Magico Q7

[Andre Marc]

Hi Jeff:

Very nice write up. Exciting stuff.

If you will allow me to take issue only with the crowning of the Q7 as the
"best" loudspeaker in the world.

In a hobby as subjective as ours, I just think conclusions like that are a bit of folly.

In another subjective hobby, for 40 years car enthusiasts have been debating which exotic toy
is the "best", Labmo, Ferrari, Bugatti, Maserati, etc.

Still no answer.

Unless one can compare the Q7, or any speaker, to the flagships of every major manufacturer, I don't think the term "best" should be used. Best you have heard in your familiar listening space? You can certainly say that.

First Q7 review . . .

http://ultraaudio.com/index.php?opt...dspeakers&catid=44:feature-articles&Itemid=37

 

[NorthStar]

---That is exactly what he meant; the Best HE have ever heard (himself). :b

 

[Andre Marc]

---That is exactly what he meant; the Best HE have ever heard (himself). :b

Hey NorthStar:

Really? I DON'T think that is what he implied:

"The Magico Q7 is currently the best loudspeaker in the world.

That statement will upset some, make others question my credibility, inspire someone somewhere to hate Magico, and maybe push a wealthy audiophile or two to buy something else, just to be contrarian.

I’m OK with all of that.......

For right now, we all have to live with these facts: The Q7 is very expensive. It’s very big. It comes only in black. And it’s the best loudspeaker available today."

 

[Gregadd]

---That is exactly what he meant; the Best HE have ever heard (himself). :b

That's probably what he meant. Here is what he said:

Conclusions

The Magico Q7 is currently the best loudspeaker in the world.

That statement will upset some, make others question my credibility, inspire someone somewhere to hate Magico, and maybe push a wealthy audiophile or two to buy something else, just to be contrarian.

I’m OK with all of that.

From a full-range, low-distortion, massively built, thoroughly engineered package, the Magico Q7 delivers music with unmatched clarity, resolution, and transparency. In my room, it handled with ease every dynamic challenge I threw at it, tracking the musical signal perfectly, regardless of bandwidth or the abruptness of transients. And with beautiful music, it sounded . . . beautiful.

For right now, we all have to live with these facts: The Q7 is very expensive. It’s very big. It comes only in black. And it’s the best loudspeaker available today.

 

[Roysen]

First Q7 review . . .

http://ultraaudio.com/index.php?opt...dspeakers&catid=44:feature-articles&Itemid=37

What a joke! You call it a review but its just advertising material. How can something be called "Worlds Best" without one single word of comparion to anything. You have lived with the Rockport Arrakis for years and used to call it "Worlds Best" too. Now you don't even compare these two speakers in any attributes at all. Give me a break! I guess we have to wait for Robert Harley's review in TAS to read something with credibility regarding the Q7.

 

[LL21]

I have known Jeff for a while now, and know him to be forthright and honest. When he says he is going to do something, he does it. When he says something about a product, he means it. He has his convictions, and i respect them...i also have had the benefit of his straightforward advice in the past which i have found to be on the mark.

As to comparisons between Q7 and other SOTA speakers, i agree with the comments here. It would be great to have some of Jeff's "notes" about how he feels they compare...many of us do not have the ability to listen to these kinds of speakers without a lot of travel (or a TON of investment! )

In fairness to Jeff, I think they could only be "notes" because:
a. its all personal in the end anyway
b. ideally, Jeff would have all speakers in the same system...probably not possible logistically
c. plus, many of us would agree each speaker will respond differently in different systems anyway.

Personally? I would love to read Jeff's 'notes' on how the Q7 matches up to: X2 Series 2, Arrakis (1 or 2)...no doubt others will have different favorites, but these two are mine. He has already thrown the gauntlet down and declared 'the best' and he has been unequivocal about that. It would be interesting to get the benefit of his notes or observations about these other 2 speakers and the differences with the Q7 as i believe he has had both in his system before (certainly series 1 of each...not sure about series 2).

 

[Jeff Fritz]

What a joke! You call it a review but its just advertising material. How can something be called "Worlds Best" without one single word of comparion to anything. You have lived with the Rockport Arrakis for years and used to call it "Worlds Best" too. Now you don't even compare these two speakers in any attributes at all. Give me a break! I guess we have to wait for Robert Harley's review in TAS to read something with credibility regarding the Q7.

I do understand the criticism. But there were several factors involved: The Arrakis left my room two years ago; all the electronics changed; even the room has been updated. Still, when I stated that the Q7 ". . . delivers music with unmatched clarity, resolution, and transparency" I am obviously drawing that conclusion based on everything I've ever heard in my room or otherwise.

Lastly, when I can do it fairly I always include comparisons. Just two recent examples.

Raidho vs. Sonus Faber: http://www.ultraaudio.com/index.php...dspeakers&catid=44:feature-articles&Itemid=37

Sonus Faber vs. Magico: http://www.ultraaudio.com/index.php...dspeakers&catid=44:feature-articles&Itemid=37

Although from the tone of your note I don't suspect that will satisfy you, that is the explanation. Hope it helps.

 

[Randall Smith]

You would have criticized him whether he compared it to the Arrakis or not. Jeff made the right choice by not unfairly comparing the two speakers. Sure, it would have been great to have the Arrakis onhand for the Q7 review, but I honestly do not believe the room would have supported all that weight. As far as Robert Harley goes, can you find me one of his reviews of a super speaker over the last year that actually draws a single comparison? Until you can, this is a personal attack against Jeff and nothing else. The moderators should do more to clean up the board.

What a joke! You call it a review but its just advertising material. How can something be called "Worlds Best" without one single word of comparion to anything. You have lived with the Rockport Arrakis for years and used to call it "Worlds Best" too. Now you don't even compare these two speakers in any attributes at all. Give me a break! I guess we have to wait for Robert Harley's review in TAS to read something with credibility regarding the Q7.

 

[es347]

What a joke! You call it a review but its just advertising material. How can something be called "Worlds Best" without one single word of comparion to anything. You have lived with the Rockport Arrakis for years and used to call it "Worlds Best" too. Now you don't even compare these two speakers in any attributes at all. Give me a break! I guess we have to wait for Robert Harley's review in TAS to read something with credibility regarding the Q7.

Oslo eh? I just xxx'd off my travel agenda.

 

[Gregadd]

The Magico Q7 is currently the best loudspeaker in the world.
That statement will upset some, make others question my credibility, inspire someone somewhere to hate Magico, and maybe push a wealthy audiophile or two to buy something else, just to be contrarian.

I’m OK with all of that.

Quite prophetic Jeff.

Roysen there are at least two self proclaimed contenders. The Wilson XLF and YG Acoustics Anat III.

 

[Roysen]

This really has nothing to do with the Arrakis or the Q7. It has all to do with the fact that if something is alone in the world it will always be the best. Without any comparions to anything in the review the Q7 stands alone in its own world and can without a shawdow of a doubt be called the worlds best without anyone being able to contradict it but also without any recognisable attributes for the reader to understand how this speaker really sounds like. What value does such characteristics give the readers? I mean isn't he supposed to write for the readers and not for the manufacturers?

When you first anounce the worlds best audio system and pick the components individually, the reviewer sets a pretty high water mark for himself to follow up in the review to justify such a claim. When the review then doesn't contain a single comparion to anything to put the performance of that product in any context for the readers, the big question becomes why was all of this published? As several people have already pointed out the preferances of one person is nothing more than personal. A review of any product should in my opinion be a test of that product and not just a description of its positive attributes. Marketing should be handled by the manufacturers and not hidden in a claimed review.

If all of this had no meaning of showing the readers why these products were chosen what value does this TWBAS series give the readers and since it is obvious it has no value for the reader, why was it published?

I would have had no problem with the review at all if it wasn't a product picked by Jeff for his "Worlds Best Audio System".

 

[ack]

A couple of obvious observations, and hopefully we can end this bickering...

1. He intentionally put together, through some process, a subjectively-branded world's best system; it is, thus, expected (by definition) that the comments eventually made to brand it as such, as well as the individual components of it. We don't have to agree with it, it's subjective after all
2. If I may draw parallels to other "world's best" things, like cars, you may NOT find direct comparisons there either , when someone does proclaim car A as such. Thus, when the Porche GT-whatever is subjectively called the world's best by anyone, they have not necessarily arrived at that subjective conclusion through a head-to-head comparison with other contenders on the same track, etc. This is just not the point of those reviews, and there are many impracticalities involved. No one is going for a PhD with these reviews
3. Such comparisons are simply not possible when one just doesn't have very recent memories of other possible contenders - it would be flawed to draw comparisons, parallels or conclusions based on distant memories in those cases

I am going for a drink. Anyone?

 

[NorthStar]

---Just regarding your last question; what kind of drink? :b

 

[ack]

Well, how about the 2004 La Lecciaia Brunello Di Montalcino! Goes well with fish - they both stink

 

[terryj]

---Just regarding your last question; what kind of drink? :b

the best of course.




I makes me wonder tho if TWBAS is actually the best as it stood. After all, it was just an assembled set of gear that did not go thru any 'revisions' so to speak (trying alternative cables, ic's, pre or power units etc)

We do not know if it has achieved a level of synergy yet do we

After all, synergy cannot be determined a priori can it (by definition)...we only know that by blind/random swapping of components.

As always Jeff, entertaining read.

Maybe this question should be in the other thread Jeff, but I noted your view on the standard of hi end audio (good to see you fighting the good fight) and how truly 'revolutionary' products should be lauded.

There are very few who in any realistic sense who have the slightest chance of reaching those lofty heights, so for a lot of *us* what is of greater interest are the giant killers, you know the 'ten.ninety' percent split...or more appropriate ratios...ninety percent of the performance for ten percent of the price type stuff.

I am aware that you have written articles along those lines (can't remember what they were called tho) yet even there I was kinda dismayed that they still fell into the audiophile trap of needing a (to me) very disproportionate amount to be spent on frippery like cables et al.

Anyway, I personally think an interesting exercise that might run alongside an annual TWBAS is the counter one, TWBP (the worlds best pretender). In that one for a given budget any money spent that would normally be spent on fripperies like cables etc go's towards the next higher speaker in the range, or add subs (with controllers) and so on.

Power amps are quality pro units rather than bling audiophile, same for the other electronics. I guess tho on a site that has as it's background expensive power cables and electrical conditioners such a project is unlikely to get off the ground.

 

[Gregadd]

I don't mean to offend anyone but it bothers me that the worlds best cost $200k. As much as I liked the Q5, the Q7 has to better it substantially to be worlds best.

 

[Gregadd]

When you first anounce the worlds best audio system and pick the components individually, the reviewer sets a pretty high water mark for himself to follow up in the review to justify such a claim. When the review then doesn't contain a single comparion to anything to put the performance of that product in any context for the readers, the big question becomes why was all of this published? As several people have already pointed out the preferances of one person is nothing more than personal. A review of any product should in my opinion be a test of that product and not just a description of its positive attributes. Marketing should be handled by the manufacturers and not hidden in a claimed review.

and...

.

Here we go . . . Ultimately, I know that my process for choosing the components that make up TWBAS 2012 is flawed. I would love to take six months, hire two or three setup guys, have shipped to me from around the globe the top five or six flagship speakers, the ten or so flagship power amplifiers, the 15 best source components, and every permutation of extreme cable and isolation system, and hire an expert listening panel to help me sort through it all. But that’s just not reality, and we all know it.
I’ve loved the ultra-high end for many years. Like you, I’ve had systems come and go, I’ve coveted equipment I couldn’t get, and I’ve dreamed of that perfect component for me. TWBAS 2012 is for me pure adrenalin: no limitations on cost, and no logistical concerns beyond being able to fit it into my Music Vault.
Flawed, yes. But beautifully so.
The virtual assembly of TWBAS 2012 is complete. All that’s left is to put it all together for real.
And then listen to it.
. . . Jeff Fritz
jeff@soundstagenetwork.com

Some agreement there.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I wonder if the reactions would have been the same had he said that the best speaker in the world was the Wilson XLF?

 

[docvale]

My $0.02...

TWBAS is per definition a game, so it has to be taken as it is. It stimulates the fantasy of the people, so we all participated to the game
But obviously, it won't satisfy all us players... best or not, I lost interest as the components were communicated. In the end, this put the finish mark to the game.

 

[microstrip]

Hi

I wonder if the reactions would have been the same had he said that the best speaker in the world was the Wilson XLF?

IMHO, it would have been much more violent ... The Ferrari yellow color seems to attract the attention of the partisans of the luxury is not compatible with sound quality trend