Magico M9

[dcathro]

I guess the room posted in #1200 (page 60) is then huge relative to the usual rooms in that area. Even though the M9 have to be close to the sidewalls.

That room also looks purpose built with treatment.

 

[Lagonda]

That room also looks purpose built with treatment.

You can stick all the treatment you can find into a small room, the best treatment for a big speaker is still a large room !

 

[morricab]

Are you saying that the two systems are very different sounding? When you listen to a piano which one sounds real? a solo violin? a human voice? One would think that that two serious systems should have much more in common than different with subtle diiferences in perhaps presentation or dynamics.
I have only listened to the XVX with subs but have not experienced the M9. Your comments leave me with many questions.

I am surprised that you are surprised by this. They probably have some similarities but I can imagine the way they project images will be quite different given the difference in the driver materials, driver layout and crossover that will greatly affect the polar response and lobbing behavior. This then affects the off-axis dispersion. Additionally, the bass loading is totally different and even the on-axis frequency response is likely to be quite different. This says nothing about the choice of drivers and the materials in those drivers and their respective losses, damping, resonances, distortions etc. Finally, cabinet materials and stored and released energy differ greatly between these two systems and this will affect resolution and clarity.

 

[Rhapsody]

I agree with you 100%.

Smallish listening room is so common in Japan and Hong Kong.
If we read the home-visit reports on Stereo Sound magazine of Japan and hifi magazines of HK, most if not all the of the audio systems are so.

You can stick all the treatment you can find into a small room, the best treatment for a big speaker is still a large room !

I don't think anyone would ever argue or even think that it's not best to have a big room for big speakers. BUT, a lot of people don't have big rooms available, even if they live in very large residences. Many do the best they can by treating the room. Some don't even treat the rooms.

They don't do this thinking the guys on audio forums are not going to approve. They do it because of their available space and they surely understand it would be better to have a larger room, but they don't, so they just use what they have.

Most of these type customers would not be happy or even put any speaker in the room if they put in say a monitor or smaller speaker, which from a sound perspective would make much more sense.

So I think we all can agree that it is best to have a big room for big speakers, but if a big room is not available and people decide to still buy a large speaker then if it makes them happy isn't that ok?

 

[andromedaaudio]

I am surprised that you are surprised by this. They probably have some similarities but I can imagine the way they project images will be quite different given the difference in the driver materials, driver layout and crossover that will greatly affect the polar response and lobbing behavior. This then affects the off-axis dispersion. Additionally, the bass loading is totally different and even the on-axis frequency response is likely to be quite different. This says nothing about the choice of drivers and the materials in those drivers and their respective losses, damping, resonances, distortions etc. Finally, cabinet materials and stored and released energy differ greatly between these two systems and this will affect resolution and clarity.

All top speakers them being Cones / horns / planars should converge in something similar ideally .
Imo.

 

[Rhapsody]

All top speakers them being Cones / horns / planars should converge in something similar ideally .
Imo.

I don't find the convergence between cones (ported or sealed)/horns/omni's/ribbons/electrostatic/open baffle. They all present the music in a different manner for me. I like them all, but they are all so different imo.

 

[morricab]

All top speakers them being Cones / horns / planars should converge in something similar ideally .
Imo.

Should is not the same as IS...

 

[morricab]

I don't find the convergence between cones (ported or sealed)/horns/omni's/ribbons/electrostatic/open baffle. They all present the music in a different manner for me. I like them all, but they are all so different imo.

I do agree with Andromeda though that they SHOULD converge...on what live music sounds like...however, they each only seem to have an element of the whole...

 

[Rhapsody]

I do agree with Andromeda though that they SHOULD converge...on what live music sounds like...however, they each only seem to have an element of the whole...

And the speakers that closest to live music seems to differ between different listeners as well.

In my experience there are very few customers that I sell speakers to that actually try to find speakers that sound like live music.

A lot of people want speakers that sound good at low volume, which is definitely not like live music. Others want a sooting "natural" sound.

Actually most of the people that I sell speakers to do not have any real criteria for how they want the speakers to sound. They just listen and see if they like the sound, for many that's half the battle, then it's the overall speaker aesthetics, then it's can they afford them, will their spouses OR interior designers allow them, will they fit in their room, all kinds of individual's personal variables.

Edit- Another variable is that if you add a sub(s) to a system it drastically changes the presentation of pretty much all of the mentioned speakers types. imo

 

[Lagonda]

I don't think anyone would ever argue or even think that it's best to have a big room for big speakers. BUT, a lot of people don't have big rooms available, even if they live in very large residences. Many do the best they can by treating the room. Some don't even treat the rooms.

They don't do this thinking the guys on audio forums are not going to approve. They do it because of their available space and they surely understand it would be better to have a larger room, but they don't, so they just use what they have.

Most of these type customers would not be happy or even put any speaker in the room if they put in say a monitor or smaller speaker, which from a sound perspective would make much more sense.

So I think we all can agree that it is best to have a big room for big speakers, but if a big room is not available and people decide to still buy a large speaker then if it makes them happy isn't that ok?

Sure, and having a speaker with adjustable bass output , like the big Magico helps a lot !

 

[Rhapsody]

Sure, and having a speaker with adjustable bass output , like the big Magico helps a lot !

Agreed, especially if you want to add subs, then you can adjust the MXO to allow the subs to blend in properly way down under 20Hz....if so inclined

 

[Al M.]

Actually most of the people that I sell speakers to do not have any real criteria for how they want the speakers to sound. They just listen and see if they like the sound, for many that's half the battle, then it's the overall speaker aesthetics, then it's can they afford them, will their spouses OR interior designers allow them, will they fit in their room, all kinds of individual's personal variables.

That would explain why some people change gear all the time. They don't have a sonic reference in their mind, and different is often "better". Also, it takes time to optimize the performance of what you already have, and many don't seem to have the patience for what would take considerable time and effort. A gear change then is hoped for as the solution to any problem.

 

[Rhapsody]

That would explain why some people change gear all the time. They don't have a sonic reference in their mind, and different is often "better". Also, it takes time to optimize the performance of what you already have, and many don't seem to have the patience for what would take considerable time and effort. A gear change then is hoped for as the solution to any problem.

Hi Al, I never realized this early on, but I now know I sold speakers that "I didn't like" because I almost 100% did not have them set up properly in the room. Blamed it on the speakers, sold them, and moved on. Probably sold the next pair for the same reason as well. That was quite some time ago, but sometimes moving a speaker six inches changes everything.

 

[Alrainbow]

The more complex the harder to optimize. Now having said this of the many setups I’ve heard at bobs store or at shows it’s never been anything but enjoyable for me. I do agree some may change equipment for this reason. but having a person like bob helping the sale really cuts a lot of uncertainty
out and gets us to utopia faster

 

[Rhapsody]

The more complex the harder to optimize. Now having said this of the many setups I’ve heard at bobs store or at shows it’s never been anything but enjoyable for me. I do agree some may change equipment for this reason. but having a person like bob helping the sale really cuts a lot of uncertainty
out and gets us to utopia faster

Thx Al, I'll send the Venmo I promised if you would say that

 

[the sound of Tao]

Thx Al, I'll send the Venmo I promised if you would say that

Al hang out for a non-taxable long term equipment loan… apparently they’re all the go

 

[Zeotrope]

I have listened to both on several occasions. The immediate previous speaker of this M9 owner was Wilson Audio XVX.

I can say their presentations are quite different. XVX is more dynamic and soundstage is more open. M9 is more refined and carries more details. It can be due to the fact that one is a ported and the other is a sealed box design. It is like transistor vs tube amps, each has its supporters.

The scaffolding structure of Wilson Audio is not as rigid as carbon fibre monocoque of M9. Vibration is more severe in the midrange and treble units of XVX. This reduces the resolution. But the time domain correction gives a more accurate soundstage. There are two sides of every coin. View attachment 106023

It’s a shame one still needs to compromise with a $750k(?) speaker.

 

[LL21]

I have listened to both on several occasions. The immediate previous speaker of this M9 owner was Wilson Audio XVX.

I can say their presentations are quite different. XVX is more dynamic and soundstage is more open. M9 is more refined and carries more details. It can be due to the fact that one is a ported and the other is a sealed box design. It is like transistor vs tube amps, each has its supporters.

The scaffolding structure of Wilson Audio is not as rigid as carbon fibre monocoque of M9. Vibration is more severe in the midrange and treble units of XVX. This reduces the resolution. But the time domain correction gives a more accurate soundstage. There are two sides of every coin. View attachment 106023

Very interesting! Not many have heard both...and even fewer have heard them in the same room and perhaps in the same system!

Did you find the much bigger Magico M9 had more powerful bass and greater sense of all out scale and higher 'limits' due to its size, larger cone/air displacement, etc? Or did you feel that in the areas of pure power and scale, they seemed comparable, just different?

 

[Bobvin]

Very interesting! Not many have heard both...and even fewer have heard them in the same room and perhaps in the same system!

Did you find the much bigger Magico M9 had more powerful bass and greater sense of all out scale and higher 'limits' due to its size, larger cone/air displacement, etc? Or did you feel that in the areas of pure power and scale, they seemed comparable, just different?

Or/also you could ask which is more engaging? While I heard the WAMM not XVX, and in a dealer room vs. listening at the original Magico showroom, for me it was no contest. The Wilsons (and this was back when I still had Wilsons myself) were impressive in all the ways you’d expect from such an all out assault, but compared to the M9 I came away feeling “that was cool, not 3/4 million cool, but pretty impressive.” With the M9 I came away thinking “Holy shit, thats another level completely.”

But, two completely different systems and settings. Could have been the Dag kit driving the Wilsons — I’ve never gotten sucked-in to a system fronted by Dagastino electronics.

 

[LL21]

Or/also you could ask which is more engaging? While I heard the WAMM not XVX, and in a dealer room vs. listening at the original Magico showroom, for me it was no contest. The Wilsons (and this was back when I still had Wilsons myself) were impressive in all the ways you’d expect from such an all out assault, but compared to the M9 I came away feeling “that was cool, not 3/4 million cool, but pretty impressive.” With the M9 I came away thinking “Holy shit, thats another level completely.”

But, two completely different systems and settings. Could have been the Dag kit driving the Wilsons — I’ve never gotten sucked-in to a system fronted by Dagastino electronics. Pilium, on the other hand…

Thank you...interesting. I think the reason for my very specific question was because the Magico is a much bigger speaker physically and cone-area-wise...and I am personally digging into my own next move and where to go next...and I think the only place for me to go into unchartered waters is all-out scale...ie, like what ones hears from a Genesis One, or a big 4-tower.

So of course, when someone hears both the much bigger Magico M9 and the XVX in the same room/possibly same system...I have to ask whether that scale/bass/power thing follows in accordance with the 50%+ increase in weight/size, bass cone area, etc of the speaker.