Is the box speaker a dinosaur?

[Gregadd]

I'm not trying to have a Magico commercial. But the factory tour seems to indicate substantial manufacturing cost.
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3113-Magico-factory-tour-online
As far as what is here to stay, I never thought I'd see it. But you can go to the trash can and get a Sony 36" cathode ray tv out of the trash. That's how dominant flat screen TVs have become. Whoever thought we would see a Magnepan desktop speaker?

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

I'm not trying to have a Magico commercial. But the factory tour seems to indicate substantial manufacturing cost.
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3113-Magico-factory-tour-online
As far as what is here to stay, I never thought I'd see it. But you can go to the trash can and get a Sony 36" cathode ray tv out of the trash. That's how dominant flat screen TVs have become. Whoever thought we would see a Magnepan desktop speaker?

Monsoon did it 15 years ago......

 

[FrantzM]

I'm not trying to have a Magico commercial. But the factory tour seems to indicate substantial manufacturing cost.
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3113-Magico-factory-tour-online
As far as what is here to stay, I never thought I'd see it. But you can go to the trash can and get a Sony 36" cathode ray tv out of the trash. That's how dominant flat screen TVs have become. Whoever thought we would see a Magnepan desktop speaker?

Greg

Looking at a factory is a poor indication of cost to manufacture. It may give an idea of the investment though.. Price has to factor cost to manufacture but it is far from determinant . Especially in the Luxury goods sector.
Most things we use now will become obsolete in a few years .. Are they all dinosaurs? No! They will eventually be surpassed by other, better products.. that's the way of progress . I would not qualify for example the iPad of dinosaur. In 10 years or maybe 2 years, no one knows, it may be replaced by a paper thin product with holographic display in 3 D.and direct drive to our brains. No one knows for now an ipad is not a dinosaur ... Same with box speakers... Most people here are using a box speakers, most people on the planet who care to have an audio system are using box speakers. There will be something new to come and it may have as its ancestor a panel speaker but for now Box speakers are ubiquitous and I don't see their demise anytime soon. Do you?

@wayne

So the Quad ESL 63 is capable of the SPL a Wilson Sasha can? or a more prosaic speaker say a PSB T6? News to me I owned the ESL 63 and it tended to simply reduce the volume when called to play loud .. Do you think the ESL 63 capable of 105 dB plus in a large room? Please come up with numbers. As for the CLS it was limited in the bass , very seriously .. Now that is what Hybrid configurations bring to panels, the cone speaker takes care of the bass allowing the panel to play louder in region of low physical excursions for the membrane i-e low mid and up.. Panels that play loud are big, very big.
I like the Quad ESL905 (?) but I don't think it is the slam-dunk the ESL-63 was .. It also address the weak bass and low overall SPL capabilities of Quad ESL speakers

 

[Gregadd]

The CLS had a lot more bass than given credit. You just need the right electronics. I prefered an amp that took advantage of its mid-range prowess. It could not compete with a boxed woofer. But that's a sub . Almost all speakers need that.

I suppose you decline to comment on what drives the cost of a speaker like the Q7. It's your call. That kind of weakens your position.

 

[FrantzM]

I have no idea what a Q7 cost to manufacture is Greg.
Do you? if not does that weaken your position?

 

[Gregadd]

 

[cjfrbw]

It's a porcu-snail!

 

[Gregadd]

Monsoon did it 15 years ago......

They made a Magnepan desktop or their own version of a planar magnetic desktop? :b
Who'd thunk it 15 years ago?:b


Edit:That's why I post here John. You guys know everything.

 

[A.wayne]

Greg

Looking at a factory is a poor indication of cost to manufacture. It may give an idea of the investment though.. Price has to factor cost to manufacture but it is far from determinant . Especially in the Luxury goods sector.
Most things we use now will become obsolete in a few years .. Are they all dinosaurs? No! They will eventually be surpassed by other, better products.. that's the way of progress . I would not qualify for example the iPad of dinosaur. In 10 years or maybe 2 years, no one knows, it may be replaced by a paper thin product with holographic display in 3 D.and direct drive to our brains. No one knows for now an ipad is not a dinosaur ... Same with box speakers... Most people here are using a box speakers, most people on the planet who care to have an audio system are using box speakers. There will be something new to come and it may have as its ancestor a panel speaker but for now Box speakers are ubiquitous and I don't see their demise anytime soon. Do you?

@wayne

So the Quad ESL 63 is capable of the SPL a Wilson Sasha can? or a more prosaic speaker say a PSB T6? News to me I owned the ESL 63 and it tended to simply reduce the volume when called to play loud .. Do you think the ESL 63 capable of 105 dB plus in a large room? Please come up with numbers. As for the CLS it was limited in the bass , very seriously .. Now that is what Hybrid configurations bring to panels, the cone speaker takes care of the bass allowing the panel to play louder in region of low physical excursions for the membrane i-e low mid and up.. Panels that play loud are big, very big.
I like the Quad ESL905 (?) but I don't think it is the slam-dunk the ESL-63 was .. It also address the weak bass and low overall SPL capabilities of Quad ESL speakers

Frantz,

I did see 100db peaks when listening , thats loud enuff for most here and it will play as loud as any panel speaker you can name , believe me , Your past ESL63 is nothing compared to the revamped ones, same as the Revamped ESL-57 ..

Quads unlimited is in Fla , when next in town , give them a listen , even Q-tips are supplied , all can be arranged ....

 

[Gregadd]

I have no idea what a Q7 cost to manufacture is Greg.
Do you? if not does that weaken your position?

Yes it does. I offered some ideas what might drive the cost . Your statement is conclusory. Perhaps someone else can contribute. I will continue to investigate why it cost $185k. I looked at Higher Fi . It lists list 7 pages(20 /page)with a retail price of $100k. The majority appeared to be box type.

The first 40 seconds of the VR44 vidieo substantiates a portion of my argument. Dealing with cabinet resonances is a a complex and expensive proposition. It accounts for a substantial protion of the cost.

 

[A.wayne]

If i may ,

Developement cost
Production cost
Shipping cost
Marketing cost
Warranty Cost
Inventory cost
Dealer markup
Flagship fee

Then Theres that minor annoyance undertaken by those who work and invest ..

Profit ..!!!!

 

[jap]

If i may ,

Developement cost
Production cost
Shipping cost
Marketing cost
Warranty Cost
Inventory cost
Dealer markup
Flagship fee

Then Theres that minor annoyance undertaken by those who work and invest ..

Profit ..!!!!

What's a "Flagship Fee," and how is it determined?

 

[audioguy]

I have heard the Magico Q3 and fell in love with it. One of the best speakers I have heard at any price. I have not yet heard the Q7. I surmise however the following: What do you think may sound better: A Q7 by its loneself ($165,000) or a Q3 with two or more super subs ? We can go up to $30,000 for the multiple subs and add to that a DSP/EQ to match the Q3 to perfection… Actually $30K is too much for subs. Good subwoofers matching the most expensive ones are easily less than $3K The interesting thing is that the same (i-e ading subwoofers) can be accomplished with panels for even less …

I have only heard the Q5 in an incredible room. While I did not say this to the owner when I heard it, I thought he overpaid for his speakers. Why? His priority was sound-stage and imaging so the speakers were way into the room. So while they did the imaging thing better than I had ever heard (and they are incredibly clean/distortion free) there was very thin bass.

Not too long later, he added dual top-of-the-line REL subs. It then became easily the best two channel system I have ever heard (in a person's home). That was yet one more example of why I will always prefer subs with any speakers, regardless of how many woofers are contained in the same main speaker enclosure. The MM7s, some of the Genesis models, Steve's friend Marty systems (probably as good as the Magico system I heard but in a totally different kind of room), all fit the bill. BUT, it can be done for much less with less costly mains.

Just my $0.02

 

[microstrip]

(...) As for the complexity of crossovers it is almost a necessity with passive speakers. This is not the subject of this discussion but it bears to remind that passive crossovers are extremely wasteful as most of an amplifier output is used to heat the resistors and inductors in passive crossovers …

Frantz,

Unhappily this myth propagates fast. Most high quality crossovers use coils of very low resistance and resistors are used in positions where energy dissipation is very low. IMHO people get this idea because most designers use large power resistors in their crossovers. However most often they choose to use this resistors because of the very low thermal coefficients of this type of wire resistors and because they feel that this high power large resistors make their speakers sound better. Some people who modify the SoundLab crossovers backplates will swear that their own custom DIY made 1000W wire resistors make their speakers sound better. If you feel otherwise place your finger on the resistors of your speaker crossover resistors playing loud. You will not note any appreciable temperature rise. It is why cheaper non audiophile loudspeakers can use much smaller lower power resistors in their crossovers.

 

[Gregadd]

The drivers are also unique. They feature the Magico-developed NanoTech cone material that is based on carbon nano-tube technology designed for helicopter blades. The motor structures use immensely powerful magnets (I was unable to lift a 6” midrange driver from a metal work table), huge voice coils (3” voice coils in a 6” midrange), and a novel construction that reduces losses from eddy currents and increases the magnetic-field density in the gap.

The Q7’s crossovers feature ultra-expensive and massive inductors along with premium-quality capacitors and resistors. A single inductor in the crossover costs more than many complete loudspeakers.http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/product-preview-magico-q7-loudspeaker/


Ajthough the Q7 debuted at $165k tas lists it $185k here

 

[FrantzM]

microstrip

Is this something you know for sure or is it a conjecture? I know for a fact that some resistors used for crossovers in passive speakers have a heat sink (Caddock comes to mind but also some Mills) ... I could be wrong but I need a fact not a conjecture to change my positions. Something I am more than willing to do.

I am far from an expert in crossover design IOW I know close to nothing .. I know however for browsing through DIY websites through that for most drivers you need more than filtering ... You also and often need to linearize either impedance of frequency response of the drivers. These increase the level of complexity and inefficiency of the crossovers, esepcially for first order which often are much larger physically that other (not a rule). In the case of woofers often a Zorbel Network is used to flatten the impedance cure of a given driver... SOme of the power that would otherwise reach the woofer is lost in the reistors of the Zorbel network. I suppose High End speakers to have the same constraints and the designers to employ similar compensating networks.. The results are to be wasted energy ... Not opinion ... facts..


I am with AUdioguy on the absolute need for subwoofers in most but the most extreme cases .. Those subwoofer boxes are not going away Greg

 

[FrantzM]

The drivers are also unique. They feature the Magico-developed NanoTech cone material that is based on carbon nano-tube technology designed for helicopter blades. The motor structures use immensely powerful magnets (I was unable to lift a 6” midrange driver from a metal work table), huge voice coils (3” voice coils in a 6” midrange), and a novel construction that reduces losses from eddy currents and increases the magnetic-field density in the gap.

The Q7’s crossovers feature ultra-expensive and massive inductors along with premium-quality capacitors and resistors. A single inductor in the crossover costs more than many complete loudspeakers.http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/product-preview-magico-q7-loudspeaker/


Ajthough the Q7 debuted at $165k tas lists it $185k here

Well that is manufacturers and Audio reviewers talk .. I would take that with a bushel of salt ... I have the utmost respect for Magico by the way the Q3 is very high on my list of great speakers so .. but ... I don't think the crossover cost them 5,000 in parts .... I strongly doubt it .. As for the cabinet .. I simply don't know enough to even speculate ...

 

[JackD201]

Technically speaking dinosaurs are still among us. I had some for lunch yesterday. It was a native species of chicken. Seems some of them survived the big ol' asteroid impact and a big and a small ice age.

Just as chickens are still running their course now bred for specific characteristics, so are box loudspeakers. Reference has been made to materials costs et al. What we have to put in proper perspective is that technologically, audio is an industry that borrows most of this from other industries, dynamic industries. The ultimate cabinet or panel frame would be the fictional Vibranium from fictional Wakanda of Captain America shield fame wouldn't it? Extremely hard but capable of absorbing and damping all vibrations and impacts for defense. Until vibranium becomes a reality, the course hasn't been run.

Speed is required for resolution but if we look at it closely weight is only one factor. It's power to weight ratio that matters as this dictates not just acceleration but equally important deceleration. Boxes or specifically the air pressure created inside them that aids the latter.

Now let's talk size. You really do need very large panels to get the low end extension of a pair 15^3 subwoofers. The first part is physics. The second part is economics. Power today is cheap. This was not the case when stereo first took off and 18 watts was an embarrassment of riches and Alnico was the most powerful magnets that could be had but for a price. Back then you needed big boxes for bass and horns for mids and highs to get SPLs that can be had today with little stage monitors with high powered amps driving them the same way you could with a sub sat system provided they have high power handling.

So why do many of us have large box loudspeakers if small ones will do. It isn't about playing louder, that's for sure. It's about a) reproducing at a larger scale b) doing so with minimal electrical and mechanical stress that causes distortion which leads to fatigue which leads to a listening session that for lack of a better word, sucks. The very same reasons one would need and thus seek large panels.

The plain fact is that there are things box speakers do better than panels and vice versa. Thankfully this forum is populated with experienced folks so we can skip the enumerations both ways. From what I see now, box speakers have caught up to panels in what panels do best and may yet surpass them if the trajectory is maintained. It is panels that are making slower progress in catching up with what box speakers do well. The best panel systems still come with boxed woofers.

 

[A.wayne]

microstrip

Is this something you know for sure or is it a conjecture? I know for a fact that some resistors used for crossovers in passive speakers have a heat sink (Caddock comes to mind but also some Mills) ... I could be wrong but I need a fact not a conjecture to change my positions. Something I am more than willing to do.

I am far from an expert in crossover design IOW I know close to nothing .. I know however for browsing through DIY websites through that for most drivers you need more than filtering ... You also and often need to linearize either impedance of frequency response of the drivers. These increase the level of complexity and inefficiency of the crossovers, esepcially for first order which often are much larger physically that other (not a rule). In the case of woofers often a Zorbel Network is used to flatten the impedance cure of a given driver... SOme of the power that would otherwise reach the woofer is lost in the reistors of the Zorbel network. I suppose High End speakers to have the same constraints and the designers to employ similar compensating networks.. The results are to be wasted energy ... Not opinion ... facts..


I am with AUdioguy on the absolute need for subwoofers in most but the most extreme cases .. Those subwoofer boxes are not going away Greg

Frantz,

So what of the insertion loss in passive xovers , how is this detrimental to the sound apart from slightly lower efficiency , if efficiency is within means then it's all part of the metrics necessary for FR bandwidth control and lower distortion , it does appear you are trying to make a case for listening to your choice of IC's , so best to condemn passives .. ...

Better for you to get beyond conjecture Frantz , where's the proof pure active works , where's this digital magic you speak off , why is it better than passives ?



Please tell us where to find this fully digital active speaker , the ones i have heard are way off the pace and are not even close to their passive cousins ..

Regards ,

 

[A.wayne]

What's a "Flagship Fee," and how is it determined?

This is determined and caused mostly by the end user , think of it as an insertion fee ...