His success replicating speakers should be amazing based on what's available now, if anyone was sure of exactly what they are suppose to replicate and how.
So people form speakers out of exotic raisins instead of eating them? I was totally unaware.
Has Magico lost its Touch?
- Thread starter XV-1
- Start date
His success replicating speakers should be amazing based on what's available now, if anyone was sure of exactly what they are suppose to replicate and how.
So people form speakers out of exotic raisins instead of eating them? I was totally unaware.
I agree with Ron's perspective, to summarize (let me know if I'm off), there's been advancements but they don't necessarily correlate to preference. But, to dive a little deeper into why...
IMO the reason for this is a lack of understanding of what drives preference as well as a lack of understanding psychoacoustics.
I think we still don't understand the largest driver of preference and exactly what creates it: The feeling of immersion in the music and being in the venue the music was recorded in. Most other things people proclaim as preference can be derived from the former...
Toole might say we prefer a flat frequency response and smooth off-axis response, but I don't think he can tell you how the quality of resistors and capacitors in your amplifier effects resolution of your system, but in my experience these things along with cables are key to being able to provide the feeling of immersion. So he does testing with low-grade cables and amplification with the speakers all being driven with the same amps and in the same positions, and he thinks he can derive useful conclusions from such massively flawed experiments? No, you only get confusion. And the result of that confusion has been muddled sound for decades.
If you remember YG, Wilson and many other high end brands using new materials used to sound much worse than they do today, to the point they were far worse vs the best vintage systems. It's only been recently that these brands have actually realized the end-result of their design goals, and IMO it has not lived up to what the supposed benefits would be because of confusion.
In speaker design there are always compromises and the designer has to be able to. 1. Articulate design priorities, and 2. Come up with a physical design that embodies the design priorities. But if the design priorities are confused then the end result will be a speaker that prioritizes design goals that don't contribute to the enjoyment of the listener at the expense of other things that DO matter.
So, it's not an issue of whether we have better tech, it's an issue of designers lack of understanding clear priorities for their designs because they don't actually understand what drives preference or if they do, how to achieve it. I don't think anyone understands these issues entirely, hence the "art" in producing audio gear. It's not art so much as individual understanding born of experience and thought about how to best engineer a component. This really ISN'T art. It's engineering using trial and error because we don't have better understanding. The casework is art.
IMO the reason for this is a lack of understanding of what drives preference as well as a lack of understanding psychoacoustics.
I think we still don't understand the largest driver of preference and exactly what creates it: The feeling of immersion in the music and being in the venue the music was recorded in. Most other things people proclaim as preference can be derived from the former...
Toole might say we prefer a flat frequency response and smooth off-axis response, but I don't think he can tell you how the quality of resistors and capacitors in your amplifier effects resolution of your system, but in my experience these things along with cables are key to being able to provide the feeling of immersion. So he does testing with low-grade cables and amplification with the speakers all being driven with the same amps and in the same positions, and he thinks he can derive useful conclusions from such massively flawed experiments? No, you only get confusion. And the result of that confusion has been muddled sound for decades.
If you remember YG, Wilson and many other high end brands using new materials used to sound much worse than they do today, to the point they were far worse vs the best vintage systems. It's only been recently that these brands have actually realized the end-result of their design goals, and IMO it has not lived up to what the supposed benefits would be because of confusion.
In speaker design there are always compromises and the designer has to be able to. 1. Articulate design priorities, and 2. Come up with a physical design that embodies the design priorities. But if the design priorities are confused then the end result will be a speaker that prioritizes design goals that don't contribute to the enjoyment of the listener at the expense of other things that DO matter.
So, it's not an issue of whether we have better tech, it's an issue of designers lack of understanding clear priorities for their designs because they don't actually understand what drives preference or if they do, how to achieve it. I don't think anyone understands these issues entirely, hence the "art" in producing audio gear. It's not art so much as individual understanding born of experience and thought about how to best engineer a component. This really ISN'T art. It's engineering using trial and error because we don't have better understanding. The casework is art.
Last edited:
It's more about understanding the design and being an experienced designer, engineer and fabricator. Of course you're going to fail if you don't have the qualifications, the knowledge and experience to actually do what you want to do. Assembling systems is a far cry from actually designing and building them.
There is absolutely no reason an experienced and knowledgeable craftsman couldn't build any vintage speaker. It's not magic, it's craftsmanship that isn't common in the world today.
An analogy is recreating the body panels of a vintage Ferrari. If you don't have many years of experience and knowledge taught to you by previous masters of the art, how are you expected to take a sheet of steel and make that fender? Of course you're going to fail! Why would you expect to be able to do this? Maybe you own a dozen Ferraris and know everything about them, and are even a pro-level driver... you still can't make that fender. So many people don't take this into account, the skills of craftsmen decades ago has largely been replaced by simpler and easier methods of manufacture that don't rely on a craftsman with decades of experience in order to get the desired result. You can't re-make some of the things that were made that way unless you cultivate that skill of find someone who has that skill.
I have a good example. An Allo Volt+d amp feed by a Orchard Audio or Shiit DAC. Lots of $500 or less speakers at my local college hifi shop. Sounds way better than the all in 1 sony I had in high school.
Dave, I understand what you are saying, but I think the issue was different. The glues and the wood of those original Bionors is no longer available. They are gone. I wanted my new rack to look like a walnut chest in the same room. The furniture maker said there was no way he could get the same wood. It no longer exists. The materials are now different so the resulting sound is different. Those speakers were made by someone who understood how to make good sounding speakers. Change anything about them and they will sound different. Different does not mean better. David told me that the reproduction Vitavoxs do not sound as good as the specific series I bought. The wood is different, the drivers are made by other people, the wiring is different. They may look similar, but they are different speakers that don't sound the same. I don't know as I have not heard them, but I take David at his word on this one.
A steel body panel for an old Ferrari can likely be reproduced by a skilled metal worker. We see this all the time in car restoration. The paint will be different but it should function the same, and it should convince people. Folks still pay more for the original. David and a skilled carpenter tried to reproduce his speaker cabinets. They likely looked similar but they sounded different. That is the key.
My point is more about producing a better product with "better" materials. Could those Bionors be built with a "better" material and sound better? I think that is what the advocates for the advanced technology are arguing. I understand that it is a full system and not just the cabinet materials, but if dead, inert cabinets are an advancement and better, then it should be better once adjustments are made for the rest of the speaker. People can ruin vintage speakers by trying to reinforce their wooden cabinets, even refinishing them or replacing the wiring.
Do the current large horn speakers like the Magico Ultimate III and other plastic and metal large horn systems with new material drivers and advanced crossovers and inert cabinets sound better than those Bionors? Reading these pages one would assume, of course they do. I wonder though. How big are the advancements in sound quality at all levels, here the top level, being made because of advanced technology?
Performance cars, space exploration, computers have a goal that is understood and measurable. Speed. Durability. Speakers design has no set goal. It's all vague. More bass, more treble, faster transients, less distortion. While attainable as a aspect of performance, its not a whole of better.
All speakers can be made to sound better but that requires significant iterations to get it right. That's why many reincarnations of Western electric, Altec, apogee, etc suck. Very few people get it right and those who do have been in the industry in some form and have been at it for long.
I think if the folks who originally designed and built the Bionors were around they could easily make more very similar to what they made decades ago. But they aren't and there aren't many people with that same skillset.
It's about the people, not the materials. We have the same materials today we've had in the past, the woods, glues and metals are not so different. Just because one guy couldn't match wood you want doesn't mean much.
I agree, it's the people, not lack of magical materials.
Yes I agree it is about the people putting these things together. But this discussion seems to be about advanced technologies and materials making everything better. Do you think that’s the case?
we now have different people with different skill sets with different technologies making large plastic and metal horn speakers. Do they sound better? I thought that was the discussion we are having about advanced technologies making speakers sound better.
If it’s about the people who made the great products of the past, well unfortunately those people are gone.
There have been some advantages in advanced materials for sure. However, the results have been disappointing taken as a whole IMO.
I addressed the reasons why modern materials and tech have not always resulted in better audio here: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/has-magico-lost-its-touch.33215/page-6#post-731382
My long-standing view on most of these kinds of topics is that "implementation trumps theory."
I think the Rockport Lyra would not sound the way it does if the cabinet were fabricated from simple MDF.
I suspect that Peter's Vitavox woiuld not sound the way it does if the cabinet were fabricated from Rockport epoxy resin.
I love Magnepan speakers, but I have always thought, "wouldn't if be great if Magnepan raised the price point of the 20.7 and built a much sturdier steel or epoxy resin structure for the speaker, instead of the relatively flimsy traditional wood frame?" But the reality is that we do not know how such a structure re-design would change the sound. Maybe the relatively flimsy wood frame is part of the sound Magnepan aficionados enjoy?
PS: To Wilson Audio skeptics: I divide the history of Wilson Audio into three stages: 1) metal-dome tweeter era); 2) soft-dome tweeter era ; 3) XVX era. All I can tell you is that I find the XVX to be absolutely (and almost inexplicably) enchanting. Go hear it for yourself.
I think the Rockport Lyra would not sound the way it does if the cabinet were fabricated from simple MDF.
I suspect that Peter's Vitavox woiuld not sound the way it does if the cabinet were fabricated from Rockport epoxy resin.
I love Magnepan speakers, but I have always thought, "wouldn't if be great if Magnepan raised the price point of the 20.7 and built a much sturdier steel or epoxy resin structure for the speaker, instead of the relatively flimsy traditional wood frame?" But the reality is that we do not know how such a structure re-design would change the sound. Maybe the relatively flimsy wood frame is part of the sound Magnepan aficionados enjoy?
PS: To Wilson Audio skeptics: I divide the history of Wilson Audio into three stages: 1) metal-dome tweeter era); 2) soft-dome tweeter era ; 3) XVX era. All I can tell you is that I find the XVX to be absolutely (and almost inexplicably) enchanting. Go hear it for yourself.
Last edited:
Leif's speakers and pnoe are the top two horns I have heard after certain Western electric models at Munich cork. They are made of composite. Could they have been better with wood? Probably. Will never know. Western electric used wood, iron, and papier mache to make their horns and all these variants sound good. They just voiced them accordingly.
One iteration of yamamura is better than the above ones I have heard, and it is not made of composite but not of wood either it has some cork.
In the more gettable horns, the universum is made of composite (same one as Leif) and Anima of wood, I like both, but the universum is a clear winner in the mids and highs with violin and female vocals, and that is the composite part. It is one of the best speakers for this frequency. Could it have been made better with wood? I don't know. Could Anima have been made better with composite? I don't know.
And no one does either, these guys learned to voice their speakers with the material they used. Wood has its own color on all tones so that has to be managed too. Everything else that you read here is the gut feel of the poster, there is no proper compare that is possible on this. Horn is a combination of the material, the driver, and the crossover. The test is in the finished product. Why it works is just a guessing game. Like if you hear a new analog set up you can guess it is because of the motor.
Altec experts assure me that Markus klug's wood replicas are far superior to the metal one and I believe them. But they are not superior to Leif's or universum for the higher frequencies. Given these are different drivers and crossovers, how can one compare?
The above thread and the below violins. Please provide similar levels with wood horns. thanks
All of Tang's videos are composite.
Many of you may or may not like Cessaro, but one thing is for sure. Ralph hasn't spared any expense. He uses expensive drivers, and is using composite. Kevin is using similar cost drivers (much less number of drivers in bass) in vox Olympian and using wood. Surely either could have used the other material if it was so slam dunk. GIP is using wood
Leif got rid of his plastic tweeter replaced it by solid bronze and reports drastically superior.
He also has new CD horn in wood coming alas that isn’t really comparable for substrate since his plastic mid range horn is jmlc.
Personally I can’t ever see the situation where one would actively prefer a plastic horn over a wooden one if all other parameters are held constant. A plastic resonance profile is what it is and not optimal. Same as why you wouldn’t ideally want your driver membrane made out of plastic or you speaker cabinet that way.
Everything has a “sound” in the audio chain - material resonance profile is very important imho and why some modern designs, amongst several factors, sound synthetic versus vintage designs.
Tim Gurney from ETF has written quite a lot on this topic also. Started based on his dialogue with the owner of the world’s largest WE collection who told him he hadn’t heard the potential of the WE horns until he had heard the solid wood ones.
You know, Myles was posting his own stuff on Audionirvana and he made this point in a new thread. It ties right in.
Some of us remember a member on another forum complaining that he could only listen to one or two of his recordings on his “new and improved” system. Now obviously this is an extreme example but the thought remains the same. Of course the other extreme is a system where the colorations are so overwhelming that all recordings sound sound the same. Some people are perfectly happy with this approach.
We want to find that happy hunting ground in the middle. There’s no question that say a speaker could improve the sound of your best recordings yet you will derive less pleasure from the bulk of your music library. So how do we like the three little bears get to the not too hot and not too cold middle ground? Luck? Planning? Something else?
Some of us remember a member on another forum complaining that he could only listen to one or two of his recordings on his “new and improved” system. Now obviously this is an extreme example but the thought remains the same. Of course the other extreme is a system where the colorations are so overwhelming that all recordings sound sound the same. Some people are perfectly happy with this approach.
We want to find that happy hunting ground in the middle. There’s no question that say a speaker could improve the sound of your best recordings yet you will derive less pleasure from the bulk of your music library. So how do we like the three little bears get to the not too hot and not too cold middle ground? Luck? Planning? Something else?
I think that the vast majority of people still universally prefer the sound of the Vox Olympian to any of the Cessaro speakers fwiw. Not done a poll but based on forum feedback the world over for last ~10 years.
I have been to Tim's place many years ago and heard his WE.
The quote means nothing. Joe Roberts, who presents WE each year at Munich says that some prefer wood 15a and some the metal 16a. Easily their best was the last one in 2019 which was metal plus papier mache.
Last edited:
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |