Magico Q7:" most impressive product in 23 years of TAS reviews" (R. Harley)

[andromedaaudio]

Would it???

M fremer is quite open about it , probably also the reason i like his reviews .

From the xlf review :

So how did it sound?
The main challenge in using such tall speakers in so cramped a room is getting them to reproduce a convincing sense of space. Wilson's setup charts indicate that 9' is as close as you can sit and still get the focus and coherence they promise. The drivers can't be aimed any lower and it isn't possible for me to move listening chair farther away.

For a reviewer to publicly state that the room (in which state-of-the-art equipment is evaluated) is sub-standard would be career suicide. A better question would be, "Does Alon Wolf feel that this room allowed the Q7 to demonstrate its full potential

Lee

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Since Jeff posted the link to the article, I'll take the liberty of quoting a salient part:



While ANY manufacturer would want a good review (and by all accounts the Q7s are magnificent), it furthers the credibility of the audiophile world to have solid scientific reasons for the effects we hear. Having a room that may introduce anomalies (whether beneficial or detrimental) to the sound of the equipment will cloud the review process and leave the results open to serious debate. Personally, I would be more inclined to believe Jeff's impressions of a speaker, since there is a quantifiable baseline of performance in the specially designed room.

When I introduce a foreign IV solution into my patient, there are many effects that occur simultaneously. There are electrical, physical, osmotic, and hydraulic equilibria that all attempt to satisfy themselves. I tell my students, "For everything that happens, there is a concrete scientific reason that it happens. We may not understand why or how it occurs, but that is our own shortcoming and does not invalidate the scientific basis of this effect." Understanding audio is exactly the same.

I've ranted on this subject for a few posts. I was "called out" for having the nerve to make a statement that questioned the acoustic properties of a room that certainly looks sub-optimal for audio reproduction. Mr. Harley certainly cannot cut his own throat and state that the room is not ideal. Mr. Wolf certainly wants another stellar review. WBF could use the truth, and I'll take a few arrows if needed to ask the right questions.

Lee

+1.

i can remember when i was in my old smaller room and wanted to know just how good things might sound in an (much more) ideal room. that older room was a room which just happened to sound good accidently but ultimately had limitations to where i wanted to go and what i wanted to know.

are we hearing the room? are we hearing the gear? what is causing what? how about this and how about that?

not that any room is perfect. the best rooms simply have the fewest compromises and the most optimal environment for discovery of truth. a less compromised room does also demand more from the user too. in my case things got much worse for awhile before they got better.

it was interesting that RH wrote that they got the set-up for the Q7's done in 3 hours. i wonder whether that was in spite of or because of the room.....or whether the room was a factor in that.

 

[Gregadd]

Sorry I don't see anything about subjectivism that hinders individual choice. Indeed it is objectivism that seeks to override individual choice with "science."

 

[RBFC]

Would it???

M fremer is quite open about it , probably also the reason i like his reviews .

From the xlf review :

So how did it sound?
The main challenge in using such tall speakers in so cramped a room is getting them to reproduce a convincing sense of space. Wilson's setup charts indicate that 9' is as close as you can sit and still get the focus and coherence they promise. The drivers can't be aimed any lower and it isn't possible for me to move listening chair farther away.

While I applaud Mr. Fremer's openness, does this not leave serious doubt as to how the XLF would perform in a better space? In all fairness, there are a handful of reviewers (with notoriety and longevity in the field) who could review speakers while they had a bad cold and the neighbors were doing construction with power tools. None of this reduces the fundamental issue under discussion: how much of the reported sound is the speaker, and how much is the "unique" room?

Lee

 

[microstrip]

(...) While ANY manufacturer would want a good review (and by all accounts the Q7s are magnificent), it furthers the credibility of the audiophile world to have solid scientific reasons for the effects we hear. Having a room that may introduce anomalies (whether beneficial or detrimental) to the sound of the equipment will cloud the review process and leave the results open to serious debate. Personally, I would be more inclined to believe Jeff's impressions of a speaker, since there is a quantifiable baseline of performance in the specially designed room.

Lee,

I understand and respect your point, but although here in WBF we love debating the best speaker in the world, consumers - the people who read and should be the target of the reviews - do not want the best speaker in the world. They want the best sound in the world in their rooms. If you read Wilson Audio advice about room treatment you immediately understand he is not aiming to sell 400 XLF's to professionals or people having the ultimate listening room.

I enjoyed a lot the great series of articles of Jeff on the Music Vault and appreciate a lot his reviews in this room, learning a lot from them. But if I was picking a speaker based mainly on reviews I would prefer to choose something tested in Hartley listening room. Unhappily it has more resemblance with my space than Jeff's fantastic room.

Every reviewer - and even a few people whom I am seriously jealous - who listened to classic, opera or acoustical music in SME fantastic listening room agreed that it was the best reproduced sound of their life. Does this make the modified Quad ESL63 the best speaker in the world for this type of music, the ones who should own?

Just wanting to show the other side of the moon ...

 

[RBFC]

Sorry I don't see anything about subjectivism that hinders individual choice. Indeed it is objectivism that seeks to override individual choice with "science."

Disagree, at least to the point that free choice can be removed by scientific measurement. I love the way my Tag watch looks, and was fully aware of its inferior "scientific" performance when I purchased it. Had I bought it (at 80X the cost of the Casio) under the belief that it kept better time, I would have a right to be disappointed. Awareness of objective data is exactly what gives us the ability to make clear subjective choices without misleading ourselves.

Lee

 

[RBFC]

Lee,

I understand and respect your point, but although here in WBF we love debating the best speaker in the world, consumers - the people who read and should be the target of the reviews - do not want the best speaker in the world. They want the best sound in the world in their rooms. If you read Wilson Audio advice about room treatment you immediately understand he is not aiming to sell 400 XLF's to professionals or people having the ultimate listening room.

I enjoyed a lot the great series of articles of Jeff on the Music Vault and appreciate a lot his reviews in this room, learning a lot from them. But if I was picking a speaker based mainly on reviews I would prefer to choose something tested in Hartley listening room. Unhappily it has more resemblance with my space than Jeff's fantastic room.

Every reviewer - and even a few people whom I am seriously jealous - who listened to classic, opera or acoustical music in SME fantastic listening room agreed that it was the best reproduced sound of their life. Does this make the modified Quad ESL63 the best speaker in the world for this type of music, the ones who should own?

Just wanting to show the other side of the moon ...

If you know that a certain speaker sounds good in your own room, and you know how it measures, then you can make a pretty good assumption about other speakers that measure the same, or ones that don't. While rooms like Mr. Harley's, Fremer's, etc. may resemble someone else's, it's highly doubtful that their acoustic properties are closely similar. In the end, it IS all about subjective choice. The means by which we arrive at that subjective choice are what is in question.

Lee

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

true! true! I guess my point was that with 'regular' speakers, most people end up turning the volume down due to the distortion...whereas with some of these ultra-low distortion, limitless dynamics speakers, you dont realize exactly how loud it is in the room because there is so little distortion...untill you actually shout and cannot hear yourself. I am super serious about this...it was mind blowing when i first realized how loudly i could crank the big Wilsons without ever cringing from the normal distortion i expected to hear. It was thrilling, and after 30 seconds...i remembered my friends advice who now has hearing aids...and immediately turned it down.

This is a very real threat when listening to very low distortion headphone systems or active monitors at near field distances as well. If you mute, walk out of the room to get a cup of coffee, then return and de-mute, it puts it all in perspective. The first couple of times I did that and found myself blown away by the volume I'd been listening to was enough of a lesson for me. I'm very careful.

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

Disagree, at least to the point that free choice can be removed by scientific measurement. I love the way my Tag watch looks, and was fully aware of its inferior "scientific" performance when I purchased it. Had I bought it (at 80X the cost of the Casio) under the belief that it kept better time, I would have a right to be disappointed. Awareness of objective data is exactly what gives us the ability to make clear subjective choices without misleading ourselves.

Lee

+ 1

 

[andromedaaudio]

RBFC ,It does off course , and since we are on the "whats best forum" !!!!

I am also convinced a great room can lift the performance from good to magical, the best room i heard so far had a lot of non parallel walls and wasnt overly treated .
To test a big system properly i think you need at least around 4 meters distance

 

[RBFC]

By the way, I've been posting personal opinions here. Please don't take my opinions to be representative of WBF's position on this subject.

Lee

 

[microstrip]

If you know that a certain speaker sounds good in your own room, and you know how it measures, then you can make a pretty good assumption about other speakers that measure the same, or ones that don't. While rooms like Mr. Harley's, Fremer's, etc. may resemble someone else's, it's highly doubtful that their acoustic properties are closely similar. In the end, it IS all about subjective choice. The means by which we arrive at that subjective choice are what is in question.

Lee

We also disagree strongly on this one. First, what exact measurements are you addressing? Second, as far as I know no two speakers from different manufacturers measure the same, unless your comparison criteria is very broad, or sound the same.

And I have found that most speakers keep their main sonic character independently of room. We can tailor somewhat its sound, add or reduce the bass quantity and definition, a little bit of treble and imaging, but can not fully transform it. I can not prove it, but I feel no acoustic environment can change a Quad ESL63 in a SoundLab, even at moderate levels.

 

[Gregadd]

Did your watch become ugly. because it kept poor time? Were you laboring under the delusion that better looking watches keep better time? It was your free will to emphasize cosmetics.Cosmetics and accuracy are not mutually exclusive.

 

[A.wayne]

He's a hoax , no true audiophile would move to a lesser room ...

---- That's right; Robert Harley had a dedicated listening/viewing room in his previous home, with $30,000 spent professionally on room acoustic treatments alone.

But knowing Robert, he'll get into it eventually in his new home as well. ...But that living room of his right now is real nice, with great possibilities.
...Much nicer than mine anyway. :b

And those Magicos look gorgeous in it. ...La creme de la creme.

 

[RBFC]

Did your watch become ugly. because it kept poor time? Were you laboring under the delusion that better looking watches keep better time? It was your free will to emphasize cosmetics.Cosmetics and accuracy are not mutually exclusive.

I'm always late to appointments, but look good when I get there!

Lee

 

[A.wayne]

Nice setup Jeff, i know of a few professional reviewers with very inadequate rooms and setup. Is it possible to see better pictures of your room than the link provided ...

Regards

The Value of a Reference Listening Room:

http://ultraaudio.com/index.php/fea...0-and-the-value-of-a-reference-listening-room

The Q7 as reviewed in that reference listening room:

http://ultraaudio.com/index.php/twbas-menu/252-inevitable-magico-q7-loudspeakers

 

[A.wayne]

C'mon Lee , theres always marketing and anyway they are the best speakers in the world , apparently in any room ...

On a more serious note !

The more neutral a transducer, is the less it becomes sensitive to room and ancillaries attached to it, not that better won't make a difference , just that they will sound good out of the box, planted ...

The Q7 appears to be such a device ....

Since RH reported that some small tweaks further improved the sound of the Q7 in his room, it's suspect as to whether they were optimized in the time that Mr. Wolf was on site. My speakers are sounding good in my room, but I have zero doubt that they would sound better in a more suitable, well-designed space.

The root of my displeasure with the "challenger's" comments is that an inquisitive stance is beneficial to all of us. First, this poster makes a defensive statement about Mr. Wolf being pleased with the sound of the Q7 in RH's room, and then makes the comment above (which, in effect, retracts his previous position). Perhaps the Q7s sound better in RH's room than in any other application (highly doubt this) and perhaps they don't. Since acoustics of rooms are so critical, many of us want to know what's going on!

My message to Alon Wolf asked if he felt that the Q7s were able to perform at their best in that space, not if they sounded good there. I have nothing against Magico, I'd love to own a pair. I want to know how much of a review is marketing (RH's visibility in the audiophile community) and how much is actual performance in a given space.

Lee

 

[Jeff Fritz]

Nice setup Jeff, i know of a few professional reviewers with very inadequate rooms and setup. Is it possible to see better pictures of your room than the link provided ...

Regards

Probably a lot more than you want to see. Start here with the 2009/03 galleries. This shows the Rockport Arrakis at TWBAS 2009. There are multiple galleries that show the room.

http://ultraaudio.com/galleries.html

In addition to multiple Rockports and Magicos, I've had speakers from Wilson (original X-2), Raidho, Sonus Faber, EgglestonWorks, Tidal, Ascendo, etc. . . . I have a library of measurements of all these speakers in-room and this has given me a lot of knowledge about my room and how various speakers and speaker-types perform in it.

Alon Wolf stated that he had never measured a more symmetrical room when he was doing the final calibration of the Q7s at my place. I liken room symmetry to pair-matching of loudspeakers. If the room is not symmetrical, do you think the reflections will be?

 

[cjfrbw]

I really don't think that one can determine whether a listening room is "good" or not just by looking at it.

I have said it before, and I guess I will say it again: performance halls upon which millions, even 130 million (Walt Disney Concert Hall, LA) have been lavished by "experts" and acousticians, have disappointed numerous critics in one way or another. What makes one think that a custom audio room is going to fare any better?

Many of the programmed surrounds in my Yamaha receiver made from famous halls are not symmetric, some clearly have a slightly lopsided character either at front or on the sides. The need for symmetry may be more a psychological need than an actual acoustic requirement.

It seems that some rooms/halls that sound good are almost accidental in nature, with added tweaking, rather than engineered from white paper. One might just listen to rooms they like and try to emulate the one they like best, but then, there is no guaranty that any particular set of components would actually sound good in it.

I think some of it has to do with the myth of expertise, and the experts who are able to make a great living promoting their expertise.

There have been more than a few blogosphere complaints about expensive custom rooms that disappointed their occupants, who sometimes did them over at further great expense, and weird rooms with peculiar setups that listeners love.

Of course, if you have spent a bundle on a room, I suppose there are bragging rights, the custom rooms are beautiful.

My own thought is that a room with a general trapezoidal cross section, with the components on the short end, and some kind of mixing chamber consisting of a relief, either in the ceiling or one or both of the sides, generally gives a good starting point.

 

[NorthStar]

The Value of a Reference Listening Room:

http://ultraaudio.com/index.php/fea...0-and-the-value-of-a-reference-listening-room

The Q7 as reviewed in that reference listening room:

http://ultraaudio.com/index.php/twbas-menu/252-inevitable-magico-q7-loudspeakers

---- That is exactly what we're talkin' 'bout; excellent Jeffrey!

Happy New Year Jeff! :b

__________________

But Robert Harley's new home and listening room (living room) for reviewing speakers, while not reference, is still quite fair in 'heightened highness', and in relation to other speaker's reviewing (listening in that same room), plus in reference to 'normal' people's rooms (customers, buyers, money spenders, audio guys, ...).

The AbsoluteSound; do they take measurements? ...The SoundStage?