Has Magico lost its Touch?

[Al M.]

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“.

Peter, I was originally reacting to your statement:
"Jeff, I think, made a fantastic point earlier about the hobby having been one for the middle classes is now considered extremely expensive."

Thirty years ago it was probably more normal to have a hifi system, but in the price range "for the middle classes" you can get even better sound now. So this hobby doesn't have to be extremely expensive. And measured by the common quality standards back then it did not become more expensive, on the contrary I would argue.

 

[bonzo75]

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.

Why is epoxy resin considered an advancement in sound? Or is this based on the fact that it is more inert than wood and more expensive? Or has someone done studies with speakers that sounded good with wood and replaced them with epoxy resin to conclude this? Maybe the issue with these speakers is the inert cabinet material, not to mention having a cabinet.

Also, your post makes no mention of the tiny drivers of wilson and rockport, teeny weeny insensitive woofers, complex crossovers that rob the signal, mismatched drivers, and small voice coils. It only mentions the large inert cabinet these lower quality (compared to Altec, TAD, WE, etc) drivers and crossovers are wrapped up in.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Why is epoxy resin considered an advancement in sound? . . .

I am afraid you mis-read or misunderstood my post.

Where did I state that I consider epoxy resin to be an "advancement in sound"?

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . Also, your post makes no mention of the tiny drivers of wilson and rockport, teeny weeny insensitive woofers, complex crossovers that rob the signal, mismatched drivers, and small voice coils. It only mentions the large inert cabinet these lower quality (compared to Altec, TAD, WE, etc) drivers and crossovers are wrapped up in.

I don't understand what kind of logic is this? You are correct -- I did not mention those things. I did not mention those things because I am not addressing those things.

I also did not address the topics of seals, ice cream or frisbee, as they also were not relevant to my point about advancements in materials science.

 

[bonzo75]

There is an advancement in materials only if it correlates to sound. For example, if someone uses a high quality steel, it is only relevant if it improves sound.

 

[XV-1]

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

everything old is new again - older large speakers, very easy to drive, difficult to control the bass

 

[Gregm]

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.

I agree that components and tools have progressed---as to the results being better, de gustibus non est disputandum...

*Theile-Small parametres & modelling software were not available in the 50s. *Diamond (ultra-hard ceramic), magnesium, titanium, beryllium, etc cones were not available either.
*As well as CNC, exotic polymers, etc.
*OTOH, hi-magnetic flux alnico magnets are now much more expensive and, consequently, much less used.


Speaking of contemporary speakers, regardless of price, there seems to be an emphasis on razor-sharp detail extraction and immediacy in reproduction. I attribute this trend to the home cinema, "virtual reality", approach.

My memories listening to vintage models (Cabasse Albatros, Tannoy Westminster, huge Sansui) are of a middle rows presentation. lush sound, and impressive transient speed. (Middle row as opposed to front row, arm's length away from stage)
These were hi-sensitivity speakers using powerful alnico drivers or field coils, driven by tube amplification working in its most linear region @ 0.5-1.0 W. Big sound impressed me no-end when I was a kid!

 

[morricab]

I doubt it. Some people are never satisfied. However, I do wonder how much longer they can make new speakers. At some point I suspect speaker technology will stop improving at below stratosphere price points.

I suspect many here would say it went distinctly backwards from the past...

 

[morricab]

I do not think that Myles and I selling our Magico speakers means anything. I moved more toward Vitavox/Lamm than away from Magico/Pass and my Q3 sounded amazingly good with the Lamm M1.1.

Did Miles go to Wilsons?

 

[Gregm]

The USSR regime had kept them suppressed listening to their performances on Melodiya

Indeed -- and, perversly, some of those Melodiya masterings are better than the subsequent remasters (take Shchedrin's Carmen for example)!

 

[bonzo75]

Indeed -- and, perversly, some of those Melodiya masterings are better than the subsequent remasters (take Shchedrin's Carmen for example)!

Some are excellent

 

[microstrip]

There is an advancement in materials only if it correlates to sound. For example, if someone uses a high quality steel, it is only relevant if it improves sound.

IMHO advance in materials is a short term for saying "properly using modern materials to achieve different sound results that some people will consider a sound they prefer".

I can't see why there is debate on this aspect - since long we know that very seldom we have direct correlation between simple objective facts and subjective sound quality in stereo.

New materials open new opportunities to designers, mostly because they can control and fine tune aspects that are not controllable in conventional materials - see for example that David could not duplicate his Bionor's, although he tried it.

 

[morricab]

I wish someone could produce today the sound of the best vintage speakers and turntables, and the looks of the best cars from the 1960s. They can do it with sailboats from the 30s.

Imagine if Magico made a cone speaker with 95+ dB efficiency, and with fewer drivers and simpler crossovers. Then we would see if the advances in driver materials and cabinet construction are meaningfully better than what has been done before.

You should suggest this to them! Maybe they would make a great high efficiency speaker (oh, wait they did thsi with their Ultimate monster...maybe something smaller??)

 

[morricab]

Magico may not have been the first to use graphene coated carbon fiber cones in their midrange and bass drivers, but they were probably the most prominent. Their use of Aluminum honeycomb cores in their M9 and A5 mid and bass drivers is claimed to be a first and a major factor in these products' performance excellence.
IMO the previously mentioned use of computer software modeling tools by many speaker and driver manufacturers has definitely been a revolutionary development and has lead to significant performance improvements at contained costs (compared to cost/performance would have been without these tools).

I think the Japanese were making honeycomb drivers in some of their speakers in the 1980s.

 

[GSOphile]

Why did the chicken cross the road?

 

[morricab]

Expensive cabinets are not evidence of R&D. Probably Magico sound dead because they have spent with inefficient R&D

This is not correct...it is indeed evidence of R&D given the dramatic importance of a cabinet on speakers that rely on this for bass (vented or sealed boxes). Not talking about the price per/se but the use of technology in those cabinets to control resonances. There is a clear modern concept that control of those resonances allows for clearer sound as the speaker does less "speaking" on it's own. You may or may not agree with the reasons to make a dead or resonance controlled cabinet but some companies have used technology (developed through R&D at least somewhere) to achieve this. Other companies (like Audio Note UK) reject this as giving an unnatural outcome.

 

[morricab]

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.

Because for the longest time they threw the baby out with the bath water. In the pursuit of better cabinets and flatter responses they threw away DYNAMICS that lived in the speakers thinking they could compensate by hundreds (or even thousands) of watts of bad sounding amplifier power...except that speakers will simply stop getting louder at some point and distortion starts to rise sharply.

There has been a reawakening towards higher sensitivity speakers, which I think is due to the renaissance of the single ended triode in the late 90s.

That is why, despite some rather obvious objective flaws, old horn systems can subjectively sound more realistic...they have got an effortless way of presenting sound that can to some degree give a "live" feeling when listening. I am sure your Vitavoxes don't measure brilliant by today's standards as well as having a lot of resonances that a modern speaker designer would tut tut; however, upon listening one forgets all that because it just sounds better than nearly (if not all) those "perfect" speakers.

I actually expect that the best sound high sensitivity speakers are yet to come as more and more people start to design in this "new" paradigm.

 

[XV-1]

Did Miles go to Wilsons?

-Zellaton Plural Evo speakers - soft dome tweeters.

 

[PeterA]

Did Miles go to Wilsons?

No

 

[PeterA]

IMHO advance in materials is a short term for saying "properly using modern materials to achieve different sound results that some people will consider a sound they prefer".

I can't see why there is debate on this aspect - since long we know that very seldom we have direct correlation between simple objective facts and subjective sound quality in stereo.

New materials open new opportunities to designers, mostly because they can control and fine tune aspects that are not controllable in conventional materials - see for example that David could not duplicate his Bionor's, although he tried it.

do you think David would’ve had more success replicating his speakers in more modern materials because they provide more flexibility, controllability, and fine-tuning capabilities?

do people like horn speakers made out of plastic and metal and exotic raisins or do they prefer them made out of wood and non-exotic materials? Are Nanotech 15 inch drivers an advancement over lightweight paper 15 inch drivers?

I agree with you the people have different preferences and more materials allows for more speaker changes and model designations and price points and turnover and profits for the companies and ad copy for the magazines.

The new materials certainly create a different sound. Some prefer it and call it advancement. No arguing that it is cool and expensive and different. Small manufacturers seem capable of producing unbelievable fit and finish products that appear to be quite profitable.

in the end, I think the measure of progress should be the degree of enjoyment and pleasure derived from the product.