New Q3/mini M-Pro?

[ack]

Pretty good... tremendous... so am I still the only one who doesn't like the S7? Or am I wrong again. Because you can't tell me the sound - which includes the S7 - is 'tremendous' or 'pretty good' and then turn around and claim that you didn't like the speaker, even if I ignored the previously quoted claim that the three of you "really liked it"... and I really can't buy that the sound (which comes out of the speakers) is 'tremendous' but the S7 is 'pretty good', as if the subs took it from pretty good to tremendous by adding just a couple of cycles to the bottom end. Sorry, none of this makes sense...

 

[Al M.]

I'll try to reconcile it and perhaps a revisit to Al's thread, "A Remarkable Redbook CD afternoon at Goodwin's High End" will help. I looked up the S7 threads and could not find any comments by me about the speaker.

The overall sound that day in the large listening room was indeed tremendous. But I am referring to the system/room in its entirety. The S7 with the Ssubs, great Spectral/MIT combo and the Vivaldi stack. It was by far the best digital replay that I had ever heard. The S7 was just a part of that overall impression and I think the most impactful aspect of the session was that I had never heard digital sound so natural.

The sound did improve during the session and this was confirmed by the Magico rep who mentioned something about speaker or sub break in or settings to me and Al after the demo. So, the sound of the overall system was indeed "tremendous". The sound of the S7 in particular was "pretty good" but it was difficult to isolate it from the rest of the system. The key was the lack of digital fatigue and that really struck me. The spacial information and sense of presence were spectacular that day in that room, but, as I wrote before, the resolution of the Q1 (not to mention the Q3) is higher. And the S7 did vibrate more than any Q speaker, the M Pro or even my Mini 2.

Precisely. The big revelation for both of us that day was not the S7, even though it was very good, but the digital replay through the dCS Vivaldi. I remember when driving home after the session this, and the Spectral amps, were the only things we talked about the whole time in the car, not the S7.

And the Q1 during the dCS Rossini session in the smaller room was better, while it seems likely that it would not be able to portray such scale as the S7 did in the big room. And that scale was impressive.

 

[Elberoth]

I think you will agree with me that the original S5 did not protect the midrange, and that they fixed it starting with the S3 later on, then the S5II, etc. cannata made the comment that protecting the midrange is speaker building 101 - well, the S5 failed in that respect, didn't it. Based on this, I'll just say seeing is believing. PeterA's internal-Q3 picture had, ahem, a few holes in it (pun intended), so do you have a picture that shows the acoustical isolation you claim there is in the Q3?

I'm not sure what are you talking about ... What do you mean by 'protect' ? A fuse ? Or a separate enclosure ?

The S5 (mk 1) midrange works in its own enclosure - just like in the S5 mk 2 (and all modern 3-ways for that matter). The difference - like in the Q3 and M3 example - is in the shape (rectangular vs elliptical) and material (aluminium vs plastic).

I have both seen S5 beeing built at Magico factory and removed myself the midrange driver of my own pair at home.

If the midrange didn't have its own sub enclosure and worked in the same enclosure as bass drivers, it would be blown from its basked on the first bass impulse !

All the holes in the mid sub-enclosure you see on the Q3 cutout (which is an unfinished product) are sealed.

 

[FrantzM]

HI

Somewhere somehow, we may have to redefine some order here
. Someone goes to a place with speakers.. SPEAKERS. hear something they like and that to use their terms "tremendously" and yet didn't like the speakers? What were you listening through?
Come on, we know, we , audiophiles are a very special breed but we were able to listen through the entire chain and find things we like through speakers we didn't like? I have always smiled politely at audiophile who would go to a show where unfamiliar gear where being displayed/played and find a way to identify the contribution of a given cable. I would beg to propose that perhaps we listen a lot with our .... eyes

To come back to the Q3/M_Pro Junior or whatever it will be called, i can fully understand the position of any leading High End Audio manufacturers. However much some of us would like to romanticize and see them as priests of The Sound Reproduction Religion with No Commercial Interest except basic survival, they are for profit business persons with the intention of making money and if possible , lot of it. For that they need to sell gear and since the volume is limited because of the way we perceive those things, they increase their prices, on top of that there are markets with people who see these things as status symbols and it includes the community of us, audiophiles: We will "ooohh" and "ahhh" at the mention of someone purchasing a very expensive item before having heard one note from it... So manufacturers follow the trend. They know we tend to go for what is perceived not only by ears but by eyes or even by reputation and especially by price, as superior. They comply and we have a technological endeavor where progress objective metrics seems to be price not much else.
Signing off for now and seriously reconsidering my audiophile approach and tendencies these days ...

 

[Al M.]

HI
To come back to the Q3/M_Pro Junior or whatever it will be called, i can fully understand the position of any leading High End Audio manufacturers. However much some of us would like to romanticize and see them as priests of The Sound Reproduction Religion with No Commercial Interest except basic survival, they are for profit business persons with the intention of making money and if possible , lot of it. For that they need to sell gear and since the volume is limited because of the way we perceive those things, they increase their prices, on top of that there are markets with people who see these things as status symbols and it includes the community of us, audiophiles: We will "ooohh" and "ahhh" at the mention of someone purchasing a very expensive item before having heard one note from it... So manufacturers follow the trend. They know we tend to go for what is perceived not only by ears but by eyes or even by reputation and especially by price, as superior. They comply and we have a technological endeavor where progress objective metrics seems to be price not much else.
Signing off for now and seriously reconsidering my audiophile approach and tendencies these days ...

Seriously reconsidering? How about that: I just bought speakers for the, in currrent audiophile terms, measly price of $ 3K (not yet reported on my system thread) and they not just blow away my old speakers but give some considerably more expensive current stuff a run for their money. Yes, I bought them unheard, but for that price it was a low-risk proposition.

 

[MadFloyd]

To come back to the Q3/M_Pro Junior or whatever it will be called, i can fully understand the position of any leading High End Audio manufacturers. However much some of us would like to romanticize and see them as priests of The Sound Reproduction Religion with No Commercial Interest except basic survival, they are for profit business persons with the intention of making money and if possible , lot of it. For that they need to sell gear and since the volume is limited because of the way we perceive those things, they increase their prices, on top of that there are markets with people who see these things as status symbols and it includes the community of us, audiophiles: We will "ooohh" and "ahhh" at the mention of someone purchasing a very expensive item before having heard one note from it... So manufacturers follow the trend. They know we tend to go for what is perceived not only by ears but by eyes or even by reputation and especially by price, as superior. They comply and we have a technological endeavor where progress objective metrics seems to be price not much else.
Signing off for now and seriously reconsidering my audiophile approach and tendencies these days ...

Very well said, Frantz, and very true in my opinion.

 

[ack]

I'm not sure what are you talking about ... What do you mean by 'protect' ? A fuse ? Or a separate enclosure ?

The S5 (mk 1) midrange works in its own enclosure - just like in the S5 mk 2 (and all modern 3-ways for that matter). The difference - like in the Q3 and M3 example - is in the shape (rectangular vs elliptical) and material (aluminium vs plastic).

I have both seen S5 beeing built at Magico factory and removed myself the midrange driver of my own pair at home.

If the midrange didn't have its own sub enclosure and worked in the same enclosure as bass drivers, it would be blown from its basked on the first bass impulse !

All the holes in the mid sub-enclosure you see on the Q3 cutout (which is an unfinished product) are sealed.

Can you show me pictures of the S5 MkI showing the midrange enclosure? Seeing is believing

 

[andromedaaudio]

Elberoth explained it very well , i havent seen a loudspeaker yet, where the mid and bass speakers dont have there own enclosure , 2 bass speakers can have the same encosure or 2 mids but not mid and bass , membrane size and chamber volume are connected , if a 6 inch mid would play in a 70 liter liter enclosure , it would sound powerless /fluffy .
One trick is to get it 100 % right it can make or brake the sound of a speaker

 

[Tony007]

The only way a speaker can have the midrange and woofer sharing the same air volume is in a true 2.5 way design where the midrange driver runs wide open on the bottom end playing into the bass range and the lower driver (identical drive unit as midrange) only plays with a low pass network (perhaps below 100hz) so it only augments the upper units bass response.

In fact Magico runs their woofers in a staged cutoff similiar to what I described above on their Q3's which I happen to own. The highest woofer meets the midrange and each lower woofer only plays a smaller range. The lowest woofer only emits the lowest bass notes only despite all 3 woofers sharing the same air space..

 

[andromedaaudio]

As far as i know is a true 2,5 way system a system where 2 bas/midd units operate the same freq range .
If one is covering a different freq range its called a 3 way despite the fact that they share the same cabinet

 

[Elberoth]

Can you show me pictures of the S5 MkI showing the midrange enclosure? Seeing is believing

Should I show you the pic showing the earth isn't flat too ?

You show the absolute lack of understanding of speaker design.

 

[Tony007]

In my example above, if both bass units play the identical frequency range (bass AND midrange frequencies identically) then the speaker is still classed as a two way design.

It is ONLY the crossover frequency ranges that determine the classification of 2 way, 2.5 way, 3 way, 3.5 way, 4 way, 4.5 way, 5 way etc.

In fact many speaker manufacturers that use multiple woofers employ this staggered lowpass rolloff aproach.

 

[andromedaaudio]

If the x over/ x overpoint is different , then they operate at a different freq range despite the fact that they share the same cabinet and are identical units all together .

 

[Tony007]

I believe we are describing the same thing but differently..

 

[mikem]

I used Q3s in my system 2013-2015.
I replaced them with S7s September 2015.

I find the S7s have a different voice, in my system.
Much more weight, which I like very much.
Sound less strident in the upper frequencies. Which has
resulted in me listening to more digital. I like that
Whether the S7s are hiding/altering what's truly on the
source, I'm not sure.
While very neutral, they don't sound as neutral as the
Q3 throughout the entire frequency range.
Probably easier to drive, but with my D'Agostino I didn't have
a problem with the Q3s.

Bottom line, for me, I'm really enjoying my S7s.

After reading the press release on the M3, the design I first
wanted to buy this time last year but was told was 2 years away,
I intend to seriously consider purchase after CES 2017, by which
time I assume there will be some reliable third-party evaluation
of the M3 available.

If I do go M3, I will be able to sincerely recommend the S7s I trade-in to
anyone looking for a full-range speaker in the ~$30k price range.

 

[microstrip]

HI

Somewhere somehow, we may have to redefine some order here
. Someone goes to a place with speakers.. SPEAKERS. hear something they like and that to use their terms "tremendously" and yet didn't like the speakers? What were you listening through?
Come on, we know, we , audiophiles are a very special breed but we were able to listen through the entire chain and find things we like through speakers we didn't like? I have always smiled politely at audiophile who would go to a show where unfamiliar gear where being displayed/played and find a way to identify the contribution of a given cable. I would beg to propose that perhaps we listen a lot with our .... eyes

To come back to the Q3/M_Pro Junior or whatever it will be called, i can fully understand the position of any leading High End Audio manufacturers. However much some of us would like to romanticize and see them as priests of The Sound Reproduction Religion with No Commercial Interest except basic survival, they are for profit business persons with the intention of making money and if possible , lot of it. For that they need to sell gear and since the volume is limited because of the way we perceive those things, they increase their prices, on top of that there are markets with people who see these things as status symbols and it includes the community of us, audiophiles: We will "ooohh" and "ahhh" at the mention of someone purchasing a very expensive item before having heard one note from it... So manufacturers follow the trend. They know we tend to go for what is perceived not only by ears but by eyes or even by reputation and especially by price, as superior. They comply and we have a technological endeavor where progress objective metrics seems to be price not much else.
Signing off for now and seriously reconsidering my audiophile approach and tendencies these days ...

Frantz,

Nice well written abstract comments, that as usual with similar ones only apply to a minority of cases and are generalized in the guilty style of "we, us the audiophiles".

Fortunately I believe that the majority of the "we, us the WBF audiophiles" and most of the audiophiles have long/large experience and know how to separate the high quality, high price items from the high price, nothing special products.

As far as I know you have been reconsidering your approach for years, always from a skeptical perspective ... It is natural, we audiophiles should have an open mind and consider reconsidering is part of the hobby! But I hope that some time in the future we will know about the results of your long meditation ...

Back on the subject, yes, sometimes I feel that Magico is having a too open mind ... They move very fast!

 

[FrantzM]

Frantz,

Nice well written abstract comments, that as usual with similar ones only apply to a minority of cases and are generalized in the guilty style of "we, us the audiophiles".

Fortunately I believe that the majority of the "we, us the WBF audiophiles" and most of the audiophiles have long/large experience and know how to separate the high quality, high price items from the high price, nothing special products.

As far as I know you have been reconsidering your approach for years, always from a skeptical perspective ... It is natural, we audiophiles should have an open mind and consider reconsidering is part of the hobby! But I hope that some time in the future we will know about the results of your long meditation ...

Back on the subject, yes, sometimes I feel that Magico is having a too open mind ... They move very fast!

No we haven't microstrip...
We buy with our eyes and of course with our wallet.. Open mind means that we would consider also consider that sometimes our senses and our mind will deceive us. What I have witnessed during my years of being an audiophile is how seldom audiophiles admit of being wrong, of being fooled at times. Many of us do not seem to want to open themselves to the possibility of us being wrong and easily fooled.
I am very much interested in what Magico has in store but have also make a conscious decision to look for alternatives.. Different designs that are objectively accurate.. according to some metrics, speakers like the JBL 4367 or even the M2 system with its Crown amplifiers. No it doesn't mean that I will automatically like or love these just because they measure great. I have often repeated that I liked some speakers who do not seem to measure very well, namely the Magnepan, simply that I will keep an open mind and put these speakers into the consideration, i may have a serious look at some Altec Lansing Voice of the Theater that are being sold right now on eBay. I will solicit the advices of some people knowledgeable about these VOTT, here on WBF. If these speakers upon serious and careful auditions please me they will purchased if not, I will quietly wait for a used Q3 or Q5 or Magnepan 1.7i or 3.7 i or perhaps a 20.7i.
The Q3 to my ears was that excellent ... even if it was "grossly" underpriced .One of the best speakers I've heard bar none... And I liked the Q3 in spite of not having heard it with multi-subs

 

[microstrip]

No we haven't microstrip...
We buy with our eyes and of course with our wallet.. Open mind means that we would consider also consider that sometimes our senses and our mind will deceive us. What I have witnessed during my years of being an audiophile is how seldom audiophiles admit of being wrong, of being fooled at times. Many of us do not seem to want to open themselves to the possibility of us being wrong and easily fooled.
I am very much interested in what Magico has in store but have also make a conscious decision to look for alternatives.. Different designs that are objectively accurate.. according to some metrics, speakers like the JBL 4367 or even the M2 system with its Crown amplifiers. No it doesn't mean that I will automatically like or love these just because they measure great. I have often repeated that I liked some speakers who do not seem to measure very well, namely the Magnepan, simply that I will keep an open mind and put these speakers into the consideration, i may have a serious look at some Altec Lansing Voice of the Theater that are being sold right now on eBay. I will solicit the advices of some people knowledgeable about these VOTT, here on WBF. If these speakers upon serious and careful auditions please me they will purchased if not, I will quietly wait for a used Q3 or Q5 or Magnepan 1.7i or 3.7 i or perhaps a 20.7i.
The Q3 to my ears was that excellent ... even if it was "grossly" underpriced .One of the best speakers I've heard bar none... And I liked the Q3 in spite of not having heard it with multi-subs

Knowledge audiophiles admit being fooled permanently (do not forget stereo is an illusion) - the main difference is that their audiophile knowledge helps them to analyze critically their perceptions, and the best of it, concretize their preferences.

And sorry, just admitting that there are many solutions and completely different ways of building a system that can please our preference is not a proof of an open mind, it is mostly a sign of an audiophile mind. IMHO, in our friendly debates "open mind" is mostly a jargon for considering or accepting something subjective in spite of science or common daily objective sense saying otherwise. We all know that in particular moments or situations our minds can be tricked, nothing new here.

Nice to know you are considering the legendary speaker school and asking for the advice of the WBF experts - sometimes we are following parallel ways ... And yes, the virus seems to be spreading in WBF ... Are you already spending nights reading the enjoyable audioheritage forum http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/?

 

[FrantzM]

microstrip

You use the notion of "Open Mind" and now you are assigning it other meanings.. Not much time to discuss the point I made: you know it is valid... Currently listening to RnB and shaking my body ... forgot the Kef LS50 was very good ... not excellent like the Q3... dropped some subs that were lying around ..music ... Enjoy the week-end!

 

[ack]

Should I show you the pic showing the earth isn't flat too ?

You show the absolute lack of understanding of speaker design.

If you want to have a meaningful and intelligent conversation post a picture. Here's Magico's own write-up on this issue, in the S5 MkII page (with a picture) at http://magico.net/product/s5mkii.php

A purpose built sub-enclosure made of a proprietary polymer material provides an acoustically optimized rear chamber for the midrange to operate within. The sub-enclosure concept was first introduced in the S3 and provides noticeable enhancements in midrange control and articulation.

If it helps clear up memories, the S3 ad about the midrange chamber touted distortion reduction of 26% or 28% if recall correctly. Here's the write-up in HiFi News http://www.hifinews.co.uk/news/article/magico-s3-25000-pound;29000/20492 on this:

But it’s the implementation of the M380 that Alon Wolf describes as ‘the biggest deal of these loudspeakers’ – the driver working into its own specially shaped sub-enclosure fashioned from a polycarbonate resin. This elongated bubble enclosure provides the ideal acoustic termination, reducing distortion over a 200Hz-2kHz bandwidth by around 5dB. The chamber also isolates the midrange unit from changes in pressure caused by the pair of newly-developed 8in woofers.

To put it bluntly, until you can demonstrate otherwise, I believe none of your claims that the S5 MkI had any sort of midrange protection from the woofers.