Magico M9 vs. Magico Ultimate 3 Horn- Box vs. Horn! Which will be better? In which ways?

[andromedaaudio]

Do you attribute what you heard from those system just to the physical alignment of the speaker drivers, not to any other aspect of the system or of the speakers themselves?

It can be related to many things .
X over etc.
But as these new designs are basically the culmination of their time alignment philosophy i commented on that .
They also had a sub running as far as i could see , not a subsonic but another sub if im not mistaken.
Its always difficult to get full integration.
Im talking the Nagra room here .
The alexx d agostino room i didn t like either.
No bass thin metallic sound same as wp daw. D agostino
Unfortunately i missed the whole gangway in the atrium with XVX VTL.

But as this is a magico thread .
I hope the M 9 will outperform the M6 .
The M6 sounded not like a special Ls on the soulutions.
At least to my ears
I never heard the M 9 or magico horns

 

[LL21]

The XLF is a great speaker, IMHO miles ahead of previous versions. In a proper system with a quality set up it presents the coherency of a single panel electrostatic like the SoundLab A1 with great dynamics at full range. I loved the wat it can switch from an enormous soundstage spread far beyond the speakers to an intimate small acoustic space.

Hi Micro. Yes, I agree. And it maintained the sense of effortless power and scale as well as pure bass power that David Wilson always favored in his designs. It is why for so long I held out on an upgrade from the original X1 for over 10 years rather than jump through the interim generations. I had my sights on either the Arrakis (alas, too big, too complicated/demanding of space and equipment) or the XLF with some serious subs (next major piece of the project).

Have you heard the XVX? I have only spoken with 1 person whose ears I trust has heard the XVX AND also knows our system really well. Interestingly, he really admired the technical prowess of the XVX, but recommended we keep the XLFs.

 

[schlager]

"physical time alignment" will not give true time alignment. Crossover, be it analog or digital, will introduce excess phase grow, resulting in group delay. The steeper the filter, the more group delay.
This can be seen in the step response and group delay plot.
This is the step response of Wilson Audio Specialties Alexx V measured in Stereophile.

The midrange comes after the tweeter, even though it is physically time aligned, due to the very complex tuning system. No amount of dollars can change that physical fact. Using DRC with time domain correction, will solve that problem with the flick of a switch.

 

[KeithR]

there is only one company that is time/phase aligned anymore - Vandersteen. well, some smaller single driver stuff of course.

 

[schlager]

Yes, using 1. order filters can give a nice step response. It takes a great demand of the drivers, being used in this broadband fashion, introducing other problems, but it can work. Danley speakers also does it and can pass a squarewave through in different frequency bands. Almost no other speaker can do that.

 

[HenryD]

But there are also no clear objective evidences that it actually improves SQ. Subjectively, if that was the case, we would all have a Vandersteen

 

[schlager]

Well, a nice step response is far from the only objective, in a good sounding speaker. An even frequency response should be at the top of the list, ad to that an even dispersion to give at flat power response. Very rarely we see measurements from speaker manufactures. Why? Probably because most speakers doesn't measure very well. A 100$ DAC, amp or pre-amp, will have far better measurements than even the most well engineered speaker. So it seems logical, that the weak link in the audio chain are the speakers. So even small improvements in speaker design, will potential give better sound quality, hence the strive for a nice step response.

Regarding evidence about how SQ improves with a nice step response (true time alignment and flat phase between drivers) is an area I think have not been investigated thoroughly enough. The best digital room correction (DRC) softwares, will give the user options to set different frequency dependent windows to tweak the time domain correction. My own personal experience with improving the step response, is that sound imaging get more stable and precise. Transients get more impact, due to less time smearing.

 

[andromedaaudio]

An even frequency response should be at the top of the list, ad to that an even dispersion to give at flat power response. Very rarely we see measurements from speaker manufactures. Why? Probably because most speakers doesn't measure very well

Now were talking.
Im not saying its a definition of SQ , its merely a basic requirement if one takes into account high end audio pricing.

Were talking 500 K plus systems here , im sure a added graph isn t to much to ask for .

 

[morricab]

Well, a nice step response is far from the only objective, in a good sounding speaker. An even frequency response should be at the top of the list, ad to that an even dispersion to give at flat power response. Very rarely we see measurements from speaker manufactures. Why? Probably because most speakers doesn't measure very well. A 100$ DAC, amp or pre-amp, will have far better measurements than even the most well engineered speaker. So it seems logical, that the weak link in the audio chain are the speakers. So even small improvements in speaker design, will potential give better sound quality, hence the strive for a nice step response.

Regarding evidence about how SQ improves with a nice step response (true time alignment and flat phase between drivers) is an area I think have not been investigated thoroughly enough. The best digital room correction (DRC) softwares, will give the user options to set different frequency dependent windows to tweak the time domain correction. My own personal experience with improving the step response, is that sound imaging get more stable and precise. Transients get more impact, due to less time smearing.

" A 100$ DAC, amp or pre-amp, will have far better measurements than even the most well engineered speaker. So it seems logical, that the weak link in the audio chain are the speakers. So even small improvements in speaker design, will potential give better sound quality, hence the strive for a nice step response."

It's logical if you look at every type of distortion and irregularity in the reproduction chain as evenly weighted...but in terms of auditory perception they are anything but evenly weighted. This is a typical unscientific approach that doesn't take much around human perception and cognition of sound into account in determining priority of improvements.

You can take your perfect measuring speaker and make it sound totally unrealistic with a poor choice of electronics and dirty power.

I don't disagree that time alignment is desirable and all things being equal it will sound better than the same speaker not time aligned (I time align my DIY DSP system, for example and that helps with focus and impact of things like percussion and plucked strings) but the electronics and power will ruin any sound and that is very small distortions in absolute numbers but relative to perception they are highly relevant.

 

[schlager]

"You can take your perfect measuring speaker and make it sound totally unrealistic with a poor choice of electronics and dirty power." That is certainly the essens of an unscientific approach.

I would like to promote objectivism in a hobby, that is subjective into the perverse. Well engineered hifi electronics is audible transparent to the source and need not cost a lot of money. If it doesn't sound good with such electronic, there is a flaw somewhere else in the audio chain.

"electronics and power will ruin any sound and that is very small distortions in absolute numbers but relative to perception they are highly relevant."
I would be very interested in seen any scientific proves, that that is the case. Our ears are very tolerant to low order harmonic distortion (tubeamp). Higher order are more problematic, but again in well engineered hifi gear, they are far below the audible threshold. IMD are the enemy of SQ and should be kept under control. Again not a audible problem with well engineered hifi gear.

 

[ferenc_k]

there is only one company that is time/phase aligned anymore - Vandersteen. well, some smaller single driver stuff of course.

How about this phase response?

 

[schlager]

Looks like a Danley speaker design. I'm using the same principals in my DIY speaker. But Danley's speakers are not seen as high fidelity speakers amongst audiophiles, because they are made for PA.

 

[morricab]

"You can take your perfect measuring speaker and make it sound totally unrealistic with a poor choice of electronics and dirty power." That is certainly the essens of an unscientific approach.

I would like to promote objectivism in a hobby, that is subjective into the perverse. Well engineered hifi electronics is audible transparent to the source and need not cost a lot of money. If it doesn't sound good with such electronic, there is a flaw somewhere else in the audio chain.

"electronics and power will ruin any sound and that is very small distortions in absolute numbers but relative to perception they are highly relevant."
I would be very interested in seen any scientific proves, that that is the case. Our ears are very tolerant to low order harmonic distortion (tubeamp). Higher order are more problematic, but again in well engineered hifi gear, they are far below the audible threshold. IMD are the enemy of SQ and should be kept under control. Again not a audible problem with well engineered hifi gear.

THere is nothing unscientific about observations. You have a testable hypothesis, "Well engineered hifi electronics is auidble transparent to the source"...forget about the money part for now. You can run a test with amplifiers that are, to your standards, measurably blameless and see if people hear a difference between them or not. I would wager that two amps that are with almost immeasurable distortion will nonetheless sound different...if the rest of the chain is unchanged and the amp (or dac or preamp etc.) is compatible with the system then it must be a signature imposed by the new electronics or an interaction with another piece of electronics in that chain. A signature is just another word for distortion and I haven't heard a single piece of electronics ever that didn't have one of its own. Objective data only takes you so far...the listener is the final arbiter of sound quality.

You are underestimating the importance of the pattern of distortion and how humans perceive that pattern or change in pattern...it is not just one or two harmonics but the whole function that generates those distortions...The truth is that you don't know where the audible limit is...you are assuming you know.

I can demonstrably repeat putting in and out a power regenerator in my system that has a significant impact on soundstage depth and image specificity. You would say that whatever change is happening there is too small to be audible (based on your assumptions of that) and therefore it is not scientific. That is BS as the basis of all science is observation of a phenomenon and then attempting to generate a hypothesis to explain it.

Geddes has published papers in the AES showing that THD and IMD DO NOT correlate with perceived sound quality.

Cheever wrote a master's thesis demonstrating essentially the same thing and proposing a metric that helps to explain the correlation between measurements and perceived quality...it is not a simple nor linear relationship.

D.E.L Shorter in the 1950s attempted to correlate the two but didn't take it far enough...he was perceptive though in stating that the totality of the distortion should be considered not just one or two harmonics in that pattern.

Finally, Norman Crowhurst noted that distortion lowering via high amounts of negative feedback will result in a signal correlated "noise floor" that will rise and fall with signal and is therefore a floor of a myriad of distortion components and not true noise...therefore, you cannot hear below it as one can with tape hiss...for example.

 

[ferenc_k]

Looks like a Danley speaker design. I'm using the same principals in my DIY speaker. But Danley's speakers are not seen as high fidelity speakers amongst audiophiles, because they are made for PA.

Looks like a Danley speaker design. I'm using the same principals in my DIY speaker. But Danley's speakers are not seen as high fidelity speakers amongst audiophiles, because they are made for PA.

It is the Danley HRE, which was introduced as part of the Tom Danley Signature product line.
This is not a PA speaker, but a high-end audio one.
We have a prototype for a few weeks in Budapest. Using it for our My Reel Club™ recordings presentations mostly.

It is quite compact for the sound it provides. It does everything very well why Danley users love Tom's products in a domestic environment.

 

[schlager]

THere is nothing unscientific about observations. You have a testable hypothesis, "Well engineered hifi electronics is auidble transparent to the source"...forget about the money part for now. You can run a test with amplifiers that are, to your standards, measurably blameless and see if people hear a difference between them or not. I would wager that two amps that are with almost immeasurable distortion will nonetheless sound different...if the rest of the chain is unchanged and the amp (or dac or preamp etc.) is compatible with the system then it must be a signature imposed by the new electronics or an interaction with another piece of electronics in that chain. A signature is just another word for distortion and I haven't heard a single piece of electronics ever that didn't have one of its own. Objective data only takes you so far...the listener is the final arbiter of sound quality.

You are underestimating the importance of the pattern of distortion and how humans perceive that pattern or change in pattern...it is not just one or two harmonics but the whole function that generates those distortions...The truth is that you don't know where the audible limit is...you are assuming you know.

I can demonstrably repeat putting in and out a power regenerator in my system that has a significant impact on soundstage depth and image specificity. You would say that whatever change is happening there is too small to be audible (based on your assumptions of that) and therefore it is not scientific. That is BS as the basis of all science is observation of a phenomenon and then attempting to generate a hypothesis to explain it.

Geddes has published papers in the AES showing that THD and IMD DO NOT correlate with perceived sound quality.

Cheever wrote a master's thesis demonstrating essentially the same thing and proposing a metric that helps to explain the correlation between measurements and perceived quality...it is not a simple nor linear relationship.

D.E.L Shorter in the 1950s attempted to correlate the two but didn't take it far enough...he was perceptive though in stating that the totality of the distortion should be considered not just one or two harmonics in that pattern.

Finally, Norman Crowhurst noted that distortion lowering via high amounts of negative feedback will result in a signal correlated "noise floor" that will rise and fall with signal and is therefore a floor of a myriad of distortion components and not true noise...therefore, you cannot hear below it as one can with tape hiss...for example.

I have run sighted test of amplifiers and not level matched. One time a Behringer EP4000 vs Dan D'Agostino Momentum Mono on Magico Q7 speakers. Not much difference if any and the owner agreed. Sorry I don't have Golden Ears, just normal hearing for a middle aged guy.

So I'm underestimating and assuming and YOU know?
Go read Richard Clack's amplifier test. Or better take the test and then report back.

Using a power generator and reporting great sonic improvements, what can I say. Placebo perhaps. Can't see why well engineered equipment shouldn't do the "cleaning" job well enough.

So pattern distortion is very important and then you refer to Geddes that says that THD and IMD doesn't matter.

The audible limits of distortion, for the human hearing system are well established.

Ncore uses lots of negative feedback with great succes.

Don't know about the other fellows you are mentioning, sorry.

 

[morricab]

I have run sighted test of amplifiers and not level matched. One time a Behringer EP4000 vs Dan D'Agostino Momentum Mono on Magico Q7 speakers. Not much difference if any and the owner agreed. Sorry I don't have Golden Ears, just normal hearing for a middle aged guy.

So I'm underestimating and assuming and YOU know?
Go read Richard Clack's amplifier test. Or better take the test and then report back.

Using a power generator and reporting great sonic improvements, what can I say. Placebo perhaps. Can't see why well engineered equipment shouldn't do the "cleaning" job well enough.

So pattern distortion is very important and then you refer to Geddes that says that THD and IMD doesn't matter.

The audible limits of distortion, for the human hearing system are well established.

Ncore uses lots of negative feedback with great succes.

Don't know about the other fellows you are mentioning, sorry.

THD and IMD are not a pattern...they are a lumped sum of unweighted harmonic components.

Ncores do not sound good!

Do some research...

 

[schlager]

"THD and IMD are not a pattern...they are a lumped sum of unweighted harmonic components." I don't doubt that you believe that you can hear differences between different "lumped sum of unweighted harmonic components", as you put it. In that regard you are no different from other audiophiles that have been claiming for ages that each amplifier has its own specific sound, that is not related to "simple" measurements. Frequency response is the most simple of them all. If it proves anything, then that without proper level-matching - surprise, surprise - people hear differences. Said people usually then proclaim that the amps sound different and that they have golden ears. This is some sort of self-delusion that is incredibly persistent within audio.

FACT: Well engineered (most modern) amps have harmonic distortion well below audible levels unless you drive them into clipping. For some, maybe some types of distortion are subjectively preferred to a clean signal?! For me such components are flawed.

Truth is, people do believe that audio can be dramatically improved. Where some/I would differ from "typical" audiophiles is in what we believe can be dramatically improved. You see, to be commercially viable, the audiophile industry has to maintain the impression that every component is infinitely (and audibly) improvable. Meanwhile, in the real world (IMO!), some parts of the chain are already more than good enough (amps, DAC, pre, DSP, cables) and don't need that much money spending on them, while others are woefully inadequate (speaker, room). Interestingly, many of the parts that are inadequate are out of the control of typical audiophile companies, which partly explains their behavior.

I recon you are industry affiliated, so I totally "get it".

 

[andromedaaudio]

You see, to be commercially viable, the audiophile industry has to maintain the impression that every component is infinitely (and audibly) improvable

Lol , but very true .

 

[Zeotrope]

The reason why using a digital crossover is best when dealing with multi-way horn loudspeakers is because a digital crossover gives one the ability to time-align the various drivers or horn openings. This is crucial to achieving great sound out of multi-way horn loaded speakers. Without digital time/distance alignment the results are compromised. You can physically time align the horns but this would need to be done on location based on the listening position and the driver and horn movements would have to be indexed and calibrated.

i have a 4 way active horn system that run through a digital crossover to set the delay for each driver from the listening position and the results is phenomenal and could not be achieved as efficiently without the digital delays.

it is not the route that you take but rather the destination that matters and for multi-way complex horn assemblies, digitally time aligning the sound sources is the best way to go. I have both types of multi-way horn loaded systems in the same room and once you hear what digital time aligning the drivers/horn opening does for the sound, it is very obvious that mechanical/physical alignment and use of a simple analog crossover is a compromise.

I agree with Ron:

Ron Resnick said:
Doesn't the Magico Ultimate Horn system convert the entire audio signal the digital?

Why would any audiophile who values analog want this result?

Digital time alignment is a bad idea for a high-end system. Think about it: you are converting the analog signal to digital, then back to analog - two extra conversions! All the benefit from a nice DAC is lost. All the benefit from vinyl is lost.

For a lower end system, sure: DSP gives you benefits that allows a low cost speaker sound better. But at the high end? No way.

A speaker that costs over $100K should be physically time-aligned, along with as good phase coherence as possible. The rest is how it sounds and cannot be measured. But as a start, these are must-haves. We should not accept anything less. It CAN be done.
Consider that in the 1930s, horn designers time-aligned to 1 msec, which is the time it takes for sound to travel about 1 foot. That's a lot. I'm looking at the Magico M9 now and I can tell it's not time aligned to 1 msec.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Digital time alignment is a bad idea for a high-end system. Think about it: you are converting the analog signal to digital, then back to analog - two extra conversions! All the benefit from a nice DAC is lost. All the benefit from vinyl is lost.

Respectfully, even I’m not as dogmatic this.

1) If someone is happy with the sound of his/her digital playback system, then such person likely will not find anathema in theory or in sonic result the sound of these digital conversions.

2) Even if in theory or in sonic result an analog oriented audiophile finds the digital conversions anathema, Carlos may still be correct that the sonic benefits of the time alignment in the digital domain may outweigh the sonic detriment of those digital conversions to the final sonic result.