Magico Q7
- Thread starter wizard
- Start date
Remember, the current Arrakis is now an active speaker - bi amplified with an active crossover between the 15" woofers and the rest of the speaker. From what i've been told, it is substantially more transparent in this version. Also, The Arrakis may present some issues with more limited placement options in Jeff's room due to the rooms sloped ceilings and the Arrakis' height.
I think Jeff is one of the best reveiwers out there right now. He attmets to actually understand the technology to make sure it makes sense and backs it up with some basic measurements. He doesn't seem to believe in the black magic and get caought up in the marketing hype. With loudspeakers there are some fundamental issues that you cannot ignore if you are truly building state of the art, and not all "mega" speakers follow these rules. Ultimately just saying "I'll let my ears tell me" is a cop out.
Hi Trophunter,
Thanks for that...was wondering what the difference in sound would be between original and v2 Arrakis. Since this is a Q7 thread, i will simply say i am going to hear the Q3 next week...looking forward to it. Stopped by...still breaking it in.
Thanks for that...was wondering what the difference in sound would be between original and v2 Arrakis. Since this is a Q7 thread, i will simply say i am going to hear the Q3 next week...looking forward to it. Stopped by...still breaking it in.
I wouldn't say they're active speakers: there's no internal amplification
They require, instead, an active multiamplification.
yI wouldn't say they're active speakers: there's no internal amplification
They require, instead, an active multiamplification.
You are correct - I used incorrect terminology. The are bi amplified with an outboard electronic crossover. There are no amplifiers provided or internal to the speakers.
What is the rationale for electronic crossover vs passive...so that i t can be adjusted in the field for optimal setup? How does the hook-up work? Lets say you have 2 sets of monos...one set for High frequency/mids and the other set for bass. Does the preamp go to the crossover, then signal is split by the crossver to go to the 2 sets of monos?
Presume one could do this with 2 dual-mono amps instead? In other words, each dual-mono's LEFT channel would cover the LEFT channel high frequency/mids or bass. Each dual-monos RIGHT channel would cover the RIGHT channel frequency/mids or bass. Yes?
Presume one could do this with 2 dual-mono amps instead? In other words, each dual-mono's LEFT channel would cover the LEFT channel high frequency/mids or bass. Each dual-monos RIGHT channel would cover the RIGHT channel frequency/mids or bass. Yes?
An Electronic crosover goes between the pre amp and the amplifiers. In the case of the Arrakis, the crossover point is 80hz. There multiple advanatges to using an electronic crossover.
1) In addition to doubling the amplifier powers used - each amp is only assigned a limited frequency range to deal with.
2) Many times the amplifiers will sound better as they get an easier, less reactive laod to drive
3) Adjustabilty - if your room is bass heavy or light - you get a better ability to dial the speaker into the room
4) resolution is enhanaced as the electronic crossover is usually alway more transparent than the passive components it has replaced. Of course, this is effectively the same for focusing and soundstaging as well.
5) Dynamics are improved as you have double the power.
6) Bass slamm and articulation increases as the amp driving the woofers effectivley "locks onto" and controls the woofers much better as it is directly coupled to them).
Basically, ther are no downsides to a properly designed electronic crossover system ( other than you will need more amplifers) -only upsides - especially when it is done by the speakers designer. Any jibberish about a speaker not needing it or there being no improvement because the speaker designer did such a good job - is nonsense and marketing BS.
Actually, in most instances a speaker will perform much better with 2 inferior amps bi amped with an electronic crossover than 1 with superior amplifer.
Well i disagree with trophunters last sentence , i rather have a 200/ 400 watt amp of good quality driving a 90 db 4 ohm min . speaker for full control , than 2 inferior amps .
the soundquality will certainly drop on a high res system with 2 biamped soso power amps .
Biamping is not a goal in itself for improving soundquality , merely its in some cases a nescessity for LS/unit control due to low efficiency and/or low impedance
I could understand putting a triode amp for the Tweeter mid section and good SS on the bass section , i have not tried that though but i will do
the soundquality will certainly drop on a high res system with 2 biamped soso power amps .
Biamping is not a goal in itself for improving soundquality , merely its in some cases a nescessity for LS/unit control due to low efficiency and/or low impedance
I could understand putting a triode amp for the Tweeter mid section and good SS on the bass section , i have not tried that though but i will do
Last edited:
I finally listened to a Q7 based system this Tuesday and Wednesday. The source was the new Spectral CD player, electronics were all BAlabo. The interconnects from CD player to line stage and from line stage to power amp were all Gotham. Speaker cables were Sensory Power. The power cords on the line stage and power amp were also Sensory Power.
I noticed that the Q7 are only about two feet from the back wall. This is a departure from the other speakers in the Q series which all seem to need at least six feet of space from the back wall. The sound of this system is simply so excellent that it nailed me for two straight days of listening. I would have returned to listen some more if I had more time. The thought that kept coming to my mind was "this sounds so alive". The Q7 sounds very much like the Q5 but everything is so much better by a very wide margin. The ease with which the Q7 can reproduce music is almost in the level of the Magico Ultimate. No listening fatigue at all. One of the cds "Joan Baez's Diamonds and Rust in the Bull Ring" which I recall to be just mediocre sounded fantastic on this system.
I noticed that the Q7 are only about two feet from the back wall. This is a departure from the other speakers in the Q series which all seem to need at least six feet of space from the back wall. The sound of this system is simply so excellent that it nailed me for two straight days of listening. I would have returned to listen some more if I had more time. The thought that kept coming to my mind was "this sounds so alive". The Q7 sounds very much like the Q5 but everything is so much better by a very wide margin. The ease with which the Q7 can reproduce music is almost in the level of the Magico Ultimate. No listening fatigue at all. One of the cds "Joan Baez's Diamonds and Rust in the Bull Ring" which I recall to be just mediocre sounded fantastic on this system.
I had the same feeling when listening to the XLF with my recordings - how could it sound so much better than the Maxx3 I had long experience? We all would hope that the law of diminishing returns would make the differences small, but they are really large. And you are spot on - the "easiness" is a key point.
Unfortunately, I saw the Q7s but didn't hear them. They were on display at the front window of a store at Adelphi. Stranger still, at the MOD DAC show the Magico dealer had a killer system on display with Q1s, Q3s and a VAC Statement. They treated the room too but they were not cabled! How weird is that?!!!!!!
I know a distributor who personally prefers the old Slamms to the Maxx3 for that reason. His view was that with the right setup and the right electronics, one could tailor the Slamm sound however you wished which mitigated aginst the newer tech/drivers of the Maxx3...but the effortlessness of the Slamms scale was something the Maxx3s could not match.
-----Those caster wheels are out of touch!
...I'm sure they are there only temporary though; for moving them easier.
If I'd have a pair of these, I would put hockey pucks under them (Canadian made). :b
P.S. Check that TT.
The wheel casters are to make it easier to position such heavy speakers. Once the desired position is established, Magico has incorporated a system in which it is very easy to remove the wheel casters and set the speakers down. That was what I was told. The pair I listened to no longer had the wheel casters.
I would like to bring the attention back to amplification. What amp(s) would suit the Q7 best. From what I understand Alon is using Constellation Audio Centaur Mono amps in the Magico showroom. One would think that the Hercules would sound even better. Personally I have heard great things from other Magico speakers with darTZeel NHB-458 and Soulution 700. I also notice that the Q7 has been auditioned with great results with BAlabo and FM Acoustics and with not so great results with Pass Labs and Spectral. Of course none of these Q7 auditions were my own.
Thanks,
Roysen
Thanks,
Roysen
Good to know. I have heard that with FM Acoustics, one needs to ensure you get a big enough FMA amp. At least with the older ones, the Magico Minis were known for causing the 411's to go into thermal shut down...i have spoken with 2 owners and 1 dealer who confirmed this. I believe Magico Mini is one of the tougher loads within the Magico mini...but i believe many of them can present a difficult load. Not sure about the Q7.
I listened to the Q7 at CES 8 months ago, and reserved my opinion because the hotel room set up didn’t allow proper judgment on their potential: they sounded good, but not great. Then I spent 3 days listening to the Q7 in a well treated rom, with different amp configurations: VAC Reference 450 + VAC pre, Constellation Centaur + Spectral Pre (as we preferred it to the Virgo), Spectral 260 + Spectral pre. All cables top of the range MIT.
Before going into comparisons between amps, I have to say that I was completely blown away. I have only 3 words: wow, wow, wow! I just didn’t want to leave the room! They have all the strengths of other Magico speakers but brought to a different level (transparency to the source, absence of distortion, linearity, precision of imaging, the way they disappear as a source). Compared to the Q5, they are much easier to drive, so they are better at giving a sense of effortlessness and unlimited dynamic. The bass is great: extended, punchy and with a lot of definition on bass guitars or cello. They are hyper analytical but not fatiguing at all. They just sound like the real thing.
I have been in the market for a new pair of speaker for a while, have listened several times to most super high end speakers on the planet (Wilson XLF, Maxx3, The Sonus Faber, Sonus Faber Aida, Tidal Sunray and Agoria, Rockport Altair, the big MBL and many many others…). Many of them are good speakers, but I have to say that the Magico in a good set up (I insist on “good set up” for reasons explained below) are in a very different category: it is like comparing a Ferrari 458 with a BMW M5. I was so shocked by the difference that I am wondering how Sonus Faber, Tidal or Wilson can still sell so many top of the range speakers (sure the speaker finish is beautiful and many of these speakers are tuned to have a pleasing sound...). When compared to the Q7, it is for example surprising how the XLF lacks both extension, definition and linearity in the bass as well as transparency in the highs. The Sonus has a nice and pleasing sound… but it is like putting a veil on the music: I like it for 10min... but after 1hr got tired of all the details I am missing.
No back to your question on amps: The Q7 are so transparent to the source, that you hear extremely clearly differences in the source or amp used- that’s why it is very important to hear them in a good set up to know what they are really able to deliver. It is the first time I listen to a system where the limiting factor is not the speaker, but the amp.
I didn’t like the VAC at all: rounded, heavy slow bass, pleasing euphonic mid and highs… but why getting the most transparent speaker to put a veil on music?
Unlike in Munich where the Q7 with Spectral 260 had great bass (it was a 220v amp), this 110V Spectral lacked seriously in bass response. Very surprising, maybe because it was not fully breaked in? On the other side, the mid and highs were extremely transparent, the best of the 3.
The Constellation Centaur was the most balanced of the 3: good bass, sweet and defined mid and highs (even if not as much as the Spectral), great image. I would chose this one as a candidate, to be compared to the Soulution 5 series and big Dartzeel (I love the small Dartzeel and own one, but it is not powerful enough). I have already eliminated the FM acoustic as candidate: old technology, overrated for the price (even after discount). And I find the Balabo a bit too round for my taste.
I have read your previous posts and it seems you have been shortlisting the biggest and most expensive amps among most famous brands. The most expensive is not always the best (for example, the Spectral 260 sounds much better than the 360 mono). If I would be you, I would also listen to the smaller amps, just because they often sound better (what you lose in absolute slam and dynamic headroom, you gain in coherency and transparency, because you have less transistors in the signal). Whereas for the Q5 you need for example a Soulution 700 or 710 to hear their true potential, the Q7 have a much higher sensitivity and would probably work as well or better with the Soulution 5 serie (more recent topology, less transistors in the signal): that’s why I believe that the Q7 is a better bargain than the Q5, what you pay extra for the speakers your save it on amps, and get a better system overall.
Hope it helps - it is just my opinion, at the end you have to trust your ears
Last edited:
Similar threads
