KeithR's "Dream Speaker" Search

[tobiasrankin]

I've tried various Magicos over the past five years and never found them compelling (dealers, shows, SS, tubes, you name it). They have an analytical balance and aren't as coherent nor dynamic as other brands. I know many love that sound (all about transparency, resolution, and detail) but it's not for me. I would certainly invest in the YG or Il Cremonese before a Magico.

Have you heard Sonja 2.3 or XV ?

Also how does your hailey compare to the SF?

 

[KeithR]

I have a friend who had Sonja 2.3s and has now moved to XV Jrs - have not heard the new setup.

Haileys and Il Cremonese are different. If i only listened to classical, I would buy the SF - but the bass and soundstage challenges of stuff like electronica are favored on the YG. YG is a bit snappier on micro dynamics, but less so on a macro scale. Timbre favors the SF and why I think on classical they are superb. Both have excellent flow but neither provide Avantgarde, Voxativ, or even Gamut level of dynamics. It's really a question of priorities at this level and something I've tried to convey during my journey.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . Haileys and Il Cremonese are different. If i only listened to classical, I would buy the SF - but the bass and soundstage challenges of stuff like electronica are favored on the YG. YG is a bit snappier on micro dynamics, but less so on a macro scale. Timbre favors the SF and why I think on classical they are superb. Both have excellent flow but neither provide Avantgarde, Voxativ, or even Gamut level of dynamics. It's really a question of priorities at this level and something I've tried to convey during my journey.

This is an excellent summary!

 

[MadFloyd]

I'm surprised to hear that YG are considered less analytical sounding than Magico. I always thought (based on my hearing them at shows) that they were more similar than different.

 

[chuck]

I'm curious as to the classical music you were listening to -- you mention the SF soundstage was not great. To me, for a speaker to be great for classical it must get the scale of an orchestra without smearing -- for example: Simon Rattle, Berlin Philharmonic, Beethoven's 9th.

 

[PeterA]

I'm surprised to hear that YG are considered less analytical sounding than Magico. I always thought (based on my hearing them at shows) that they were more similar than different.

I'm confused by the term "analytical". What do people mean when using it? Does it mean resolving? Too resolving? Etched or overly detailed?

An analyst analyses something to better understand it and to find the meaning or truth of something under analysis. I don't understand the negative connotation of the term used in an audio context. How is it different from say "transparent"?

I have recently seen the term "forensic" used, and I think it implies the same thing, but I don't know what that is.

 

[HenryD]

I'm surprised to hear that YG are considered less analytical sounding than Magico. I always thought (based on my hearing them at shows) that they were more similar than different.

I agree, I like both brands, lots in common. I also don't think you can have "transparency, resolution, and detail", without coherency.

 

[MadFloyd]

I'm confused by the term "analytical". What do people mean when using it? Does it mean resolving? Too resolving? Etched or overly detailed?

An analyst analyses something to better understand it and to find the meaning or truth of something under analysis. I don't understand the negative connotation of the term used in an audio context. How is it different from say "transparent"?

I have recently seen the term "forensic" used, and I think it implies the same thing, but I don't know what that is.

Overly resolving. No dip in the 3k-6k range. Lean. Not generous in the lower mids or mid bass. Dry. Not forgiving.

Take your pick.

 

[asiufy]

I have a friend who had Sonja 2.3s and has now moved to XV Jrs - have not heard the new setup.

Haileys and Il Cremonese are different. If i only listened to classical, I would buy the SF - but the bass and soundstage challenges of stuff like electronica are favored on the YG. YG is a bit snappier on micro dynamics, but less so on a macro scale. Timbre favors the SF and why I think on classical they are superb. Both have excellent flow but neither provide Avantgarde, Voxativ, or even Gamut level of dynamics. It's really a question of priorities at this level and something I've tried to convey during my journey.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. While your descriptions are probably spot on, it has to be said that the YGs imprint *far* less character of its own vs the SF, so you're mostly listening to downstream components. The SF OTOH will always have that nice "timbre", pretty much regardless of amp, for instance.
Go back to that SF and put a dry Class D amp in it. Then see how the sound changes. Now put same amp on the YG and observe the far greater impact it'll have.
You want the YGs to have a timbre like the SF, it's doable, just have to find the gear to go with it.

 

[Al M.]

I don't think that's a fair characterization. While your descriptions are probably spot on, it has to be said that the YGs imprint *far* less character of its own vs the SF, so you're mostly listening to downstream components. The SF OTOH will always have that nice "timbre", pretty much regardless of amp, for instance.
Go back to that SF and put a dry Class D amp in it. Then see how the sound changes. Now put same amp on the YG and observe the far greater impact it'll have.
You want the YGs to have a timbre like the SF, it's doable, just have to find the gear to go with it.

I have observed similar with Magico speakers, extreme sensitivity to upstream electronics. You pick the right or wrong gear, you change the sound -- often dramatically.

 

[AMR / iFi audio]

I'm confused by the term "analytical". What do people mean when using it? Does it mean resolving? Too resolving? Etched or overly detailed?

An analyst analyses something to better understand it and to find the meaning or truth of something under analysis. I don't understand the negative connotation of the term used in an audio context. How is it different from say "transparent"?

I have recently seen the term "forensic" used, and I think it implies the same thing, but I don't know what that is.

I believe ''analytical'' is often used with a pejorative connotation, but that is not always the case. It refers to a high level of detail. First, some people may actually prefer this way. Secondly, if you are describing the sound amplified by a solid-state machinery and it is ''analytical'', it pictures the reviewed product in a positive light.

 

[JayR]

I agree, I like both brands, lots in common. I also don't think you can have "transparency, resolution, and detail", without coherency.

Agree to some extent. IMO, you can have analytical speakers with all those characteristics.


It reminds me of the one audition I had of the Magico S3mk2 (?) while on a trip to LA. My first experience with Magico. We listened for about an hour and played our favorite music. It had transparency, resolution, detail, and was pretty coherent but we thought it was analytical. Instead of just listening to the music, you start “analysing” parts like HF extension, midrange etc. For us, that turned out to be a tiring experience. Maybe analytical has something to do with psychoacoustics ? I don’t know

 

[KeithR]

I don't think that's a fair characterization. While your descriptions are probably spot on, it has to be said that the YGs imprint *far* less character of its own vs the SF, so you're mostly listening to downstream components. The SF OTOH will always have that nice "timbre", pretty much regardless of amp, for instance.
Go back to that SF and put a dry Class D amp in it. Then see how the sound changes. Now put same amp on the YG and observe the far greater impact it'll have.
You want the YGs to have a timbre like the SF, it's doable, just have to find the gear to go with it.

Everything has a sound, even YG which is a tonally cool loudspeaker to begin with. SF uses completely different driver materials which makes certain other things innate.

I wish we could all agree that speakers excel at different things vs. a one size fits all approach.

 

[KeithR]

I'm curious as to the classical music you were listening to -- you mention the SF soundstage was not great. To me, for a speaker to be great for classical it must get the scale of an orchestra without smearing -- for example: Simon Rattle, Berlin Philharmonic, Beethoven's 9th.

For classical I use Richter's version of the Four Seasons, Zimerman's Chopin Piano Concerto #2, Helene Grimaud's Brahms Concerto, and the Reiner Scheherezade. Soundstage was better on depth than width - some of that could be room related, don't know.

 

[KeithR]

I'm surprised to hear that YG are considered less analytical sounding than Magico. I always thought (based on my hearing them at shows) that they were more similar than different.

I think this is a common view due to use of aluminum, but not really sure why - completely different drivers, crossover concepts, and inside cabinet build.

 

[PeterA]

I think this is a common view due to use of aluminum, but not really sure why - completely different drivers, crossover concepts, and inside cabinet build.

Don't forget shape and materials of cabinets. Not all Magicos are flat panel sharp edged aluminum. Also driver material is quite different.

 

[MadFloyd]

Yes, the use of aluminum contributes to a metallic tonality which I've heard from both brands (apart from earlier Magico models that sounded more wooden).

I agree that there isn't no one size fits all approach.

 

[asiufy]

Everything has a sound, even YG which is a tonally cool loudspeaker to begin with. SF uses completely different driver materials which makes certain other things innate.

I wish we could all agree that speakers excel at different things vs. a one size fits all approach.

Of course we (should) agree on that. And that's valid not only for speakers. Any audio component really.

 

[Ratbastrd]

Hi Guy's Happy Holidays

This is a pretty amazing forum, really appreciate the quality and quantity of focused input.

I'm just starting a new system buildout and have a few questions that seem appropriate here. From the thread, I've picked up two gems that appear to be in my wheel house cost/performance wise, but perhaps more importantly aesthetics wise. (Gibbon Super 9's and the Spendor D9.2's)

I appreciate that many of the speakers mentioned in this thread are designed in a way to improve the overall sound. That being said, I grew up in the 60/70's and while I love old science fiction, I'm not sure I want something that looks like a movie prop from B movie parked in my living room.

Outside of the Gibbon & Spendor's, what else would would the board recommend I look at that is more traditional in design, perhaps even aesthetically beautiful in the sub $15k range. I'm looking for the highest possible musicality and transparency, in an easy listening, relatively efficient speaker, that will render (Jazz, Classical and the periodic higher volume classic rock session). The speaker should pair fairly easy with a high end integrated. Integrateds I'm looking at (Pass labs, Luxman, Accuphase, Gryphon, Hegel) mostly streaming local digital files or Tidal.

Thanks in advance.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Check out Zu Audio Druids VI.
101dB/1m efficient, steady 8 Ohms.
No crossover, simple high pass filter.
Zu have a fantastic capacity to energise even large rooms at lower volumes w medium power amplification.
Tonally dense, fleshed out sound, natural detail and imaging, not hyper outlined.