Has Magico lost its Touch?

[bonzo75]

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.

And you and I both don't like vox.

The Cessaro example was stated to say that if it was slam dunk, he would have chosen wood. It is not the cost for him

 

[PeterA]

Warning: unnatural sounding iPhone videos over YouTube being used to demonstrate sonic capabilities of advanced materials for horns in a thread about Magico cone speakers.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

And you and I both don't like vox.

The Cessaro example was stated to say that if it was slam dunk, he would have chosen wood. It is not the cost for him

I *much* prefer Vox to any Cessaro I ever heard. Caveat all show conditions. Cessaro always synthetic and wrong.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

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.

The quote states that the Korean gentleman owning the world’s largest WE collection says wood infinitely superior.

 

[bonzo75]

The quote states that the Korean gentleman owning the world’s largest WE collection says wood infinitely superior.

That's Cheung. He, JC, and Joe Roberts are at Munich every year together. What Joe is conveying is from hanging out with Cheung much more than Tim. They will chat with you all day long at this Munich you can ask them if it is slam dunk

 

[Audiophile Bill]

That's Cheung. He, JC, and Joe Roberts are at Munich every year together. What Joe conveying is from hanging out with Cheung much more than Tim. They will chat with you all day long at this Munich you can ask them if it is slam dunk

Hopefully Munich opens next year (is it open this year?) - I will hopefully get a chance to ask him and also his thoughts on a plastic WE replica.

 

[bonzo75]

Hopefully Munich opens next year (is it open this year?) - I will hopefully get a chance to ask him and also his thoughts on a plastic WE replica.

This May is gone

 

[Folsom]

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?

While replication might be very difficult because some things aren't available, or sourcing them is ridiculously hard, in no way do I believe that every tiny itty bitty detail was discussed on the original speakers that we talk about. What plywood did they use? Whatever was available and if there was more than one choice they might have tried both. That's the answer to the majority of the questions. They were not consciously deciding all the factors. These people were not pedantic paranoid freaks like we are. But they also weren't deluded by objectionism since they couldn't measure a lot, so they had to listen.

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.

You know that almost NEVER do reincarnation drivers measure the same... And maybe "if ever" for that matter. I'm not sure it is possible for someone making a speaker to try to replicate something identically. I believe there may be some sort of force that makes them change something because it's "better" or whatever, so they're incapable of doing it.

We aren't talking small differences, we're talking HUGE differences like QTS of .45 vs QTS of .33 etc.

 

[bonzo75]

While replication might be very difficult because some things aren't available, or sourcing them is ridiculously hard, in no way do I believe that every tiny itty bitty detail was discussed on the original speakers that we talk about. What plywood did they use? Whatever was available and if there was more than one choice they might have tried both. That's the answer to the majority of the questions. They were not consciously deciding all the factors. These people were not pedantic paranoid freaks like we are. But they also weren't deluded by objectionism since they couldn't measure a lot, so they had to listen.




You know that almost NEVER do reincarnation drivers measure the same... And maybe "if ever" for that matter. I'm not sure it is possible for someone making a speaker to try to replicate something identically. I believe there may be some sort of force that makes them change something because it's "better" or whatever, so they're incapable of doing it.

We aren't talking small differences, we're talking HUGE differences like QTS of .45 vs QTS of .33 etc.

Yes but in many cases you can get NOS drivers yet get the speakers sounding different.

 

[Folsom]

Yes but in many cases you can get NOS drivers yet get the speakers sounding different.

And putting a lambo engine in a Camry drives different.... I mean this is too open ended of a statement to mean anything.

 

[hb22]

It’s not easy to make an audio product that really sings

 

[sbnx]

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 want to be able to agree with that. The pair of XVX that I demo'd were set up horribly and thus the system sounded bad. I need to find some place that has them really dialed in to hear what they can do.

 

[Tango]

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

I think people's hearing could be in the same direction but not every tiny single aspect. Obviously the designers you mentioned like the way his speakers voice using composite. We cannot discount experience of the speaker designer above. They have their reason, sonic and non-sonic, why they choose material they are using. We should also not assume that they never tried the material experts in this forum discussed or preferred. They sure have all the resources. But in the end they are using what is on their speakers now. I like the way you don't discount anything and you can accept certain differences that different material could bring. I look at this BD5 new speakers and wonder why wood is not the sole supreme gate to heaven for them. Why would they ruin the great sound of this driver using tempered acrylic glass not wood? Are we too picky to make us supreme?

 

[bonzo75]

Those kind of speakers above are difficult to make in wood unless some wood expert is hired. Hence I bought out Ralph's example for his type of horn and cost it should be an issue.

And the Anima on the other hand uses low cost components but chose to use wood instead of saving costs there. All the examples above are precisely why I am saying it is just the designer's sound philosophy. We can only judge on the finished product and both have their successes, which have more to do with the rest of the speaker design

 

[bonzo75]

@PeterA why are you using steel for vibration control not wood? And if steel why not stillpoints?

 

[tima]

@PeterA why are you using steel for vibration control not wood? And if steel why not stillpoints?

I suspect the idea behind using heavy steel plates is sheer mass - the same idea behind David's 'The Nothing Rack'. Steel is denser than wood and more appropriate to a racked applicaiton. It is one of several standard techniques used in industrial applications, such as putting a machine on a massy foundation.

I don't pretend to be a scientist but from what I understand: If the mass of a system is increased while the force input remains constant, the vibration response will decrease. (Newton's 2nd Law: F=Ma where F=Force, M=Mass, a=acceleration.) For this to be effective the 'machine' should be tightly coupled to the foundation, the two becoming a system. Mass reduces the system response to a constant exciting force. And I read that a rule of thumb is the foundation should be 5X the machine weight.

Stillpoints are a completely different approach. Vibration traveling into a stainless-steel Stillpoints device transfer energy into multiple internal ceramic(?) balls whose own vibration causes friction against each other, turning the mechanical energy into heat that dissapates. I tried Stillpoints under my M1.2 Refs and they had what seemed to be a somewhat clarifying effect but also yielded a slight up-tilt in higher frequencies. People over what ... 35? ... experience high frequency hearing loss thus the Stillpoints seem to 'unveil' an area of the spectrum they are missing. But it's a coloration added to every record. I found a far far better solution using VA-Class amp stands.

Of course Peter can tell you why he chose steel plates, not wood or Stillpoints.

 

[bonzo75]

Tima, my question was in the context of the conversation. Different materials get chosen for different strategies. I am a fan of shun mook but not of quadraspire or other wooden racks. There are many shun mook fans who tried ebony alternates and failed.

The Yamamura owner told me that there were 4 speakers made by Yamamura and he liked the 4th. Material was the same. What yamamura was doing was fine tuning his design, the size of the speaker etc. This is always the case, irrespective of the material. What designers who succeed have done well is fine tune their design, whatever the material of the speaker. All materials have a voicing. There are so many ways to make a speaker sound bad (overall design, crossover, drivers), that it is impossible for someone to say wood sounds better than composite, same is claiming epoxy resin as the magic material because Rockport Arrakis uses it. There is just no way someone can establish that. Rockport can do it for their rockport speaker that's all.

There are some things in audio that are difficult to confirm. Confirming speaker material is probably the toughest. Anyone can list the speakers they like and the ones they dislike, the least pattern you will find is with speaker material. It is also the toughest to practically research, because you cannot replace the material of a speaker with another and see if like changes to dislike or vice versa.

The other thing in audio difficult to do is making statements on DDs vs idlers vs belts and generalizing them. I summarized why I think this is difficult to do here https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/belt-drive-turntable-sucks-what-do-u-thk.32980/post-721032 .

 

[Audiophile Bill]

I think people's hearing could be in the same direction but not every tiny single aspect. Obviously the designers you mentioned like the way his speakers voice using composite. We cannot discount experience of the speaker designer above. They have their reason, sonic and non-sonic, why they choose material they are using. We should also not assume that they never tried the material experts in this forum discussed or preferred. They sure have all the resources. But in the end they are using what is on their speakers now. I like the way you don't discount anything and you can accept certain differences that different material could bring. I look at this BD5 new speakers and wonder why wood is not the sole supreme gate to heaven for them. Why would they ruin the great sound of this driver using tempered acrylic glass not wood? Are we too picky to make us supreme?

View attachment 79911

Commercial design of products isn’t solely about sound quality as you can imagine. Both aesthetics and ease of manufacturer as well as structural stability are key. This material is very stable and can look nice if that is your type of style.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Those kind of speakers above are difficult to make in wood unless some wood expert is hired. Hence I bought out Ralph's example for his type of horn and cost it should be an issue.

And the Anima on the other hand uses low cost components but chose to use wood instead of saving costs there. All the examples above are precisely why I am saying it is just the designer's sound philosophy. We can only judge on the finished product and both have their successes, which have more to do with the rest of the speaker design

Those speakers are very easy to make in wood. The design is very straightforward to cut and assemble in wood. No need for any craftsman for those - very simple.

Anima mid range horn is a lovely built / produced thing imho.

Below you will see a backloaded horn using AER driver that is indeed very difficult to fabricate from Charney audio:



Then a front loaded horn from the incomparable John Inlow in solid maple - a total work of genius:

 

[bonzo75]

Those speakers are very easy to make in wood. The design is very straightforward to cut and assemble in wood. No need for any craftsman for those - very simple.

Anima mid range horn is a lovely built / produced thing imho.

Below you will see a backloaded horn using AER driver that is indeed very difficult to fabricate from Charney audio:

View attachment 79912

Then a front loaded horn from the incomparable John Inlow in solid maple - a total work of genius:

View attachment 79913

So if it's easy then to Tang's point why does he not make it. I thought it would be difficult to make similar to charney