ack's system - end of round 1

[Elberoth]

No one to date has been able to bring forth any pictures of any sort of midrange enclosure in the S5Mk1. This is why I don't give a damn about you, audioquattr and others like you. Show me the data, and then we can discuss again.

Maybe YOU will prove us all wrong, showing the mid and bass drivers work in a single volume ?

Why do you put the burden of proof of your radiculous claims on others ?

I do not ask for much - just show me a vid where pushing a bass driver on the S5 mk1 makes the mid go out.

If they are connected by joint volume, the air pushed by the bass driver will push the mid out. Simple physics.

Not to even mention, listening to a speaker with DUAL 10" bass drivers and 5" mid in a SINGLE sealed volume would be impossible - the first bass note would sent the midrange driver out of orbit !

BTW - are you a flat earth theory supporter as well ? Or maybe antivaccine kind of guy ? 'Cos that would at least make perfect sense.

 

[ack]

Maybe YOU will prove us all wrong, showing the mid and bass drivers work in a single volume ?

Why do you put the burden of proof of your radiculous claims on others ?

I do not ask for much - just show me a vid where pushing a bass driver on the S5 mk1 makes the mid go out.

If they are connected by joint volume, the air pushed by the bass driver will push the mid out. Simple physics.

Not to even mention, listening to a speaker with DUAL 10" bass drivers and 5" mid in a SINGLE sealed volume would be impossible - the first bass note would sent the midrange driver out of orbit !

BTW - are you a flat earth theory supporter as well ? Or maybe antivaccine kind of guy ? 'Cos that would at least make perfect sense.

Show me the data and then we can discuss. Let me know when you are done supporting unsubstantiated claims of magico grandeur in this case, because I happen to believe Mackay. You just have no data.

 

[cannata]

Show me the data and then we can discuss. Let me know when you are done supporting unsubstantiated claims of magico grandeur in this case, because I happen to believe Mackay

I would not call the use of a midrange enclosure a grandeur of any kind, more like a necessity

 

[Elberoth]

You are a physics denier, just like those flat earthers.

If you had D from physics in high shool and do not understand how stuff works (it happens), than ask ANY speaker designer, if that is even remotely possible.

Everyone will tell you the same: no, that is not possible. Two 10" woofers and one 5" mid in a joint sealed encloseure would mean that if woofers moved as little as 1mm, the mid would need to move as much as 5mm or so to compensate (it has a smaller area so has to move more to displace the eaqual amount of volume). Now imagine woofers moving not 1mm, but 5mm, which is pretty common on a speaker which goes down to 20Hz in room - the mid driver would go out of orbit as it would run out of excursion !

You can even read that from the distortion figures of the Magico S5 mk 1 speaker (again: you need to have a BASIC understanding of speaker design, which obviously you do not have):

IF the drivers were in the same joint sealed volume, at 95dB (which is really loud) the distorsion in the mids would skyrocket. Here, we see ... none (left trace; the distortion fugures are so low that go out of scale after 70Hz; it is perfectly normal for a speaker to have higher distortion # in the bass).

 

[audioquattr]

Maybe YOU will prove us all wrong, showing the mid and bass drivers work in a single volume ?

Why do you put the burden of proof of your radiculous claims on others ?

I do not ask for much - just show me a vid where pushing a bass driver on the S5 mk1 makes the mid go out.

If they are connected by joint volume, the air pushed by the bass driver will push the mid out. Simple physics.

Not to even mention, listening to a speaker with DUAL 10" bass drivers and 5" mid in a SINGLE sealed volume would be impossible - the first bass note would sent the midrange driver out of orbit !

BTW - are you a flat earth theory supporter as well ? Or maybe antivaccine kind of guy ? 'Cos that would at least make perfect sense.

+1

Even the 5” mid in its own rectangle housing is effecting his own with the standing waves (in its working freq range) because of the small cabinet dimensions. That’s why the mk2 (all magico’s since S3) has an improved midrange cabinet, not rectangle anymore with less standing waves etc. The M6 has improved that even more.

 

[Elberoth]

The S5 mk 1 had a rectangular mid cabinet. I know 'cos I have opened mine. My pair was reviewed by Polish AUDIO magazine (I've been working for AUDIO magazine for 25 years) and we tried to remove the drivers to take the pictures of the drive units from their backs. Unfortunately the mid was the only one that came out easily - the tweeter and woofers were stuck and didn't want to come out even after removing all the bolts holding them (most likely held in place by their rubber spacers). We were not able to push the bass drivers out 'cos of that mid enclosure, so we aborted and the review was published it without the usual driver pictures.

https://audio.com.pl/testy/stereo/zespoly-glosnikowe/2379-magico-s5

 

[NorthStar]

Power compression (top) and total harmonic distortion (bottom), exemplary!

 

[ack]

No one denied physics Adam, I take Mackay's comment to me - that it had no enclosure - at face value. Nonetheless, the S5Mk1 sounded distorted in the midrange, plain and simple, hence Magico's claim in ads of some 20% decrease in midrange distortion in the Mk2. You saw a rectangular midrange enclosure in your Mk1, and now audioquattr says there may be issues with standing waves (which is true, from a physics standpoint). Either way, yet more reasons to firmly claim they rushed to market with that speaker. Moreover, we showed back way when, with pictures, that the Q3 also has a rectangular box, yet it has no easily discernible midrange distortion unlike the S5Mk1 - so a little difficult to reconcile the Q3 vs S5Mk1 in that respect, if they indeed both had rectangular midrange enclosures. I am willing to believe whatever S5Mk1 pictures folks may ever care to provide, at any point in time... but meantime, I take your word, and I think we can draw this one to a close, again, and you may assume I remain as unconvinced as ever.

Moving on, wrt the M3's sound at the dealer's that many of us have heard and don't care for, I am going to share the dealer's claim when asked, that I have shared with the folks here in the past; he says the reason the M3s are not performing is because of the MIT cables. I have no way of confirming that, but find it a little hard to believe. I'd like to see owners write up their experiences with these speakers, and I don't think I have seen any details yet.

Back to ML... Today, I elected to replace the step-up transformers anyway, since ML had sent them to me as well, along with the power supplies, just to try them out. The old one is on the right, the one on the left. I am not totally impressed with the potting job in the new one, but it is what it is; the old one looks more professionally done.



Appearances aside, there is clearly less distortion at loud volumes and a little additional resolution, so they are here to stay as well, for a complete overhaul. There is now more proof that electrostatic sound is greatly affected by the quality of the power supply and the step-up transformer, as well the panel construction and crossover.

Finally, I tried to cannibalize the old panels, to see how well constructed they were; I had to pry the stators apart with a heavy-duty screwdriver and a lot of force - really impressed with the panel's build quality. The pictures below also show part of the mylar I tried to break off, which was really hard to do, and it goes to show how strong this material is despite being extremely thin, as shown





Enjoying music again...

 

[Elberoth]

I'm quite certain, Peter Mackay did not understand your question correctly. He probably ment no rounded mid enclosure, not no enclosure at all.

This is a simple physics and there is simply no way around it.

The S5 mk1 had an aluminium enclosure that was rectangular in shape - very much like most of the speakers. It is the rounded mid enclosure that is unique, not vice versa.

Magico have claimed 20% reduction in distortion for their new mid driver - a claim hard to verify, as the distoritions were already class leading low in the S5 mk 1 (didn't even show up on that graph - NRC should consider expanding their scale to properly test such low distorting speakers as the Magicos).

I have owned S5 mk 1 and never heard the distorsion you are talking about. And in case of a midrange driver working in a joint sealed volume with the bass drivers, the distorsions would be severe (mid driver constantly bottoming out).

On the contrary - the S5 mk 1 was one of the least colored and transparent speakers that graced my listening room. The S5 mk 2 have rised the bar even further.

 

[ack]

We can agree on the S5Mk2. I do have my eyes on a deep-blue version of it, if the MLs don't work out.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Magico have claimed 20% reduction in distortion for their new mid driver - a claim hard to verify, as the distoritions were already class leading low in the S5 mk 1 (didn't even show up on that graph - NRC should consider expanding their scale to properly test such low distorting speakers as the Magicos). (...)

Adam,

My comment also addresses many other brands, not specifically Magico. If a manufacturer makes such claims he should supply the proper measurements so consumers can check them. Making claims and expecting magazines or web sites to carry the measurements is ridiculous. At some time I would be have been interested in the Q7 and Q7 mk2 if I had graphs of their their impedance versus frequency and data on their real sensitivity.

 

[ack]

The case for what we hear is not necessarily what the microphones capture

So I just had an interesting experience... two Saturdays ago, we attended the Mahler 2nd BSO concert, sitting as usual at the center of the 2nd balcony; these Saturday concerts are broadcast live on FM locally, and then re-broadcast two Mondays later from "tape", i.e. tonight. So tonight I had the chance to record the concert on my Revox, and I did.

Not only was the broadcast sound distinctly different and clearer with small instruments - like the flute, or even the percussionist taps the wooden side of the bass drum with a stick in the 3rd movement - from what I heard live, I heard things (like some triangles) that I did not in the hall - sitting so far away from the orchestra - and equally important, the organ at the very end had all the high pitch notes I would expect from that piece during the FM broadcast, and that's something that was distinctly supressed (and puzzled me at that moment) from the live performance, at least as I experienced it in my seat.

Quite interesting, first-hand results...

 

[PeterA]

Interesting observations, Ack. Thank you for sharing them. I would love to hear that recording some time.

I have long suspected that if using live music as a reference, one should sit fairly close to where the mics are located for a closer approximation of what one hears on the recording, both in terms of absolute information, and the listening perspective. I know you prefer a much further back listening perspective when listening live. I usually sit in row 7, center. I realize neither is the same as what is on the recording, and the mic "hears" differently from the way we do, but it is an interesting discussion. I suppose it depends on what one's goals are. You have clearly stated that for you, listening live is a completely different thing than what you are trying to enjoy your system. This is, live music is a completely different experience from recorded music. I respect that.

 

[ack]

Thanks Peter. Yes, I don't listen to live music in order to judge my stereo system; I go to listen to a great live performance.

 

[MadFloyd]

Thanks for reporting that, Tasos. I'm sure where I sit (1st balcony left close to the orchestra) is yet again a different sonic picture compared to the two you just compared. I feel I hear every instrument clearly and with wonderful tone and weight. The triangle is a great example of this - you just don't hear a triangle sound as full on any classical recording.

Just goes to illustrate how it's really up to one's preferences in terms of how they'd like the music portrayed; the only thing that should be pervasive is the engagement - feeling like you're listening to a great performance.

 

[ack]

Just goes to illustrate how it's really up to one's preferences in terms of how they'd like the music portrayed; the only thing that should be pervasive is the engagement - feeling like you're listening to a great performance.

Couldn't agree more. For me, if the timbre is right and the system articulates well, I can't argue much about the rest.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I have long suspected that if using live music as a reference, one should sit fairly close to where the mics are located for a closer approximation of what one hears on the recording, both in terms of absolute information, and the listening perspective. I know you prefer a much further back listening perspective when listening live. I usually sit in row 7, center. I realize neither is the same as what is on the recording, and the mic "hears" differently from the way we do, but it is an interesting discussion. I suppose it depends on what one's goals are. You have clearly stated that for you, listening live is a completely different thing than what you are trying to enjoy your system. This is, live music is a completely different experience from recorded music. I respect that.

Peter,

When you go to a live performance, at best you create references to define your own preferences. If you are lucky, may be a few of your audiophile friends will share your preferences and you will agree on appreciation of some system attributes.

We can have opposite feelings concerning live performances - we have people who after living the experience of going live have such a strong remembrance of it that even a poor sound reproduction is enough to give them an enjoyable recreation of the illusion and those who using just some specific aspects of the live will focus on them, optimizing their systems around these memories for their enjoyment of recreating musical events, but augmenting their degree of exigence.

One think is sure - we can be music lovers and say music above all, but the way we listen to live music is influenced by the sound reproduction we have at home.

All YMHO, YMMV.

 

[Al M.]

I have long suspected that if using live music as a reference, one should sit fairly close to where the mics are located for a closer approximation of what one hears on the recording, both in terms of absolute information, and the listening perspective. I know you prefer a much further back listening perspective when listening live.

Agreed. Also, I go to live concerts both to enjoy the concert, and to gather a sound reference for building my system. That's another reason why I like to sit closer to the orchestra or ensemble (the main reason being that I enjoy close impact). While reproduction at home will always sound different than live, also because mikes indeed hear differently than human ears, the live reference has crucially guided my choices of system, system components and room acoustics throughout the years.

 

[Al M.]

Thanks for reporting that, Tasos. I'm sure where I sit (1st balcony left close to the orchestra) is yet again a different sonic picture compared to the two you just compared. I feel I hear every instrument clearly and with wonderful tone and weight. The triangle is a great example of this - you just don't hear a triangle sound as full on any classical recording.

Yes, it's striking. I sat next to you during the Mahler 2, and both triangles and solo instruments were very clear. And boy, did the triangle sound have body.

I suspect that the high humidity during the Saturday Ack attended (it was raining) modulated the transmission of high frequencies through the air across the entire hall, such that triangles became less audible in the back. Humidity may also have affected the reflective/absorbing properties of all the wood in and around the hall.

 

[ack]

The perils and rewards of very high resolution

All throughout the last three decades, I have come to accept that with every upgrade there is usually also a price to pay, and it will eventually become obvious one way or another. This leads to upgraditis and tweaking - not necessarily bad things, though expensive and frustrating at times.

With the arrival of the Spectral DMA-500 Anniversary Reference monos last summer, pairing with the 30SV preamp, the musical bar in this system was raised far beyond expecations, but really materialized only after the new ML panels and panel-electronics were replaced. The level of resolution, articulation and musicality of these amps is something that one has to experience in a properly set up system to really appreciate.

However, there is a huge price to pay for such fine and high level of resolution: will the Spectral Super Veloce technology end up exposing major deficiencies in one's system? The answer is probably 'Most likely so'. In all likelihood, anyone who really hates high resolution, or find Spectral analytical despite all the musicality, will absolutely - absolutely - hate my system. It was indeed the case in here as well, which had me making a number of tweaks, before I could actually get to the point of really liking the sound:

1) The new step-up transformers driving the electrostatic panels have less distortion and noise than the originals

2) I had to modify the Alpha DAC further and address tiny high frequency hash and distortion; tiny, but audible; it probably had to do with a bit of an aggressive leading edge

3) Analog was still not exactly at its possible best; though bass performance was incredible, I was clamoring for a faster leading edge and better articulation. At the same time, there have always been sibilance issues with some LPs, and in that department, my test record has been the Sheffield 'Growing Up In Holywood Town', a redord I've had for over three decades. McBroom's sibilance has always sounded a bit phasey in here, and many other systems I've heard it in over the years. All of this had me experimenting with anti-skating and VTF/VTA. It has taken about two months, but I have finally been able to mostly get rid of the phasey sibilance, and equally important, bass performance is significantly improved in terms of speed and articulation. For bass adjustment, I used every single Telarc and Reference Recordings LP I have, and they are all true references in that area. Regarding VTF, the A90 was not tracking correctly (especially with Telarcs) until I went a tiny bit over the recommended 2.3g. Once more, analog proves to be a huge pain in the butt to finely tune, if it can ever be. But I have been able to get very high bass articulation, and that's what really matters now.

Analog performance would not be where it is right now without the modifications to the arm and the Pass XP-25 phono, as well as my custom platter interface, but at least now I can appreciate the qualities of the fundamentals of the Pass circuit itself, though I feel it still has a few problems in the treble region (which my DAC doesn't, with the same Reference Recordings material, but it could also be a number of other factors).

Digital performance would not be where it is right now without the 3000SL transport and my extensive DAC modifications, but the Berkeley folks also have a spectacular fundamental design.

When the local audiophile group visited last, I had not commenced on #3 yet. Nonetheless, I am now ready to link to that fantastic audition here https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...sary-reference-monos-take-center-stage.26949/ and sit back, relax and listen.

The Super Veloce technology is really frightening and dangerous, but since the results speak for themselves in here, Kudos to the Spectral team, and I am still waiting for that Phono stage, and hopefully it will bring me over the edge and finally exclaim Wow - I am not exactly there yet.