Magico Q7
- Thread starter wizard
- Start date
Not much of a comparison there. The reviewer, Marco Cicogna, is an enthusiast of high resolution digital, insane high powered solid state amplifications and classical music (symphonic, in primis). Here, he is reporting of a audiosalon demo and celebrates the Q7, together with the XLF and the R1s, as some of the most resolving and complete loudspeaker systems.
Magico rates the S5 sensitivity at 89.0dB.
The National Research Council of Canada measured the S5's sensitivity at 87.0db.(averaged 300Hz-3kHz, 2.83V/1m).
Magico rates the Q7 sensitivity at 94.0db.
How can the S5 be easier to drive?
To be honest, I'm also not that in favor to just look at the sensitivity to address how a speaker is gonna be easy or tough to drive.
IMHO, the main thing is the impedance.
Just look at the B&W 802D: a wonderful fairly efficient speaker system that requires amplifications with looooots of current, way more than what an average Sonus Faber bookshelf 88dB speaker would require.
Thanks! Having heard the latter two, i do agree they are world class loudspeaker systems.
I read with great interest about the reviews by both Robert Harley and Jeff Fritz on the Magico Q7 and the Rockport Arrakis. Judging by the dates of their reviews, it seems like both of them prefer the Q7. Also, the Arrakis they reviewed might not be the latest version. I wonder what their views will be in a direct shootout.
Our member here, Roysen, bought the Q7, decided to sell them (apparently to buy the Arrakis2) and finally did a u-turn to keep them for the time being.
Another member, Stereo, raved about the Q7s.
Any thoughts on these 2 speakers?
Our member here, Roysen, bought the Q7, decided to sell them (apparently to buy the Arrakis2) and finally did a u-turn to keep them for the time being.
Another member, Stereo, raved about the Q7s.
Any thoughts on these 2 speakers?
I am pretty sure Jeff Fritz (with whom I have discussed the Arrakis before...he's a great source of advice and information) reviewed the original Arrakis before some of the more recent changes (Active Crossover, for example). In the case of Robert Harley, it did seem like the pair he heard at Rockport's studio was actively crossed over, but I do not know if it was a prototype or the actual, current production of the Arrakis 2.
I think Roysen is actually buying the Arrakis 2 as well? I know of 3 good audiophile friends who are contemplating the Arrakis 2 at the moment, but only one of the 3 is considering Q7 as well. The other contenders for the other 2 I believe include Marten Coltrane Supreme 2s, Gryphon Pendragon and the Genesis 1.2.
Great input, LL, and thanks. In RH's case, he heard the Arrakis2 before the Q7s and he pronounced the Q7s as the most impressive single piece of audio equipment in any category he has ever heard (in 23 years?). Is that correct?
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Totally agree with you, Keith.
Just wanted some opinions and thoughts from our experienced members here.
Yes, although I did communicate with him after both, and he did say that it is next to impossible to gauge the Arrakis 2 totally on its own because he heard it in a stunning room with totally different equipment than he has at home (Gryphon electronics, MSB digital, TA Opus, etc). I got the sense that the sound he heard that day still reigns as number one...but the factors involved are many and complicated to sort out.
The only other anecdote from speaking with him is that he loves the Altairs and seemed to consider them along with Q7s as the best of the most recent speakers he had auditioned in his home at that time.
Humm... I don't know... If he considered any other speaker to be anywhere close to a Q7, he wouldn't have been so bold on the Q7 review. As it is, from his written word only, the Q7 stands alone.
But then, as Keith said, his review should be taken at face value only, and a true, personal assessment of each product is in order, to determine what works best for each system.
As for me, as it was mentioned in the S3's thread, I'm spoiled by sealed box bass, so I don't think I could live with ported designs anymore...
alexandre
There is a price to be paid (as in tradeoffs) for all of the different methods of designing and building speakers. "Sealed box bass" (acoustic suspension by another name) is high-pressure bass meaning that every time you have a rarefaction of the speaker cone you are pressurizing the inside of the speaker cabinet with no place for the pressure to escape except where it tries to leak back through the speaker cone. You also pay a price in efficiency of the speaker which then requires amplifiers with high output power to be used. In other words, there is no free lunch and there is no single 'right way' to design and build a speaker.
True 1/4 wavelength transmission line speakers produce a quality of bass that is very special. They are also rare when compared to other speaker types because of the complexity, size, and weight. But at the top of the speaker heap in terms of cost, all of the different speaker designs seem to have one thing in common and that is complexity, size, and weight which makes me wonder why no company has done an all-out assault on the state of the art using transmission line speakers.
I understand. If you want true 20 Hz response from a TL, the enclosure will be huge.
Similar threads
