operate in their owners’ “real rooms,” reviewers shouldn’t have “special” rooms that most readers can’t afford to replicate. My reason is simple: Rooms vary in size and shape. There is no such thing as an “average” reader listening room. Therefore, every room will present its own unique set of acoustic challenges. However, a room that is neutral, for all intents and purposes, can at least provide a level playing field for all speakers, and therefore give the reviewer a context for the apples-with-apples comparisons that we like to make.

While ANY manufacturer would want a good review (and by all accounts the Q7s are magnificent), it furthers the credibility of the audiophile world to have solid scientific reasons for the effects we hear. Having a room that may introduce anomalies (whether beneficial or detrimental) to the sound of the equipment will cloud the review process and leave the results open to serious debate. Personally, I would be more inclined to believe Jeff's impressions of a speaker, since there is a quantifiable baseline of performance in the specially designed room.

When I introduce a foreign IV solution into my patient, there are many effects that occur simultaneously. There are electrical, physical, osmotic, and hydraulic equilibria that all attempt to satisfy themselves. I tell my students, "For everything that happens, there is a concrete scientific reason that it happens. We may not understand why or how it occurs, but that is our own shortcoming and does not invalidate the scientific basis of this effect." Understanding audio is exactly the same.

I've ranted on this subject for a few posts. I was "called out" for having the nerve to make a statement that questioned the acoustic properties of a room that certainly looks sub-optimal for audio reproduction. Mr. Harley certainly cannot cut his own throat and state that the room is not ideal. Mr. Wolf certainly wants another stellar review. WBF could use the truth, and I'll take a few arrows if needed to ask the right questions.

Lee

 

[steve williams]

the question is not only justified in the RH Q7 review but IMO so also the XLF review done by Fremer

 

[FrantzM]

Since Jeff posted the link to the article, I'll take the liberty of quoting a salient part:



While ANY manufacturer would want a good review (and by all accounts the Q7s are magnificent), it furthers the credibility of the audiophile world to have solid scientific reasons for the effects we hear. Having a room that may introduce anomalies (whether beneficial or detrimental) to the sound of the equipment will cloud the review process and leave the results open to serious debate. Personally, I would be more inclined to believe Jeff's impressions of a speaker, since there is a quantifiable baseline of performance in the specially designed room.

When I introduce a foreign IV solution into my patient, there are many effects that occur simultaneously. There are electrical, physical, osmotic, and hydraulic equilibria that all attempt to satisfy themselves. I tell my students, "For everything that happens, there is a concrete scientific reason that it happens. We may not understand why or how it occurs, but that is our own shortcoming and does not invalidate the scientific basis of this effect." Understanding audio is exactly the same.

I've ranted on this subject for a few posts. I was "called out" for having the nerve to make a statement that questioned the acoustic properties of a room that certainly looks sub-optimal for audio reproduction. Mr. Harley certainly cannot cut his own throat and state that the room is not ideal. Mr. Wolf certainly wants another stellar review. WBF could use the truth, and I'll take a few arrows if needed to ask the right questions.

Lee

Thanks Lee for a refreshing post...

 

[Gregadd]

If you will indulge me, the Q5 remains a magnificent speaker. Given the current state of recordings it may actually be a better choice. To get the most out of the Q7 may require r2 r,hi-rez downloads or 45 rpm reissues.

 

[RBFC]

the question is not only justified in the RH Q7 review but IMO so also the XLF review done by Fremer

Exactly. This is the same reason that the DBT keeps getting tossed at audiophiles. There has been insufficient effort to simply reduce the variability and subjectivity of reports. While subjective criteria will always be important, it must be balanced with believable assessment. I want to like the way my speakers look, although it may have no effect on their sound. I want the seats in my car to be comfortable and secure in fitting me, although that impression does not affect miles-per-gallon. I DO want to know my car's 1/4 mile time and its performance on a skid pad, but I can then make my own decision whether to buy. I want the measurable comparatives to be factual and repeatable for my perusal, so that the aesthetic and personal attributes may exist in their own category. I wear a Tag watch that doesn't keep time as well as a $20 Casio, but I am not under any false assumptions about its performance.

Lee