The Magico Ultimate are ultra efficient speakers using an active crossover - IMHO we should not not use them for our usual approach to amplifier/speaker matching. And Magico used many other amplifiers - I do not remember of any endorsement of any amplifier brand as the official Magico amplifier. Most of the time public exhibition choices are arranged by distributors or dealers, not by the manufacturer.
Jeff Fritz/State of the Uber High End
- Thread starter KeithR
- Start date
The Magico Ultimate are ultra efficient speakers using an active crossover - IMHO we should not not use them for our usual approach to amplifier/speaker matching. And Magico used many other amplifiers - I do not remember of any endorsement of any amplifier brand as the official Magico amplifier. Most of the time public exhibition choices are arranged by distributors or dealers, not by the manufacturer.
Microstrip, yes, I think that is true. I was reacting to the comment about scale, large speakers and low wattage amps. I'm not aware of any preferred Magico amplifier either. And distributors and dealers often make the exhibition choices. But, I would think that Wolf does approve of those choices, especially with such a visible flagship speaker introduction. He is on video explaining that he chose the FirstWatt amps specifically because of their ultra low noise floor and the necessity of such with this ultra efficient speaker, so in a way, that is an endorsement in a public setting of at least an appropriate speaker/amp pairing.
Another example of this dealer/brand matching is Wilson paired with D'Agostino SS, or Lamm or Doshi tubes here in the US, while in Europe, Wilson is very often paired with Pass.
Regarding the topic of this thread, I also think it is interesting that a manufacturer can offer two different designs like the FW SIT amps and the Pass XS behemoths at such different price points and have them both considered solidly in the "high end".
I guess this is getting a bit off topic. Sorry.
Yep, let's start w/my Zu Audio Definitions Mk 4 speakers, 103dB/m eff. I preferred them to the Wilson Maxx pair I auditioned them against.
I immediately thought about the Avantgarde Trio's. I would love to assemble a system using them!
I immediately thought about the Avantgarde Trio's. I would love to assemble a system using them!
Ironically, I've yet to come across a pair of Trios that excelled with the usual SET tubes, 45, 2a3, 300B. The best I've heard them are with higher powered SETS 211s, 6c33s, 845s, T1610s. Not to mention that……..GASP……….they also sound great with class A Solid State.
I immediately thought about the Avantgarde Trio's. I would love to assemble a system using them!
Micro- have you heard the SOTA Living Voices?
Have a friend who uses them with the Vk-150SE monos and triple basshorns.
Spectacular? Yes. But in a one dimensional sort of way. Definitely a candidate for the most dynamic speakers on the planet. Kind of makes you feel like you can hear the hairs rattling around in the singer's nose. But, sadly, no coherence to speak of. (relatively speaking.) I find them both stunning and distracting at the same time. More of a toy thing to show off, not so much something I can immerse myself in for hours.
I have heard the Trios and liked what I heard. I did come off the listening sessions however with the impression that optimal listening distance had to be at least 15 feet for the drivers to converge. I am with Champ 04 .. Dynamics like only horn can do...
Still we are straying too far from the original post. Jeff Fritz is spot on. Every single manufacturer now seems to have a 100 K item .. Cables are approaching that and we find all kind of rationalization to explain that state of affairs.. Do we really think such will advance the High End? I doubt it .. Lately there has been different flavors .. Not much in term of advances except in DAC where things are moving at the speed of light or so it seems. NThe price flight has us routinely dismissing things that are seemed inexpensive. We find normal that the prices are going that way. Of course we al will claim that we don;t equate price with performance ut no one will ever affirm that Spectral is better than FM Acousitcs for example, we will assume that virtue of its price FM Acoustics have to be better. Same with anything over 100 K compared to Pass or a an SME TT compared to a Tech Das (In TT Objectivity left the building faster than Elvis.. it is always the more expensive TT that has the glamor) Much has been said about Expectation Bias often associated in our discussions on WBF anyway with Blind Testing but it is at play when we come into the more expensive = Better mentality .. After all, Spectral and FM A are not in the same "Price Class". Therefore we are prepared, and are prejudiced to have the more expensive to be the better. If it reigns alone on top of the pricing domain .. it is The Best. e.g FMA but also Cables such as the Transparent Magnum Opus or the new king , of course superior to the Nordost Odin, since it after all in a new price class
High End Audio Seem to be the only technology related sector things are getting more expensive for microscopic to nonexistent gains .. And we rationalize and we defend that state of affair and we find way to admit that it is normal and to find progress in each and every iteration of a product when likely it just sounds different ... A juicy market . A marketer wet dream. And to think that some people thought High End Audio companies did not understand Marketing...
Still we are straying too far from the original post. Jeff Fritz is spot on. Every single manufacturer now seems to have a 100 K item .. Cables are approaching that and we find all kind of rationalization to explain that state of affairs.. Do we really think such will advance the High End? I doubt it .. Lately there has been different flavors .. Not much in term of advances except in DAC where things are moving at the speed of light or so it seems. NThe price flight has us routinely dismissing things that are seemed inexpensive. We find normal that the prices are going that way. Of course we al will claim that we don;t equate price with performance ut no one will ever affirm that Spectral is better than FM Acousitcs for example, we will assume that virtue of its price FM Acoustics have to be better. Same with anything over 100 K compared to Pass or a an SME TT compared to a Tech Das (In TT Objectivity left the building faster than Elvis.. it is always the more expensive TT that has the glamor) Much has been said about Expectation Bias often associated in our discussions on WBF anyway with Blind Testing but it is at play when we come into the more expensive = Better mentality .. After all, Spectral and FM A are not in the same "Price Class". Therefore we are prepared, and are prejudiced to have the more expensive to be the better. If it reigns alone on top of the pricing domain .. it is The Best. e.g FMA but also Cables such as the Transparent Magnum Opus or the new king , of course superior to the Nordost Odin, since it after all in a new price class
High End Audio Seem to be the only technology related sector things are getting more expensive for microscopic to nonexistent gains .. And we rationalize and we defend that state of affair and we find way to admit that it is normal and to find progress in each and every iteration of a product when likely it just sounds different ... A juicy market . A marketer wet dream. And to think that some people thought High End Audio companies did not understand Marketing...
Excellent post. But I, for one, don't agree that Pass should be dismissed because of its lower prices. And I know SME is better than some tables costing more, especially a mid level SME like the 20/3. Unfortunately, people don't always take the time to make careful comparisons between these brands and ones that cost much more.
Another take on the current state of HiEnd audio:
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2...dback-putting-a-100-audiophile-system-on-show
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2...dback-putting-a-100-audiophile-system-on-show
I think you might have missed Frantz's point, because I think your comments just agreed with what he posted.
SHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhsush!........................nothing wrong with the high end. Why it ...is.....HIGHER than ever.
High End Audio (and this should mean stereo in this particular debate) is having enormous gains in performance in recent years. However they must be valuated in perceptual terms, using psychoacoustic valuation. The people who only care about the technological aspect will never understand them. IMHO the important aspect in this debate is not weeping the high-end, but separating the excellent performance very expensive items from the luxury products that do not offer top performance.
We can expect that, as knowledgeable audio people (researchers and manufacturers) will be able to understand these gains and from where they are coming, prices will rationalize. But while sound quality, as perceived by consumers, will be increasing, the usual market rules based in competition that usually level the prices will not apply.
As always remember that "Stereo, therefore, is not an encode/decode system, but a basis for individual experimentation." (F. Toole) and must be valuated accordingly.
Does it matter whether the ultra expensive advance High End or not when the High End also includes competitive priced products that should be the talk and promoted more within the audio hobby?
I feel many try to correlate High End to only meaning the most expensive while ignoring that most of those manufacturers DO make High End also at competitive prices, ok there are some brands that only focus on wincing to eye watering prices but they are NOT the only ones defining High End.
You could look at Siltech who do make ultra expensive models like several others; but importantly Jeff has been really impressed with their lower Explorer models, these are still High End and attainable by most.
Devialet is accepted as High End and is one modern example of a more competitive priced product and shows the trend is not just ultra expensive.
Now regarding KEF and the Blade; this product has been very well received and acknowledged as High End, but this is just a "reduced/improvised for cost" version of their Concept Blade that would had been over $100k if taken to production.
Would it be right to criticise KEF if the Concept Blade was taken into production as the original SOTA design-build?
IMO no, because it is far costlier design-build-manufacturing process than the released Blade.
That is just one reason on why it is not clear cut, but I agree there are brands that do cause skewing in perception and trends, and rightly so there are manufacturers that do deserve criticism.
Cheers
Orb
I think this guy is onto something. Now you really only need a computer and inexpensive DAC with USB input (also can feed some of these from a phone or tablet) feed the output to powered speakers at whatever price level you can afford. Powered speakers now can have some considerably good sounding quality.
I think this attitude is exactly what is High End's problem. You phrased it so very well.
Peter,
Yes, but I also know some tables costing more than the 20/3 sounding better than it ...
In the SME 20/3 review Michael Fremer wrote "Though the bigger SME ‘tables are far more expensive, they are thicker and slower sounding than the faster, more nimble-sounding and least expensive in the line 20/3. The larger ‘tables may produce more weight and perhaps greater dynamic slam, but the 20/3 produces better overall rhythm’n’pacing and thus greater overall musical excitement" . IMHO if you want to have the "more weight and perhaps greater dynamic slam" (two aspects I appreciate a lot ) one needs to have a better system and room, where the SME 30's do not sound thick and slow.
