Magico Q7

[stereo]

seems that all of these 3 pairs have an "history":
- we all read the speculation around J Tinn pair so I will not comment further
- one of the pair (which is not listed anymore) was from the ex Magico dealer in Hong Kong which lost dealership end of last year. They are pissed and doing aggressive advertising for pairs they don't always really own, just to **** off Magico and the new dealer. A friend of mine called to buy the Q1 they were advertising, it was not real (they answered that they "sell only to friends"). Btw, they used same tactics when they got dumped by Wilson a few years back
- the last pair is "new in crate, never opened" - how could he try it and not like it without opening the crate?

 

[asiufy]

Alexandre,

The NH108B is not exactly a low power amplifier - it is a dual mono block in one box and it is rated at 200W per channel at 4 ohms. I have one in my room and it sounds quite good in the Aida's.

Once we get a certain level, personnel preference is the most important aspect. I know know yours, you can imagine my current one. I think that I could happily live with any of the three speakers we are referring to - the Aida, the XLF or the Q7. But I would choose different systems for each of them. But my dream speaker (we all have audio fantasies) is now unobtainium - the TheSonusFaber.

BTW, room responses only allow us to congratulate the room owner for his great room and/or positioning skills. Many speaker designers tailor the response of their speakers to sound flat in room, even implying that are non flat in anechoic measurements.

Micro,

The 108 isn't 200W, it's 160W into 4 ohms, 100W into 8. It's not a low power amplifier, but it's not a monster amp, the likes that mep would prefer, and was referencing.
And I agree 100%, it's all preference. I understand you like AR, yet you own a much better amp (the 108) and don't use it. That's quite puzzling to me, but I just chalk that up to what you said, personal preference.
And regarding the measurements x room argument, what would be preferable, then? A speaker that measures flat anechoically but never does in room, or vice-versa?


alexandre

 

[Sammy T]

April , May editions of Stereophile Magazine. There is ZERO advertizing for Magico speakers. Anybody know whats up with that?

 

[microstrip]

Micro,

The 108 isn't 200W, it's 160W into 4 ohms, 100W into 8. It's not a low power amplifier, but it's not a monster amp, the likes that mep would prefer, and was referencing.
And I agree 100%, it's all preference. I understand you like AR, yet you own a much better amp (the 108) and don't use it. That's quite puzzling to me, but I just chalk that up to what you said, personal preference.
And regarding the measurements x room argument, what would be preferable, then? A speaker that measures flat anechoically but never does in room, or vice-versa?


alexandre

Alexandre,

The NH108B is more powerful than you think - from the Stereophile review, section Measurements : "I measured 160W into 8 ohms (22dBW), 230W into 4 ohms (20.6dBW), but 162W into 2 ohms (16.1dBW).

The DastZeel NH108B is excellent, and perhaps in a high-efficiency system even better than it sounds in my system. I owned the complete system for some years, and although I still find the amplifier competitive, at same time I found that for my taste and in my system, the ARC REF40 plus the ARC Phono REF2 was a lot better that the DartZeel preamplfier. Time does not stop and although when the DartZeel's were launched they had little competition, now we have a new generation of electronics that IMHO can sound superior. As far as I know Hervé is working in a new DartZeel preamplifier.

Considering the flatness of speakers I have no defined opinion. I own the Aida's, that as far as I know, have excellent measured response, but also one great speaker that measures very poorly - the SoundLab A1 PX. Both sound great!

 

[microstrip]

Microstrip, what amps would you run the TheSonusFaber with?

Audio Research REF750. I listened to them several times with the REF610T and the REF40 - the best listening also included all Odin cabling.
Still trying to forget it, but as I carried my usual own reference CDs, it is not easy.

 

[LL21]

Audio Research REF750. I listened to them several times with the REF610T and the REF40 - the best listening also included all Odin cabling.
Still trying to forget it, but as I carried my usual own reference CDs, it is not easy.

Time to get out the checkbook, Microstrip!...

 

[Andre Marc]

I think that Stereophile awarded the Q5 Product of the Year. However, Fremer's review of that speaker was about a year earlier.

It would be great to have Stereophile evaluate the Q7, if Alon Wolf has the cojones to send them in. Yes, we all know that review would be positive. But if one reads between the lines, some truth could come out.

A review of the Q7 would be virtually impossible at SPhile.

The only reviewer with a system any where near commensurate with the Q7 is Fremer, and getting those speakers into
his listening room would be a No Can Do. The XLF, which he raved about and bought, is modular in design.

Secondly, since he just bought the XLF, the Q7, by the very nature of things, will come in second because obviously
Mikey's ears are "tuned" to the Wilson sound.

 

[LL21]

A review of the Q7 would be virtually impossible at SPhile.

The only reviewer with a system any where near commensurate with the Q7 is Fremer, and getting those speakers into
his listening room would be a No Can Do. The XLF, which he raved about and bought, is modular in design.

Secondly, since he just bought the XLF, the Q7, by the very nature of things, will come in second because obviously
Mikey's ears are "tuned" to the Wilson sound.

Wow...i did not know Mike Fremer bought the XLFs. I have been reading his review of the SF Strads, Rockport Antares, etc for years. Good to know.

 

[Andre Marc]

Wow...i did not know Mike Fremer bought the XLFs. I have been reading his review of the SF Strads, Rockport Antares, etc for years. Good to know.

I spoke to the Wilson rep who was at his house. He said the listening room is rather small, with LPs everywhere you look and step, and he prefers near field
listening, probably under ten feet. He also mentioned Mikey likes to listen LOUD!!!!

 

[asiufy]

Alexandre,

The NH108B is more powerful than you think - from the Stereophile review, section Measurements : "I measured 160W into 8 ohms (22dBW), 230W into 4 ohms (20.6dBW), but 162W into 2 ohms (16.1dBW).

The DastZeel NH108B is excellent, and perhaps in a high-efficiency system even better than it sounds in my system. I owned the complete system for some years, and although I still find the amplifier competitive, at same time I found that for my taste and in my system, the ARC REF40 plus the ARC Phono REF2 was a lot better that the DartZeel preamplfier. Time does not stop and although when the DartZeel's were launched they had little competition, now we have a new generation of electronics that IMHO can sound superior. As far as I know Hervé is working in a new DartZeel preamplifier.

Considering the flatness of speakers I have no defined opinion. I own the Aida's, that as far as I know, have excellent measured response, but also one great speaker that measures very poorly - the SoundLab A1 PX. Both sound great!

I know the 108 is a very brave little amp The most common reaction of people who come and visit is wonder where the monoblocks are! With the Q3 it did fine, though with some eye blinking when listening LOUD, but I expect one 108 will do just fine with the Q7, and two 108s will be just peachy.

Even though I love darTZeel gear, I'm not oblivious to what's out there. I've just had the Soulution 720 pre here, and it was better than my 18NS in some aspects, though not good enough to justify the price delta. Knowing ARC, I pretty much doubt I'd find the ARC pres better than the 18NS too, and besides, don't feel like going back to tubes. And that, coupled with the fact that Hervé is indeed almost done with the new pre, I'm staying put for now

 

[LL21]

I spoke to the Wilson rep who was at his house. He said the listening room is rather small, with LPs everywhere you look and step, and he prefers near field
listening, probably under ten feet. He also mentioned Mikey likes to listen LOUD!!!!

That is one of the features about big Wilsons i respect...for a speaker of such size, they fit into surprisingly small rooms. And with the setup options, they can be adjusted quite capably by a good dealer/distributor to fit the room and/or listener's tastes.

 

[Steve Williams]

That is one of the features about big Wilsons i respect...for a speaker of such size, they fit into surprisingly small rooms. And with the setup options, they can be adjusted quite capably by a good dealer/distributor to fit the room and/or listener's tastes.

I can attest to this based on my recent room addition.

 

[Andre Marc]

That is one of the features about big Wilsons i respect...for a speaker of such size, they fit into surprisingly small rooms. And with the setup options, they can be adjusted quite capably by a good dealer/distributor to fit the room and/or listener's tastes.

I think this might be because they are very coherent at very low volume levels. Also the ability to adjust tweeter position for time alignment is a big plus.

 

[LL21]

That is one of the features about big Wilsons i respect...for a speaker of such size, they fit into surprisingly small rooms. And with the setup options, they can be adjusted quite capably by a good dealer/distributor to fit the room and/or listener's tastes.

I can attest to this based on my recent room addition.

I think this might be because they are very coherent at very low volume levels. Also the ability to adjust tweeter position for time alignment is a big plus.

I have to admit, with long-term in mind, I have taken a half-step back from other mega-sized speakers for this reason. The big Wilsons provide the big dynamics and effortlessness while fitting into a smaller footprint than other alternatives i have had on my long-term list.

 

[Elias]

Anyway, these are all interesting comments, and a great subject about expensive loudspeaker systems, like the Magico Q7 right here.

We can extrapolate and share all the experiences of the world, but a balance between the sound propagation and the room's acoustics must be realistically achieved.

And it takes more than expensive drivers, sophisticated crossovers, several coatings of vernishes, paints, over exotic wood, and heavy bracing and calculated measurements about enclosure resonnances and all that Jazz to obtain that balance in a realistic ambiance where ALL type of music would be comfortable.
Delays are already in the recordings (quality ones, not those sanitized dodo studio ones), and you certainly don't want to add more on top.

Analog, Digital; yeah right, you know of any sophisticated analog EQs out there?
And who has experience with few digital EQs that are truly worthy of consideration?
Me? Kalman Rubinson, from his various experiments with Audyssey, Arc, Trinnov, ...? Amir (JBL Synthesis) own experience? Meridian's Bob Stuart (and its DSP loudspeakers plus MLP technology)? Chris Kyriakakis from Audyssey? Tomlinson Holman from THX? Harman Kardon's technical sound engineers? Lexicon's technical staff and programmers department? Anthem's (ARC) & Paradigm's facilities and explorations on DSP surround sound room's acoustics integration? Robert Pariseau & his technical team?

I can only speak for me, and my ears tell me that at realistic volume level in a normal room's size, without being live, but semi-live (good enough), a good Auto Room EQ & Correction system like from Audyssey, can do wonders indeed.
And you'd better be good with a microphone! :b

Holy Grail? Why the heck not! At least for now, and until the next higher Holy Grail.
But this one right now sounds feminine enough that it is a nice complement.
And solidly concealed enough to not be so secret, but just right in the revelation of its magical touch.

For me, it cannot be more clear than that. And I'm wide open to any type of comments by anyone.
And if you have some' new to bring from your own experience, bring it on baby! :b

Hi all,
I am a new kid on the block and willing to exchange info/experiences about our hobby.
My system is made of Mcintosh stuff (C1000C+C1000T pre, MC 2301 power amps, Clearaudio Maximum Solution+SME V+Clearaudio Statement turntable, MCD 1100 cd/sacd, Focal Grande Utopia EM speakers, ExactPower filters, etc).
I am using a EQ in my listening room, the Mcintosh MEN 220 (Lyngdorf circuitry). From my point of view it is very useful and help a lot in orden to avoid unwanted resonances in the final sound. The MEN 220 doesn´t add any sonic character, keeps the tonal sound of your system but getting better balance, improving the accuracy of the presentation, soundstage etc.
I think it is a good solutions taking into account that with the new tecnologies (DSP) you can improve the room conditions without adding any "strange" and unwanted sound corrector.

 

[Elias]

Hi,
I have owned Apogge speakers, Wilson Audio (from WP to Maxx 1 & 2), and now I am a happy owner of a Focal Grande Utopia EM. I have listened in last months Wilson XLF, Magico, YG, The SonusFaber, etc and from my point of view all of them have different characteres and even having in commont a flat frequecy r. there are a lot of diferent factors driving the final sound presentation. More than materials used is how the designers voice the speakers, etc. Are Magico a bad speakers? I do not think so, but they have a sonic presentation that you could like or not (personal preferences). Are they better or worse because the aluminium enclosures?, I do not think so, because I have listed speakers made of different materials and some of them were a reference from my point of view and were made of MDF or other materials (resines, carbon fiber, etc). For instance my current speakers (Focal Grande Utopia EM) are made of MDF (and I can asure you I can hear the last nuance in the piano decay sound without "boxy" coloration) and from my personal taste there are outstanding. I used to play guitar and piano and I have in my living room a very accurate presentation of what, from my point of view, it must be, but repeat, from my point of view.
I agree too, that modern loudspeakers with flat frequency response, could be in some ways bright in the upper section, but in my case, Focal´s allow you to change the energy in the difference frequencies (Low/Mid/Hi), without changing the sonic tonal presentation. As you can imaging it allow you to adapt the final sound to your personal taste and room conditions.
There are a lot of different good speakers/systems out there and maybe no one of them fit all tastes (even being really good).
What I do not share is that Magico is the most accurate speaker in the world, or they are as good because they are made of aluminium, or because they have a berillyum tweeter, etc. There are a lot of different options in materials, etc and it is, from my point of view, more important how you use them (using consistent driver materials across the diferent speakers looking for coherence, have the posibiliy of change the voice coil leng, the surround material and size, filters, etc, in order to find the right balance, etc).
At the end I like to enjoy the final blend, it doesn´t matter the upper, low, mid, frequencies (and the rest of the stuff) but making me feel and believe I am not in from of an Hifi gear but listening to music in body and soul.

 

[LL21]

Agreed. Succinctly said.

 

[Elias]

Agreed. Succinctly said.

Last thought regarding speakers or music gear in general.
After attending a consumer show one month ago, I realized that there are very different sound presentations even when the company chairmans said their products deliver a "flat response".
For instance listening to Daniel Baremboim CD "Mi Buenos Aires Querido" when Hector Console played the bass, in some very good speakers (like YG) the music was very forwarded, like if the speakers/gear where pushing the strings agains you. what I mean is that the sound was so detailed that you do not hear this (at least me) in real life (the strings where close or inside your ears). If you listen the same CD throughout other speakers it seems that the bass is darker, more rolled out, but at the end this is more as real life (from my point of view).
In a nut shell what I want to transmit is that sometimes we feel that if we hear more clear sounds it means that the gear is more transparent, revealing, resolving etc, but this is not real life situation, and there are speakers that at the beginning don´t take your attention (for anything special), even more, they seem bland/boring but if you spend more time with them you realize how faithful to the real life they are.
At the end it depend what you are looking for, hear the last nuance even when this is not a real life experience, or close your eyes and feel you are listening a simphony orchestra at the Vienna State Opera.
Best,
Elías.

 

[caesar]

Last thought regarding speakers or music gear in general.
After attending a consumer show one month ago, I realized that there are very different sound presentations even when the company chairmans said their products deliver a "flat response".
For instance listening to Daniel Baremboim CD "Mi Buenos Aires Querido" when Hector Console played the bass, in some very good speakers (like YG) the music was very forwarded, like if the speakers/gear where pushing the strings agains you. what I mean is that the sound was so detailed that you do not hear this (at least me) in real life (the strings where close or inside your ears). If you listen the same CD throughout other speakers it seems that the bass is darker, more rolled out, but at the end this is more as real life (from my point of view).
In a nut shell what I want to transmit is that sometimes we feel that if we hear more clear sounds it means that the gear is more transparent, revealing, resolving etc, but this is not real life situation, and there are speakers that at the beginning don´t take your attention (for anything special), even more, they seem bland/boring but if you spend more time with them you realize how faithful to the real life they are.
At the end it depend what you are looking for, hear the last nuance even when this is not a real life experience, or close your eyes and feel you are listening a simphony orchestra at the Vienna State Opera.
Best,
Elías.

Elias,

Thanks for sharing your experiences. Great posts! I am happy that you found your bliss.

Out of curiosity, how does your Focal compare to the Wilson XLF? When I first heard that Wilson was coming out with a silk dome tweeter, I thought that Focal may be in deep doo doo, as Focal has always had a market niche as a "non-aggressive" Wilson. What are your thoughts on the 2 speakers?

 

[Elias]

Caesar,
Both are different animals. I think no one are an upgrade over the other, just different. I could live with both of them for my entire life, since Wilson has changed their "house" sound with the XLF and Alexia and for my ears, now they sound "like music" more than "sonics" (climp, boom, bang). They now are more neutral, natural and with a big soundstage (I think bigger than the grandes).
I have not the chance to carry out a face to face comparison, which would make easier to establish the main differences. What I can say is that to my ears Focal´s extends more without distorsion. When you listen throughout the Focal´s tweeter sometimes it seems rare because the sound is like "dry" with a lot of information but like if something were missing. It took me long to get a conclusion, and now, from my point of view it is because the lack of distorsion we are used to listen to from other systems/tweeters. The same with the EM woofer, it extends a lot, give a lot of body to music, soundstage and sense of presence, and I do not feel/hear any distorsion on it. There are other speakers pretending more clarity in low registers, for instance in the bass, highligting too much the brush between the strings and the fiddlestick, but no in a natural way, because you can not hear it in a concert even if you are located very close to the bass.
In the integration parts and coherence I think the Focal´s are better, which could be obvious since they are using the same materials across the different drivers (excep the Be tweeter).
Both can move driver positions in order to look for the best "coherence" in the sound, but Focal´s have an integrated EQ and could help you to fit it to your taste or adjust them (and the sound) to the room characteristics. Focal´s make me disconnect and Wilson even having a very good sound I still feel that I am in front of an electronic stuff.
For me the XLF are more "HIFI" in the good sense and Focal´s are more "music". Both no need too much watts (just able to go low) but very good quality and neutral amps. I want to point out again that both are outstanding pieces.
At the end I prefer Focal´s but saying that from my point of view both are references and some of the best speakers money can buy.
Hope this makes sense for you.