Has Magico lost its Touch?

[bonzo75]

I thought armchair audiophile were bad. Now its instant expert, military jet design, just add internet.

How do you think the US won the cold war? KGB is sh*t scared of these defence experts

 

[sbnx]

certainly not an expert and not claiming to be. The point is 50's technology vs 2000's technology. Which is better? Everyone should turn in their cell phones and turn off the internet and go back to black and white TV (all 3 channels). 50's technology was awesome!

 

[bonzo75]

certainly not an expert and not claiming to be. The point is 50's technology vs 2000's technology. Which is better? Everyone should turn in their cell phones and turn off the internet and go back to black and white TV (all 3 channels). 50's technology was awesome!

Again if you try to appreciate, the incentive go for cell phones, computers, and fighter planes and vaccines is different from audio. Audio was better in 50s because there was more financial incentive there. Today's incentive is in portable hifi not in Magico type speakers. There are no companies left today that cater to audiophiles. The ones remaining are in comparison garage operations. Also the vintage ones today are the survivors, so naturally they are better like Beethoven, Bach, and led zep

 

[Al M.]

certainly not an expert and not claiming to be. The point is 50's technology vs 2000's technology. Which is better? Everyone should turn in their cell phones and turn off the internet and go back to black and white TV (all 3 channels). 50's technology was awesome!

Precisely. Any $100 cell phone has vastly more computing power than the Apollo 11 onboard computer, developed in 1968, which was a technological breakthrough at the time.

Saying that basic speaker technology hasn't changed makes as much sense as claiming basic computer technology hasn't changed just because the Apollo 11 computer used integrated circuits (ICs) as well. Now would I choose the Apollo 11 onboard computer over my cheap cell phone on which I typed this post? Hmmm, let me think for just a second....

 

[bonzo75]

Hmmm, let me think for just a second....

Take your time don't hurt yourself

 

[Al M.]

Take your time don't hurt yourself

LOL

 

[microstrip]

yes it is a Magico thread. Thank you for two specific examples. They are new and different and advanced but I’m not convinced it makes for improvement in sound quality. Sometimes a dead cabinet sounds dead. I enjoyed that sound for a long time and many others do as well however there are many people who do not like the sound of Magico speakers despite the claims of advancement.

In the end I am still not convinced the technological advancement has improved the sound of audio equipment at the top end. Even a vintage JBL or Klipsch May sound better for half the price of any Magico entry speaker.

Sure there are new measuring techniques but do these get us to a better sounding speaker then from the days when designers simply used their ears to design wooden cabinets?

Yes, it is a complex subjective hobby and no one wants to convince anyone of anything. You are posting your opinion about your preference, I only gave you facts of modern technology being involved in stereo sound reproduction, not judgments on sound quality. But anyone looking at my signature will see I am a believer in modern technology proper use in sound reproduction.

I take your personnel point of view as an opinion, but once you refer to "many others" I ask how many? Because as far as I know Magico has many fans and is a successful company, and looking around outside the WBF small number of Magico haters I see that the number of people who like it is extremely large - although surely many people that like it own different speakers. We can't have all of them!

BTW, moving outside the speaker domain, our Lamm's are a lot more than 1950 technology. Even for parts technology - the dielectrics of the capacitors are top quality film, not obsolete insulator films, the expensive resistors are modern low noise high stability. Even the mains filters are industry selected modern versions.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I think y'all are making this complicated and unnecessarily combative.

1) Speaker cabinet materials have advanced since the 1950s. Does anyone truly wish to argue that Wilson's exotic cabinet materials and Rockport's epoxy resin processes are not more advanced than basic MDF construction?

2) Vintage or advanced technology implementation is a question completely separate from the question of which design one subjectively likes the sound of better. Whether someone prefers the sound of speakers whose cabinets are made of MDF (or vintage hardwood) or whose cabinets are made of more recent advanced resin materials is totally subjective.

Are there any other open issues on the table?

PS: I personally think that generic analogies to other industries are not helpful and do not advance this discussion.

 

[PeterA]

Precisely. Any $100 cell phone has vastly more computing power than the Apollo 11 onboard computer, developed in 1968, which was a technological breakthrough at the time.

Saying that basic speaker technology hasn't changed makes as much sense as claiming basic computer technology hasn't changed just because the Apollo 11 computer used integrated circuits (ICs) as well. Now would I choose the Apollo 11 onboard computer over my cheap cell phone on which I typed this post? Hmmm, let me think for just a second....

First, we’re talking about audio technology not black and white TVs and dial-up telephones from the 1950s. Cell phones and Internet are great modern technologies but second, the subject here I thought was whether technological advances and current research and development in high end Audio has led to appreciably better sound.

Perhaps it has and some people will point to stiffer speaker cabinets and stiffer drivers and more complex crossovers. Different materials with different properties. Better testing techniques. What interests me is whether or not all of that expense and advancement has actually lead to better sound.

There’s no question that speakers are smaller and fit into our smaller rooms better and perhaps have higher wife approval factors. Fit and finish is unbelievable for Magico and Wilson. You get big sound with a small footprint. In some sense all of that is progress. Does it sound better? Perhaps in a few cases but I’m no longer convinced.

I think some electronics have gotten better but I don’t have a lot of experience over the decades. I am not at all convinced that turntables have gotten any better.

Jeff, I think, made a fantastic point earlier about the hobby having been one for the middle classes is now considered extremely expensive. It’s a pretty rare hobby now and out of reach for a lot of people for all the reasons previously stated. But in the end, it may not matter. Most people seem to have other interests now anyway.

 

[PeterA]

I think y'all are making this complicated and unnecessarily combative.

1) Speaker cabinet materials have advanced since the 1950s. Does anyone truly wish to argue that Wilson's exotic cabinet materials and Rockport's epoxy resin processes are not more advanced than basic MDF construction?

2) Vintage or advanced technology implementation is a question completely separate from the question of which design one subjectively likes the sound of better. Whether someone prefers the sound of speakers whose cabinets are made of MDF (or vintage hardwood) or whose cabinets are made of more recent advanced resin materials is totally subjective.

Are there any other open issues on the table?

PS: I personally think that generic analogies to other industries are not helpful and do not advance this discussion.

Sure preferences are subjective. And some people prefer the sound of older gear with older technology for whatever reason. What’s interesting to me is that new technology with audio does not universally lead to consensus about better sound. Why is that? Why do better measurements and stiffer materials and other technological advances not automatically lead to better sound?

That is the interesting question which is worthy of contemplation and discussion in my opinion.

 

[Al M.]

Jeff, I think, made a fantastic point earlier about the hobby having been one for the middle classes is now considered extremely expensive. It’s a pretty rare hobby now and out of reach for a lot of people for all the reasons previously stated. But in the end, it may not matter. Most people seem to have other interests now anyway.

And yet, you can have fantastic sound quality for a relatively moderate price, in a system with a digital front end as source. I doubt that, adjusted for inflation, you could have had such sound from a system at a similar price three decades ago. The hobby doesn't have to be extremely expensive.

 

[Kingsrule]

1202

 

[microstrip]

First, we’re talking about audio technology not black and white TVs and dial-up telephones from the 1950s. Cell phones and Internet are great modern technologies but second, the subject here I thought was whether technological advances and current research and development in high end Audio has led to appreciably better sound.

Perhaps it has and some people will point to stiffer speaker cabinets and stiffer drivers and more complex crossovers. Different materials with different properties. Better testing techniques. What interests me is whether or not all of that expense and advancement has actually lead to better sound.

If your reference is your current preference for vintage sound the answer surely the answer is no. But according to the preferences of most audiophiles, who listen to different types of music and favor other types of sound reproduction there is clear improvement since the 50's. Considering your current sound reference has the status of unobtainium very few people will be able to help us with direct opinions.

There’s no question that speakers are smaller and fit into our smaller rooms better and perhaps have higher wife approval factors. Fit and finish is unbelievable for Magico and Wilson. You get big sound with a small footprint. In some sense all of that is progress. Does it sound better? Perhaps in a few cases but I’m no longer convinced.

There is life in the high-end beyond Magico and Wilson. But the XLF's do not have a small footprint. And they are less rare and easier to listen than your speakers ...

I think some electronics have gotten better but I don’t have a lot of experience over the decades. I am not at all convinced that turntables have gotten any better.

Yes, we can perhaps consider that vinyl has reached its limit and peak development some time ago, although the people who have experience with the recent ultra-expensive turntables tell us otherwise. I consider the TechDas One a SOTA turntable.

Vinyl sound is so diverse and rich that it can easily become a matter of preference, not of real improvement. It is why I keep tape as a reference.

 

[microstrip]

Sure preferences are subjective. And some people prefer the sound of older gear with older technology for whatever reason. What’s interesting to me is that new technology with audio does not universally lead to consensus about better sound. Why is that? Why do better measurements and stiffer materials and other technological advances not automatically lead to better sound?

That is the interesting question which is worthy of contemplation and discussion in my opinion.

We will never have a consensus of "better" in the high-end - stereo is too individual to allow such general ranking.

The absence of an absolute ranking makes your interesting question a false problem. But high-end design being also a psychoacoustic matter, that I do not have problem calling a form art, no automatic processes are currently possible. But as far as I have read audio scholars have worked in such models, aiming to achieve a single figure of objective merit.

 

[PeterA]

And yet, you can have fantastic sound quality for a relatively moderate price, in a system with a digital front end as source. I doubt that, adjusted for inflation, you could have had such sound from a system at a similar price three decades ago. The hobby doesn't have to be extremely expensive.

Al, could you give two or three examples of “fantastic sound quality“ systems available knew for a relatively moderate price? And what parts of these two or three examples has what we would consider technological advances?

What is your standard for fantastic sound quality and what do you consider a moderate price?

It would help to know how you define your standard here.

 

[Joe Whip]

Well, I can chip in here. I have Vandersteen 3A Signature speakers, a Spectral DMC 5 pre amp I bought used in the early ‘90’s, a totally rebuilt McCormack DNA 1 amp, A Schiit Yggdrasil DAC and all power cords and power distribution by a pro audio company, Essential Sound Products. Cabling by AQ and the cables are long in the tooth. The room was built for my system in mind. I have two 20 amp circuits, one for the amp and the other for the rest of the equipment. Every time I listen I am blown away by the sound. It never gets old. The speakers were bought in 1997, the amp in 1991 and rebuilt in 2020 with the gravity bass added last year. So, a mix of old and new. Very modest cost and as far as I am concerned, superb sound. As for Magico and Wilson for that matter, not a fan.

 

[Al M.]

Al, could you give two or three examples of “fantastic sound quality“ systems available knew for a relatively moderate price? And what parts of these two or three examples has what we would consider technological advances?

What is your standard for fantastic sound quality and what do you consider a moderate price?

It would help to know how you define your standard here.

Fantastic not by my current own esoteric audiophile standards, but fantastic by, for example, the standards of non-audiophile visitors who would hear my system and be blown away.

Example 1:
Reference 3A MM DeCapo BE monitors.
At $ 3,000 they were at least as good or, mostly, better than my Ensemble Reference monitors that, with inflation adjusted price, would have cost about 11 grand at the time I bought the Reference 3A monitors. The Ensemble speakers were very well regarded when I bought them beginning of the 90s, so much so that they were then considered of having set a new standard in their class.

Substantially better at a MUCH cheaper price? I call that progress. Better speaker drivers, better cabinet construction.

Example 2:
Schiit Vidar amplifier, $ 700, which I bought in case I have an amp failure (less urgent with my Octave amp than with my previous tube amps). For this price the amp is embarrassingly good, and would probably smoke any of the cheaper amps from the beginning of the 90s that I have heard.

 

[bonzo75]

All the people here have heard many modem speakers. So here's a simple exercise. Those who claim speakers are better today should just list the vintage speakers that they heard. I suspect there will be few to none, with people basing their claims on cell phones, computers, fighter planes, etc or random brands like a one off acoustic research

 

[PeterA]

Fantastic not by my current own esoteric audiophile standards, but fantastic by, for example, the standards of non-audiophile visitors who would hear my system and be blown away.

Example 1:
Reference 3A MM DeCapo BE monitors.
At $ 3,000 they were at least as good or, mostly, better than my Ensemble Reference monitors that, with inflation adjusted price, would have cost about 11 grand at the time I bought the Reference 3A monitors. The Ensemble speakers were very well regarded when I bought them beginning of the 90s, so much so that they were then considered of having set a new standard in their class.

Substantially better at a MUCH cheaper price? I call that progress. Better speaker drivers, better cabinet construction.

Example 2:
Schiit Vidar amplifier, $ 700, which I bought in case I have an amp failure (less urgent with my Octave amp than with my previous tube amps). For this price the amp is embarrassingly good, and would probably smoke any of the cheaper amps from the beginning of the 90s that I have heard.

Thank you Al. I was actually hoping for two or three examples of full systems and what they might cost. And then how they take advantage of advanced technology.

I suppose if we all agreed that we could get fantastic sound quality from relatively moderately priced systems then no one would be complaining about the high cost of high end audio.

I guess I have a different understanding of the term “fantastic“.

 

[tima]

How do you think the US won the cold war?

Reagen
And Star Wars