Magico M3 MPod 3 Point Speaker Stands

[thedudeabides]

As usual, so much "love" here for the brand, and typically from people who never bought any Magico product, this is so interesting…

I think you and others are misconstruing the main objection to those who are not Magico fans and that is the question of pricing within the context of an apparent hi end industry tendency of seemingly overpricing products and see if someone will buy it. One could substitute many other manufacturers names and I think the negative comments would remain.

These folks (myself included) have some very valid perspectives, which you obviously don't understand and disagree with.

I, like others, do question why Magico simply doesn't include the outrigger in the price. Makes those who buy without the stand perpetually question if they are hearing the "best" the product can produce. Very awkward and avoidable at this price point.

So be it. Enjoy your speakers.

 

[microstrip]

Cannata, there is a good number of people who trust the magico engineering pedigree implicitly, and will buy the brand no matter what. Look at how the M Projects sold out, without people even hearing them. (...)

I have bought a good number of pieces of expensive high end equipment without even seeing them. I must say all of them were excellent buys, that I enjoyed for many years. But you have to do your home work before ordering ...

 

[caesar]

I have bought a good number of pieces of expensive high end equipment without even seeing them. I must say all of them were excellent buys, that I enjoyed for many years. But you have to do your home work before ordering ...

If you have a lot of background with and understanding of the products, and can predict the essence of the experience you will have, this makes a lot of sense

 

[caesar]

I think you and others are misconstruing the main objection to those who are not Magico fans and that is the question of pricing within the context of an apparent hi end industry tendency of seemingly overpricing products and see if someone will buy it. One could substitute many other manufacturers names and I think the negative comments would remain.

These folks (myself included) have some very valid perspectives, which you obviously don't understand and disagree with.

I, like others, do question why Magico simply doesn't include the outrigger in the price. Makes those who buy without the stand perpetually question if they are hearing the "best" the product can produce. Very awkward and avoidable at this price point.

So be it. Enjoy your speakers.

Dude, not trying to invalidate anyone's perspective here - very good sentiments in this thread. Yet, this is the world of variable pricing we live in.

Companies know they can make more money if they can tailor pricing for each customer. Airlines offer first class seats vs. smaller crammed seats in the back. Some jazz/ blues clubs allow to reserve a table for extra money, and people willingly pay more so they can show up later and not have to stand. Grocery stores offer loyalty programs with personalized pricing and individualized coupons. People who live in wealthier neighborhoods get charged more for plumbing, landscaping services, etc. Telcos offer different packages to its customers.

Almost everybody pays a different price these days due to different preferred configurations, terms, conditions, payment options, etc.. Not sure why magico is getting blamed for this; they are just applying these principles of price discrimination that already exist everywhere to high end audio.

Magico have a track record of investing a lot of money into R&D. The more they make, the happier their fans will be. Furthermore, and equally important, it will also make their competitors get better as well. So everyone benefits here.

 

[Folsom]

I know it will go against the popular notion of this site, but in terms of plain value, Magico products are actually a bargain.

I believe that is precisely why people don't understand the price of the footers. Can you not ask yourself why three sets of feet are worth as much as your speakers that have extensively more aluminium, engineering, and dozens and dozens of more processes to make all the parts into a speaker eventually?

 

[cjf]

I believe that is precisely why people don't understand the price of the footers. Can you not ask yourself why three sets of feet are worth as much as your speakers that have extensively more aluminium, engineering, and dozens and dozens of more processes to make all the parts into a speaker eventually?

+ 1 MILLION

Since were talking about pricing of an item at the extreme end of the spectrum lets do a little fuzzy Maths:

Does anyone here think just one of these QPod feet would take more than say....5hrs of time to make including machine time from a starting block of Aluminium close to the final size to a nearly finished product?

Does anyone here think the frame that holds these QPod feet would take more than say...3hrs of machine time from a starting block of Aluminium close to the final size to a nearly finished product?

That would be roughly 33hrs for X 6 feet and the frame. If we add an additional two hours to paint the frame that puts us at 35hrs Total.

Using the above extreme example it would equate to paying a fee of $286.00 per/hr @ 35hrs to come up with a $10K final cost. My guess is in reality these items can all be made in a 1/4 of the time, if not faster, so the rest of the cost being charged goes towards pure Greed/Profit

 

[Folsom]

That's certainly not how the pricing works. As I said, it's actually possible the price is legit, but from our POV we can't see it.

They probably want people to feel the worth of the product, because, hey, maybe it's stellar. I don't know. Perhaps their pricing will work out fine for them.

 

[PeterA]

+ 1 MILLION

Since were talking about pricing of an item at the extreme end of the spectrum lets do a little fuzzy Maths:

Does anyone here think just one of these QPod feet would take more than say....5hrs of time to make including machine time from a starting block of Aluminium close to the final size to a nearly finished product?

Does anyone here think the frame that holds these QPod feet would take more than say...3hrs of machine time from a starting block of Aluminium close to the final size to a nearly finished product?

That would be roughly 33hrs for X 6 feet and the frame. If we add an additional two hours to paint the frame that puts us at 35hrs Total.

Using the above extreme example it would equate to paying a fee of $286.00 per/hr @ 35hrs to come up with a $10K final cost. My guess is in reality these items can all be made in a 1/4 of the time, if not faster, so the rest of the cost being charged goes towards pure Greed/Profit

Well, some of that goes to the dealer. Perhaps half. Then there are overhead costs, health care for employees, rent or mortgage, R&D time amortized, advertising, etc. And, there is little volume to spread around these costs. I have been given a tour of the factory and seen what goes into Magico speakers. I understand some of these high costs at the retail level and don't feel the outrage that is expressed by some of the critics.

 

[thedudeabides]

In the end, it's pretty simple and called "value" pricing. And each person decides whether or not there is sufficient, defensible value for the product and the cost thereof whatever that product and associated cost may be.

 

[caesar]

In the end, it's pretty simple and called "value" pricing. And each person decides whether or not there is sufficient, defensible value for the product and the cost thereof whatever that product and associated cost may be.

Amen!

 

[caesar]

Gentlemen,

Again, I understand the sentiment – NO ONE likes to be ripped off and EVERYONE wants to be treated fairly.

But the benefits of this option will be crystal clear to all who are interested, so people will have a clear picture of what extra value they will get. Maybe it will be better or maybe the extra detail will be analytical for some. No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head – it’s a simple, clear choice, as the Dude said above.


Let’s take a closer look at the economics of pricing a bit closer…

I hate to be bearer of the realities of pricing, but only dumbfukc business person price based on costs. Other than covering costs, costs are irrelevant when pricing products. (Most costs are pure bs anyways: does an aspirin pill really cost $49 in the hospital? It does! - if you arbitrarily allocate a bunch of overhead to it. Ditto for this footer…)

Instead, pricing should be based on value provided to consumer. Don’t know too much about the new magico models, but let’s take the famous Q5 and Q3.

Is the price of the q5 really worth $60K vs the q3 at $39K (original prices when released). Once the r&d is done, r&d a sunk cost and is irrelevant. So we only need to look at incremental differences of manufacturing the larger q5 over q3.

Q5 is taller by a few inches. How much more aluminum does it contain than q3? And how much more the internal braces cost? How much more labor does it take for incremental manufacturing cost of Q5 vs. Q3. How much more do the woofers and other drivers cost? And extra crossover parts and labor? How much incrementally more labor time for worker to build a q5 vs q3 that wolf has to pay the dude? How much extra electricity does it cost to build the q5 vs q3 in their factory? Etc...

No one even questioned these cost differences in the past, but they are likely much less than $21k? Yet audio journalists quickly proclaimed the q5 as the greatest speakers of all time (after m5 but before q7…) pumping up its value to the customer.


With time, we will know how many of these add-ons will sell. But knowing people in this hobby, many can’t resist slightly better or different sound.

 

[caesar]

One additional thing: Choice is a great thing!!!!

It allows for magico to tailor the price to consumers and gives the consumers the ability to allocate their spending as they see fit. So instead of charging $85K and potentially losing some sales, someone can choose to pay $75K and with the $10K buy another component or some great music they really like. Life is great in a free society

 

[cannata]

I believe that is precisely why people don't understand the price of the footers. Can you not ask yourself why three sets of feet are worth as much as your speakers that have extensively more aluminium, engineering, and dozens and dozens of more processes to make all the parts into a speaker eventually?

There can be many reasons, I can tell you that it will most likely cost more to machine just the T connection then to extrude an S1, for example (per unit - extrusion is very economical). The S1 enclosure has maybe 4-5 unique pieces, this rack has at least 12 (according to Magico each foot has 10 parts in it). Copper too is very expensive, and if they use tungsten steel for the tips and threads, it can run up fast (and still, it is NOT as expensive as an S1 - boring facts). Now remember, the MSRP is a multiplayer of actual BOM, in Consumer Electronics that can be anywhere from 5-9 times, so it gets expensive quickly ( I do not agree with Caesar, in my line of work the SRP is driven by the BOM). Also, maybe they are making much less feet then speakers, so basically, we don't know, but neither you nor anyone here, that's for sure...

BTW, I talk to my dealer about that and he told me that the stand was an add-on simply because the development of these feet was concluded long after the introduction of the M3. It was never intended to be part of the M3 until Magico heard it and decided it will be a pity not to offer it (he was happy about it - despite what some people here think, he believes that Magico is much more interested in maximizing its performance then its profit). He believes that in the near future it will be a part of the speakers, and the MSRP will be adjusted accordingly.

 

[microstrip]

In the end, it's pretty simple and called "value" pricing. And each person decides whether or not there is sufficient, defensible value for the product and the cost thereof whatever that product and associated cost may be.

Surely. And fortunately market rules apply - if someone manages to produce a better product for half the price people will soon buy it, not the original design.

In this case, we can expect that the large experience and knowledge Magico got when developing the speaker will give them an enormous advantage.

 

[FrantzM]

Surely. And fortunately market rules apply - if someone manages to produce a better product for half the price people will soon buy it, not the original design.

In this case, we can expect that the large experience and knowledge Magico got when developing the speaker will give them an enormous advantage.

Audiophiles won't . We perceive products through the "Price point" lens. For most audiophiles on this board, More Expensive = Better. A good product is regarded as "good for its price" if it doesn't break a certain threshold; often we won't even bother comparing it. Most people here infer that Spectral while very good can't be better than FM Acoustics which is seen by most as the best SS or even the best period, Since a lone FM Acoustics component would cost the same as (or more than) an entire TOL Spectral System complete with Preamp, Amp, CD Player and the recommended MIT cable loom.... Same with DCS vs Berkeley Audio Design. So manufacturers react in kind: they raise the price for the "better", "newer" products. Rarely if ever are they less expensive. Wilson had the new Alex (?) to replace the Maxx 3 and of course it cost more.. Pass had to come up with a.8 Series because their.5 was deemed good but since much less expensive than the big players, like Boulder then they needed to nudge it closer. Ayre suffer from this too... Let us not even mention MAgnepan who dares to offer the MG 3.7 at less than $6K , of course it is very "good for its price".. You can not offer a more damning and condescending praise in High End Audio.

 

[DaveyF]

Audiophiles won't . We perceive products within the lens of Price point. For most audiophiles on this board, More Expensive = Better. A good product is regarded as "good for its price" if it doesn't break a certain threshold, we won't even bother comparing it. Most people here infer that Spectral while very good but can't be better than FM Acoustics which is seen by most as the best SS or even the best period, Since A lone FM Acoustics would cost the same (or more) as the an entire TOL Spectral System with PReamp, Amp, CD Player and the recommended MIT cable loom.... Same with DCS vs Berkeley Audio Design. So manufacturers react in kind: they raise the price for the "better", "newer" products. Rarely if ever are they less expensive. Wilson had the new Alex (?) to replace the Maxx 3 and of course it cost more.. Pass had to come up with a.8 Series because their.5 was deemed good but since much less expensive than the big players, like Boulder then they needed to nudge it closer. Ayre suffer from this too... Let us not even mention MAgnepan who dares to offer the MG 3.7 at less than $6K , of course it is very "good for its price".. You can not offer a more damning and condescending praise in High End Audio.

+1000

Personally, I use only one arbiter to decide what is going to be used in my set-up....my ears. Period. The higher the price of the gear in question, the higher the level of expectation I have for it, and therefore, the more likely it is to fail the test. What is great for a few of us, is as the price rises and the initial buyers get tired of the gear, the quicker the "yesteryear" product becomes available on the used market....and almost always at significant discounts.
I seem to remember the very good Magico M5's coming out a few years back...and then quickly being ceremoniously dumped by the dealers and the poor first responders at huge discounts. Way to go, IMHO, LOL.

 

[microstrip]

Audiophiles won't . We perceive products within the lens of Price point. For most audiophiles on this board, More Expensive = Better. A good product is regarded as "good for its price" if it doesn't break a certain threshold, we won't even bother comparing it. Most people here infer that Spectral while very good but can't be better than FM Acoustics which is seen by most as the best SS or even the best period, Since A lone FM Acoustics would cost the same (or more) as the an entire TOL Spectral System with PReamp, Amp, CD Player and the recommended MIT cable loom.... Same with DCS vs Berkeley Audio Design. So manufacturers react in kind: they raise the price for the "better", "newer" products. Rarely if ever are they less expensive. Wilson had the new Alex (?) to replace the Maxx 3 and of course it cost more.. Pass had to come up with a.8 Series because their.5 was deemed good but since much less expensive than the big players, like Boulder then they needed to nudge it closer. Ayre suffer from this too... Let us not even mention MAgnepan who dares to offer the MG 3.7 at less than $6K , of course it is very "good for its price".. You can not offer a more damning and condescending praise in High End Audio.

I was expecting your prompt reply, even the "We, audiophiles" - surely with the exception of you, a few selected members and me .

99% of the people who infer that "while very good but can't be better than" do not have direct experience with your FM Acoustics example, but have direct large experience with as many equipment as you or me and have watched that as as general rule, when properly matched and optimally used, a more expensive item can return a better sound quality.

You second subject has nothing to deal with this aspect - if people are prepared to spend more money, designers are allowed to designed better products at an higher price. Perhaps some of them will not make a proper use of their extra budget, members of forums like WBF should warn consumers in such cases if they have sufficient evidence of it. The law of diminishing returns makes this ultra price zone a dangerous zone - any one knowing about error propagation and logarithms will understand it - a lot of experience and self control is needed here. Nothing new here ...

And yes, we all now know about the MG3.7 and ask ourselves why you do not consider a pair of MG3.7 or MG201.1 for you. Will you elucidate us of this mystery?

 

[cannata]

+1000

Personally, I use only one arbiter to decide what is going to be used in my set-up....my ears. Period. The higher the price of the gear in question, the higher the level of expectation I have for it, and therefore, the more likely it is to fail the test. What is great for a few of us, is as the price rises and the initial buyers get tired of the gear, the quicker the "yesteryear" product becomes available on the used market....and almost always at significant discounts.
I seem to remember the very good Magico M5's coming out a few years back...and then quickly being ceremoniously dumped by the dealers and the poor first responders at huge discounts. Way to go, IMHO, LOL.

Out of curiosity, what speakers do you use in your setup?

 

[NorthStar]

There can be many reasons, I can tell you that it will most likely cost more to machine just the T connection then to extrude an S1, for example (per unit - extrusion is very economical). The S1 enclosure has maybe 4-5 unique pieces, this rack has at least 12 (according to Magico each foot has 10 parts in it). Copper too is very expensive, and if they use tungsten steel for the tips and threads, it can run up fast (and still, it is NOT as expensive as an S1 - boring facts). Now remember, the MSRP is a multiplayer of actual BOM, in Consumer Electronics that can be anywhere from 5-9 times, so it gets expensive quickly ( I do not agree with Caesar, in my line of work the SRP is driven by the BOM). Also, maybe they are making much less feet then speakers, so basically, we don't know, but neither you nor anyone here, that's for sure...

BTW, I talk to my dealer about that and he told me that the stand was an add-on simply because the development of these feet was concluded long after the introduction of the M3. It was never intended to be part of the M3 until Magico heard it and decided it will be a pity not to offer it (he was happy about it - despite what some people here think, he believes that Magico is much more interested in maximizing its performance then its profit). He believes that in the near future it will be a part of the speakers, and the MSRP will be adjusted accordingly.

I have read this entire thread, and will continue to do so.
But your post is the one that had my attention more recently.

1. 100% agree with sound improvement.
2. The materials and the number of parts used in them M3/MPod 3 Point speaker stands (outrigger feet), plus the R&D, plus the men hours, plus the science engineering, plus the measurement tests, plus the investment, plus time/trial/experiment...is very hard to evaluate financially and sound wise.
3. We sure can question it and have an opinion.
4. We are free to buy or not.
5. I'll be tuning to Bob's future sharing (rvisinta).

:b

 

[microstrip]

+1000

Personally, I use only one arbiter to decide what is going to be used in my set-up....my ears. Period. The higher the price of the gear in question, the higher the level of expectation I have for it, and therefore, the more likely it is to fail the test. What is great for a few of us, is as the price rises and the initial buyers get tired of the gear, the quicker the "yesteryear" product becomes available on the used market....and almost always at significant discounts.
I seem to remember the very good Magico M5's coming out a few years back...and then quickly being ceremoniously dumped by the dealers and the poor first responders at huge discounts. Way to go, IMHO, LOL.

I fail to understand how a wise strategy of buying used goods is connected with the perception of quality and price.

BTW, you are a happy man - I can not leave my ears control my wallet any more. They did it recently and is was a complete disaster ... Permission revoked for a long time ...