Magico M9 vs. Magico Ultimate 3 Horn- Box vs. Horn! Which will be better? In which ways?

[Zeotrope]

I would agree except for the fact that we are discussing the best of the best in this Forum.
It’s my belief that our role as clients and potential clients, is to demand better from manufacturers. Not physically time-aligning and using digital correction is a short-cut that should not be accepted when a speaker costs 6-figures. Just my POV.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Respectfully, even I’m not as dogmatic this.

1) If someone is happy with the sound of his/her digital playback system, then such person likely will not find anathema in theory or in sonic result the sound of these digital conversions.

2) Even if in theory or in sonic result an analog oriented audiophile finds the digital conversions anathema, Carlos may still be correct that the sonic benefits of the time alignment in the digital domain may outweigh the sonic detriment of those digital conversions.

every time a signal is run thru a conversion something is lost. including the first time.

a room and set-up have to be very wanting for the trade-offs from multiple conversions to be worth it. and plenty of sources, rooms and systems are certainly wanting. but it's not the way to find ultimate performance.

there is a reason that the marketplace mostly rejects this approach. yet it might be the right answer in many situations where the room and set-up have challenges.

i have a home theater with the Trinnov (ultimate dsp processor) and 9.3.6 speakers and Dolby Atmos. it makes plenty of sense for many media and sources where the priorities are not corrupted by all the processing. they are enhanced by the processing. but my better 2 channel recordings are not relatively well served by it.

so it all depends on your recording and your expectations.

 

[HenryD]

A speaker that costs over $100K should be physically time-aligned, along with as good phase coherence as possible. But as a start, these are must-haves. We should not accept anything less. It CAN be done.

Please share any evidence of that. The only controlled examination of the subject I could find concluded that “In spite of the considerable engineering appeal of this concept, practical tests have yielded little evidence of listener sensitivity to this factor...” (JA after Toole). JA also continue and say that: "This is also my view. Of the 350 or so loudspeakers I have measured, there is no correlation between whether or not they are time-coherent and whether or not they are recommended by a Stereophile reviewer. "

You can dismiss that, but I doubt you will be able to prove it actually matters.
Subjectively, I never found a so called time-aligned speaker to be superior in any particular way.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Please share any evidence of that. The only controlled examination of the subject I could find concluded that “In spite of the considerable engineering appeal of this concept, practical tests have yielded little evidence of listener sensitivity to this factor...” (JA after Toole). JA also continue and say that: "This is also my view. Of the 350 or so loudspeakers I have measured, there is no correlation between whether or not they are time-coherent and whether or not they are recommended by a Stereophile reviewer. "

You can dismiss that, but I doubt you will be able to prove it actually matters.
Subjectively, I never found a so called time-aligned speaker to be superior in any particular way.

likely requires a speaker designer in his voicing and crossover designing process to answer this question. trying multiple approaches. and even then it's anecdotical. a data point.

OTOH i know my Evolution Acoustic MM7 twin tower speakers are physically time aligned (assuming that the 2 towers are set up that way in room, mine are), and the passive towers use a first order crossover.

my speaker designer, Kevin Malmgren, told me that there is a benefit in physical time alignment in terms of ultimate wave launch impact, so given the right room and sufficient width, it is an advantage. yet installations where the bass towers are not aligned work great too, just not that extra little bit.

my bass performance is particularly coherent....especially considering all the drivers and tall twin towers. how much of that is this issue? don't know.

 

[HenryD]

likely requires a speaker designer in his voicing and crossover designing process to answer this question. trying multiple approaches. and even then it's anecdotical. a data point.

OTOH i know my Evolution Acoustic MM7 twin tower speakers are physically time aligned (assuming that the 2 towers are set up that way in room, mine are), and the passive towers use a first order crossover.

my speaker designer, Kevin Malmgren, told me that there is a benefit in physical time alignment in terms of ultimate wave launch impact, so given the right room and sufficient width, it is an advantage. yet installations where the bass towers are not aligned work great too, just not that extra little bit.

my bass performance is particularly coherent....especially considering all the drivers and tall twin towers. how much of that is this issue? don't know.

Can you share the impulse measurement of your speakers? I would love to see that. The only time coherence impulse I ever seen of a big speaker is the Dunlavy.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Can you share the impulse measurement of your speakers? I would love to see that. The only time coherence impulse I ever seen of a big speaker is the Dunlavy.

i'm not any sort of techie and have never seen any data like that on my speakers. sorry.

 

[morricab]

I agree with Ron:


Digital time alignment is a bad idea for a high-end system. Think about it: you are converting the analog signal to digital, then back to analog - two extra conversions! All the benefit from a nice DAC is lost. All the benefit from vinyl is lost.

For a lower end system, sure: DSP gives you benefits that allows a low cost speaker sound better. But at the high end? No way.

A speaker that costs over $100K should be physically time-aligned, along with as good phase coherence as possible. The rest is how it sounds and cannot be measured. But as a start, these are must-haves. We should not accept anything less. It CAN be done.
Consider that in the 1930s, horn designers time-aligned to 1 msec, which is the time it takes for sound to travel about 1 foot. That's a lot. I'm looking at the Magico M9 now and I can tell it's not time aligned to 1 msec.

If your top high end system is all digital I think you can digitally time align as long as you A) have jitter reduction before the DAC. B) use top notch DAC for the conversion or if you use a digital crossover you need multiple top notch DACs.

 

[caesar]

Ran into a friend at axpona, who is very experienced and shares the same tastes as me. This gentleman heard the magico horn in a private home and thought it to be one of his top 5 systems out of tens of thousands he's been involved with. However, the Magico M9 , which was at Axpona, sounded over-processed and unnatural to us and many who share our tastes.

Seems like Wolf/ Magico know their market. Likely didn't sell too many horns and are catering to audiophile hi-fi tastes by abandoning horn and going with complex box.

Anyone understand the technical differences and why such an expensive, "technically advanced" speaker like M9 lacks aliveness and emotions of their horn design while excelling at hi-fi attributes?

 

[Ron Resnick]

abandoning horn and going with complex box.

How is a five-way with a built-in woofer amplifier and cross-over electronics less complex than a three-way passive? (Your post belies your bias.)

 

[caesar]

How is a five-way with a built-in woofer amplifier and cross-over electronics less complex than a three-way passive? (Your post belies your bias.)

sure, you may be right didn't even look at the specs. it just sounded awful!

 

[caesar]

I was at axpona with guys who were casual audiophiles and active in the performing arts. And they can afford this stuff. They are not audiophiles.

Consensus of M9 - over-processed, over-polished, unnatural.

 

[Zeotrope]

Ran into a friend at axpona, who is very experienced and shares the same tastes as me. This gentleman heard the magico horn in a private home and thought it to be one of his top 5 systems out of tens of thousands he's been involved with. However, the Magico M9 , which was at Axpona, sounded over-processed and unnatural to us and many who share our tastes.

Seems like Wolf/ Magico know their market. Likely didn't sell too many horns and are catering to audiophile hi-fi tastes by abandoning horn and going with complex box.

Anyone understand the technical differences and why such an expensive, "technically advanced" speaker like M9 lacks aliveness and emotions of their horn design while excelling at hi-fi attributes?

A well designed horn (ie a conical shape) will not sound “horny”. Physics favor horns for many reasons. At the end of the day the M9 is just a rectangle in a sealed box, no different than a Best Buy speaker. I realize it’s been optimized in many ways, but you’re stuck with the limitations of this basic design.

 

[Ron Resnick]

sure, you may be right didn't even look at the specs. it just sounded awful!

Fair enough!

 

[caesar]

A well designed horn (ie a conical shape) will not sound “horny”. Physics favor horns for many reasons. At the end of the day the M9 is just a rectangle in a sealed box, no different than a Best Buy speaker. I realize it’s been optimized in many ways, but you’re stuck with the limitations of this basic design.

I also find it interesting that when Magico was younger and more idealistic, about 10 years ago, they released the horn as their ultimate speaker...

 

[PeterA]

Ran into a friend at axpona, who is very experienced and shares the same tastes as me. This gentleman heard the magico horn in a private home and thought it to be one of his top 5 systems out of tens of thousands he's been involved with. However, the Magico M9 , which was at Axpona, sounded over-processed and unnatural to us and many who share our tastes.

Seems like Wolf/ Magico know their market. Likely didn't sell too many horns and are catering to audiophile hi-fi tastes by abandoning horn and going with complex box.

Anyone understand the technical differences and why such an expensive, "technically advanced" speaker like M9 lacks aliveness and emotions of their horn design while excelling at hi-fi attributes?

I would like to hear both in good settings to understand the differences. I suspect what you heard might have a lot to do with the rest of the systems driving the two speakers. I am not surprised by your conclusion. The problem with speakers like the M9, in my opinion, is the need for high-powered solid state amplifiers. The combination just doesn’t sound as natural, as alive, as engaging, as a well designed horn and SET combination. I agree that Magico knows its market.

I also wonder how much it has to do with perceived market forces versus an individual’s passion project. The magical mini was developed I think because a dealer in Hong Kong thought there was a market for good sounding small speakers for small rooms, with a little concern for cost.

Yes, Ron, we’re all biased, and we inform our opinions based on our varying experiences. Caesar was sharing his observations.

 

[HenryD]

A well designed horn (ie a conical shape) will not sound “horny”. Physics favor horns for many reasons. At the end of the day the M9 is just a rectangle in a sealed box, no different than a Best Buy speaker. I realize it’s been optimized in many ways, but you’re stuck with the limitations of this basic design.

Please point us to a full-range, properly, and fully loaded, commercially available horn loudspeaker. And spare us the compromised cheats—folded horns, quarter-wave, Unity, or other hybrid hacks. They all sound colored. If you can’t hear that, you’re extremely biased. The notion of “horns done right” is a fantasy. It remains an unattainable goal—unlike conventional loudspeakers, such as the M9.
I’ve been watching Cesar’s anti-Magico crusade for years. The sudden nostalgia for Magico’s supposed “idealistic” past is laughable.

 

[caesar]

Please point us to a full-range, properly, and fully loaded, commercially available horn loudspeaker. And spare us the compromised cheats—folded horns, quarter-wave, Unity, or other hybrid hacks. They all sound colored. If you can’t hear that, you’re extremely biased. The notion of “horns done right” is a fantasy. It remains an unattainable goal—unlike conventional loudspeakers, such as the M9.
I’ve been watching Cesar’s anti-Magico crusade for years. The sudden nostalgia for Magico’s supposed “idealistic” past is laughable.

Perceptions about horns and boxes aside, all Magico fans should be thankful for the polarization these conversations created and brought attention to the brand.

These threads were used to expose the disgusting audio journalists pushing their tastes as BESt. On every one else.

As a result of this attention, we co-created the Magico brand and Magico is now a viable competitor to Wilson audio.

I have nothing against Magico and wish them much prosperity so they can deliver for their fans.


Whereas it was considered impolite to talk about audio marketing in the past, most guys on this hobby now see more clearly the influence and marketing schemes from the disgusting magazines. Their brands are in ruins.

Magico fans and audio fans, , you’re welcome!

 

[HenryD]

Thank you, Caesar, we are all very grateful, but I think you started too many threads, this is the one about the M9 vs. the world... LOL

 

[LL21]

Please point us to a full-range, properly, and fully loaded, commercially available horn loudspeaker. And spare us the compromised cheats—folded horns, quarter-wave, Unity, or other hybrid hacks. They all sound colored. If you can’t hear that, you’re extremely biased. The notion of “horns done right” is a fantasy. It remains an unattainable goal—unlike conventional loudspeakers, such as the M9.
I’ve been watching Cesar’s anti-Magico crusade for years. The sudden nostalgia for Magico’s supposed “idealistic” past is laughable.

I am not exactly a horn fan (at all), but I have to say I have been very impressed with the AG Trio G3 with its dual basshorns. If you've heard it would appreciate your thoughts on what you think.

Equally, what is your reference speaker(s)? For me, prior to the AG Trio G3, my references were the Rockport Arrakis and the Genesis 1s (though the bass towers were something I felt I would need to listen to again more critically.)

 

[microstrip]

Ran into a friend at axpona, who is very experienced and shares the same tastes as me. This gentleman heard the magico horn in a private home and thought it to be one of his top 5 systems out of tens of thousands he's been involved with. However, the Magico M9 , which was at Axpona, sounded over-processed and unnatural to us and many who share our tastes.

Well, some people say democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. If you select people who shares your tasted, better writing simply "I" ...

Seems like Wolf/ Magico know their market. Likely didn't sell too many horns and are catering to audiophile hi-fi tastes by abandoning horn and going with complex box.

No need to speculate - Alan Wolf fully addressed this subject in Stereophile and explained why he moved away. But eyes, we know you don't read magazines and prefer cheap gossip to reading directly from designers.

Anyone understand the technical differences and why such an expensive, "technically advanced" speaker like M9 lacks aliveness and emotions of their horn design while excelling at hi-fi attributes?

Just your opinion, many thanks. But again, please do some basic search before asking others to help you re-invent the wheel.