Magico M9

[cannata]

***

Disclosure: I listened on headphones via computer. The sound there can be decent on actual professional recordings (not iPhone system recordings). So it's not that my playback completely sucks. It's the recording that sucks.

This might be the problem, what was recorded on the Iphone, should be listened on the Iphone. Also, when listening on YT, compression levels vary constantly, you never know what it is you are hearing. Which can explain the different reactions to the same video.

 

[cannata]

Edit- The purpose of my comments isn’t to knock the speakers I’m bringing up the importance of setup and the system driving them which is critical specially at this level. Low impedance power hungry speakers are a handicap from the get go.

david

Nonsense, like everything else, there are tradeoffs. BTW, the M9s are 94db efficient, with an actively driven bass section. Should be fairly easy to drive.

 

[Rhapsody]

Nonsense, like everything else, there are tradeoffs. BTW, the M9 are 94db efficient, with an actively driven bass section. Should be fairly easy to drive.

The M9s do NOT have an active bass driven system. Although they do have their own outboard dedicated amplifiers. Two channels for the top modules and two channels of amplification required for the bottom modules. All four channels come out of the MXO crossover.

 

[cannata]

The M9s do NOT have an active bass driven system. Although they do have their own outboard dedicated amplifiers. Two channels for the top modules and two channels of amplification required for the bottom modules.

That is what I meant. A separate, actively XOed, amp for the bass.

 

[Rhapsody]

The fact that the MXO crossover handles separation between the mid-bass and the bass section of the M9s I believe will prove to be a real factor in the performance of the M9s. I can't wait to get my hands on them. AND with my amplification.

 

[PeterA]

The birds on the recording are kind of funny. I can see how people like them or dislike them but to me they sound far from convincing. I think they are distracting from the sound of the strings.

To me the sound is homogenized. It’s flat and sterile. Very pleasant sounding music but the presentation is lifeless.

It’s not the case that all videos suck. There are some good sounding videos posted by people. I don’t think much can be gleamed about these particular speakers in this context but I appreciate that the video was posted and shared. It is clearly meant to be a showcase system to give pleasure to the owner.

 

[Rhapsody]

What's the meaning of the phrase 'For the birds'?​

Trivial; worthless; only of interest to gullible people.

 

[ddk]

Nonsense, like everything else, there are tradeoffs. BTW, the M9s are 94db efficient, with an actively driven bass section. Should be fairly easy to drive.

What trade off when one is limited to expensive very high powered amplifiers that aren’t natural or musical sounding? You’re stuck with that.

As I mentioned clearly I wasn’t commenting on the M9s but the cause of the problems heard that has nothing to do with speakers.

94db is just one parameter and only a number, how that measurement was made matters and you need more information on how the speaker behaves under load to make any conclusion on the speaker’s real efficiency.

david

 

[Al M.]

Nonsense, like everything else, there are tradeoffs. BTW, the M9s are 94db efficient, with an actively driven bass section. Should be fairly easy to drive.

A nominal sensitivity spec can be of limited meaning. My two-way monitors of 92 dB sensitivity (supplemented by active subs) can easily and very dynamically be driven by my old 15W/ch parallel push-pull triode monoblocks. My current tube amp is 100 W/ch. Overkill, like I wanted.

Yet reasonably efficient two-way monitors are easy. Large multi-way cone speakers are always harder to drive.

 

[andromedaaudio]

A nominal sensitivity spec can be of limited meaning. My two-way monitors of 92 dB sensitivity (supplemented by active subs) can easily and very dynamically be driven by my old 15W/ch parallel push-pull triode monoblocks. My current tube amp is 100 W/ch. Overkill, like I wanted.

Yet two-way monitors are easy. Large multi-way cone speakers are always harder to drive.

No thats not my expirience .
2 ways are the hardest .
Its almost impossible to design a high eff easy to drive 2 way speaker
I can see where david is coming from .
But alon wolf has made different choices

 

[cannata]

... high powered amplifiers that aren’t natural or musical sounding? You’re stuck with that...



david

You lost me here, sorry. Your definition of ‘natural or musical’, based on the videos I have heard of yours (and Peter’s set up), is extremely colored. Like I said, there are tradeoffs to consider, and personal preferences.

 

[Al M.]

No thats not my expirience .
2 ways are the hardest .
Its almost impossible to design a high eff easy to drive 2 way speaker
I can see where david is coming from .
But alon wolf has made different choices

Nonsense. My 15 W/ch amps could even drive my old Ensemble Reference monitors of just 90 dB sensitivity to great dynamics with ease.

Two-way monitors don't usually have complex crossovers, for one thing. I bet the crossovers in the M9 are complex high-order ones.

 

[ddk]

You lost me here, sorry. Your definition of ‘natural or musical’, based on the videos I have heard of yours (and Peter’s set up), is extremely colored. Like I said, there are tradeoffs to consider, and personal preferences.

You are entitled to your opinion same as everyone!

Still waiting for the tradeoffs you mention, what do you get in return for dead sounding electronics please elaborate?

david

 

[andromedaaudio]

Nonsense. My 15 W/ch amps could even drive my old Ensemble Reference monitors of just 90 dB sensitivity to great dynamics with ease.

Two-way monitors don't usually have complex crossovers, for one thing. I bet the crossovers in the M9 are complex high-order ones.

I have looked it up and according to stereophile it has a 5 inch woofer and a soft dome .
Al , seriously such a design is very limited
Its hardly capable of doing any damage

 

[cannata]

Correct. Its physics, a small 2-way, efficient, easy to drive speaker will have no bass (unless it is really big). The lower you want it to go, the less efficient, or the bigger it will have to be.

 

[andromedaaudio]

The lower you want it to go, the less efficient,

Thats also not the case cannata look at the wilsons ( X 1 , X2 ) for example
But believe me alon wolf knows exactly how to make a easy to drive high eff speaker .
Its just that he has different design ideas/ priorities

 

[Al M.]

I have looked it up and according to stereophile it has a 5 inch woofer and a soft dome .
Al , seriously such a design is very limited
Its hardly capable of doing any damage

Of course it's a limited design, but that doesn't take away my point.

My current monitors have an 8.25 inch mid-woofer and a beryllium tweeter. Direct coupling of mid-woofer to amp, without crossover.

 

[andromedaaudio]

My current monitors have an 8.25 inch mid-woofer and a beryllium tweeter. Direct coupling of mid-woofer to amp, without crossover

Thats even worse .

 

[cannata]

Thats also not the case cannata look at the wilsons ( X 1 , X2 ) for example
But believe me alon wolf knows exactly how to make a easy to drive high eff speaker .
Its just that he has different design ideas/ priorities

All things equal, I believe I am correct (not sure what you mean by the Wilson example).

 

[Al M.]

Correct. Its physics, a small 2-way, efficient, easy to drive speaker will have no bass (unless it is really big). The lower you want it to go, the less efficient, or the bigger it will have to be.

Sure, that's why I have active subwoofers.

But then, I think all speakers need subwoofers. The generic term "full-range" speaker for any multi-way floor stander is a pathetic joke. Very few speakers are full-range.

Put on some deep bass electronica, and you'll know right away.