Oh jeez - M6, another super-speaker from Magico

[andromedaaudio]

The only thing to top this latest dissapearing act , is an invisible speaker all together .

 

[tima]

I just don't think Alon Wolf is focused on voicing his products to have a more pleasing tonal balance. I think he is more about pushing technology (materials, driver, crossover, cabinet construction and shape) to produce a product that is lower in distortion and noise and gets increasingly out of the way of the music.

I’ve heard a fair number of speakers and in many cases it is more difficult to hear equipment changes with other brands than it is with some Magico speakers, at least in my opinion and in my experience. That tells me that I am listening to the upstream components’ influence on the sound. I’m sure I didn’t invent that notion. Nevertheless I have heard that comment or argument from others, and I agree with it.

From the many cases of the speakers you've heard that you find more difficult to hear upstream equipment changes, do you have some examples you can share? Hoperfully some of those are of comparable value to those Magico speakers you find more revealing? I don't doubt what you're saying, just trying to get a better sense of the context you're using.

Commentary: My interpretation of what you're saying is that Magico speakers are more revealing of downstream components than many other speakers. From where I sit, component attributes such as "revealing", "more revealing", "highly revealing" are somewhat virtue neutral in and of themselves. Using a different component as an example, I found certain Constellation and Soulution amps, and all Atma-Sphere, and Berning amplfiers highly revealing. But the sonic results of their revelations are quite different.

Granted I suspect some (most?) of us will not choose speakers that are so homogenizing that their characters over-ride those of downstream components. Among popular high-end, high-dollar speakers, I don't see any so infatuated with themselves. The pertinent phrase is "more difficult".

What I think I'm seeing is an approach certain manufacturers and some reviewers take to address (explain) why the sound of their component changed without having to account for the sound they changed from. Consider the Soulution amplifiers - early models were regarded as almost ruthlessly revealing - analytic was a word used - if I reviewed them I'd use some softer version of that word that still left the meaning clear.

Then with the release of their 501 series, things changed - their sound became more beauteous, textural, even a bit sweeter - a generally more appealing character. The manufacturer's account for this was "we changed the power supplies." In other words the answer to why the Soulution sound changed was given in terms of technology. Of course different parts yield different sonic results. Why were the new power supply parts chosen? What did you hope to accomplish? X&Y specifications are why. (Not, 'we found the product appealing to a smaller audience than we hoped to reach.') Somewhere, maybe, there is intent that is not mentioned as a reason for why the sound changed. Something connected to sound.

I will speculate that successful changes to significant products are the result of the designer/manufacturer coming closer to understanding what Ralph Karsten calls "the rules of human hearing." They may not think of it in those terms. We cannot change how we perceive sound or music, even in the face of good specs.

 

[PeterA]

Tim, I heard my first pair of Magico speakers called the V2 at a local dealer. I directly compared them to pairs of Verity and Rockport speakers, all three pairs selling for around $20-25K. We switched speakers around and the source from vinyl to digital. When we switched the speakers, the Magico had considerably more resolution and nuance with far greater spatial information than the other two. I had the sense that the other two were somehow restricting the information from the recording coming through. They lacked resolution and sounded colored to me. When we switched the source, the differences were more evident through the Magico than they were through the other brands.

Another time, I was at a demonstration of either the Magico Q3 or Q5. We switched from CD/HDCD to streaming HiRez to vinyl. The differences were much more clear and pronounced here than when people have demonstrated these kinds of differences with mediums to me before.

Going to shows, when I stopped by various rooms in which the same model speaker was demoed, in this case either a Magico S model or Q model, each room sounded quite different because the upstream gear was different while the rooms were more or less the same. At the same shows, when I stopped by rooms with other brands which also had the same model speaker or ones very similar, the rooms had a more similar sound.

Having learned my lesson from another recent thread, I'd rather not mention brand names and start a food fight. I'd prefer to focus on the topic of Magico in this thread and what I think this brand does well rather than criticize some other brand that people prefer. I'm sure many people disagree and that is fine. Some think it is all marketing and reviewer hype, that is fine too. This is my general impression of the brand as opposed to other brands that I have heard. I am not saying they are the most transparent or lowest in distortion and noise speakers available today. I'm just saying that in my mid level models range where I dwell, this has been my experience.

There have been a number of accounts here where people have shared their impressions that they have not liked Magico because of the brands of upstream gear, mostly electronics, that they have heard the speakers paired with. This argument has been made with many brands, but it supports the notion that one is listening to the amps, or cables, or source when listening to these speakers.

KeithR just completed an extensive year-long search for a replacement speaker. He does not like the Magico brand so did not include it in his list of brands to audition, but if he had, he could have shared a valuable perspective of how they sound relative to the very many other speakers he spent significant and quality time hearing.

Honestly, you seem quite interested in this thread and Magico in particular, yet you have written that you do not have much experience with the brand. Rather than taking my word for it or continuing to ask me what I think or how I would defend my opinion, I respectfully suggest you go out and hear a couple models for yourself. The Magico S5II and M2 models would be a good place to start, in my opinion.

 

[Mdp632]

When I replaced the M Projects with the M6, the first thing I said was the M6's just disappear. Do they sound similar? No. The M6
is significantly better. Quieter, more dynamic, micro details more defined. And the tweeter. To die for! As Alon said to me "its like a horn but better". And this was to be expected IMO. Are Magicos fussy? Yes. All the good stuff is. I have them toed out a lot more than Magico suggests. Every little nudge changes everything. Just getting the two level with each other is very significant. Haven't gone straight on yet. And I go back and forth on removing the pins on the MPods. Mostly pins in.
Do I think there is a family sound? Well I only have experience with the Q3 as well as my two M's. I haven't even seen a S or A model. So I'll only comment on my M's. The change between the two is more than an evolution. Its a revelation. Can't wait for the new M......

And, having the benefit of owning M6, I can try and read between the lines a bit better on the reviews. They are basically correct.

Thanks for sharing. Of particular is your statement on the M6 tweeter.

"And the tweeter. To die for! As Alon said to me "its like a horn but better". And this was to be expected IMO."

Do you know technically why? Is it indeed some form of "compression" driver?

 

[Mdp632]

Tim, I heard my first pair of Magico speakers called the V2 at a local dealer. I directly compared them to pairs of Verity and Rockport speakers, all three pairs selling for around $20-25K. We switched speakers around and the source from vinyl to digital. When we switched the speakers, the Magico had considerably more resolution and nuance with far greater spatial information than the other two. I had the sense that the other two were somehow restricting the information from the recording coming through. They lacked resolution and sounded colored to me. When we switched the source, the differences were more evident through the Magico than they were through the other brands.

Another time, I was at a demonstration of either the Magico Q3 or Q5. We switched from CD/HDCD to streaming HiRez to vinyl. The differences were much more clear and pronounced here than when people have demonstrated these kinds of differences with mediums to me before.

Going to shows, when I stopped by various rooms in which the same model speaker was demoed, in this case either a Magico S model or Q model, each room sounded quite different because the upstream gear was different while the rooms were more or less the same. At the same shows, when I stopped by rooms with other brands which also had the same model speaker or ones very similar, the rooms had a more similar sound.

Having learned my lesson from another recent thread, I'd rather not mention brand names and start a food fight. I'd prefer to focus on the topic of Magico in this thread and what I think this brand does well rather than criticize some other brand that people prefer. I'm sure many people disagree and that is fine. Some think it is all marketing and reviewer hype, that is fine too. This is my general impression of the brand as opposed to other brands that I have heard. I am not saying they are the most transparent or lowest in distortion and noise speakers available today. I'm just saying that in my mid level models range where I dwell, this has been my experience.

There have been a number of accounts here where people have shared their impressions that they have not liked Magico because of the brands of upstream gear, mostly electronics, that they have heard the speakers paired with. This argument has been made with many brands, but it supports the notion that one is listening to the amps, or cables, or source when listening to these speakers.

KeithR just completed an extensive year-long search for a replacement speaker. He does not like the Magico brand so did not include it in his list of brands to audition, but if he had, he could have shared a valuable perspective of how they sound relative to the very many other speakers he spent significant and quality time hearing.

Honestly, you seem quite interested in this thread and Magico in particular, yet you have written that you do not have much experience with the brand. Rather than taking my word for it or continuing to ask me what I think or how I would defend my opinion, I respectfully suggest you go out and hear a couple models for yourself. The Magico S5II and M2 models would be a good place to start, in my opinion.

Thanks for sharing. Of particular note is this comment from Magico's Fall 2019 Newsletter.

https://www.magicoaudio.com/news/magico-news-for-fall-2019

Philosophy

At Magico, our number one priority is to minimize the losses in electro-acoustic transfer, the conversion of recorded music into acoustic energy. We aim to preserve maximum fidelity to the source. We’re not out to beautify or manipulate the recorded signal. We’re not looking to add performance attributes or exaggerations, whether on purpose or through lack of knowledge. An exaggeration or attribute not in the original recording may catch the ear at first, but lead to long-term fatigue, endless system tweaks and ultimate dissatisfaction.


The above design philosophy doesn't appeal to many on this thread or in the hobby in general. However one must appreciate and respect Wolf's desire to remove these distortions in his designs.

 

[gds7368]

Tim, don't know what you mean by "Magicoscenti", though it sounds kind of funny. My experience is more with the older wood enclosures, then some of the Q and S series. I have heard the newest M3 a couple of times, and the M2 once. And I have not heard the A series.

I think it is difficult to answer your question because I have found the four Magico lines that I have heard each sounds different. Perhaps the better question is: What flavor do you want? The old M5 and Mini II were highly accomplished speakers which I found difficult to characterize. The V2 and V3 were not as good, though good values and excellent sounding relative to their peers, IMO. The Q series is known for accuracy to the signal. TAS, Valin, Wolf, all wrote about that and I hear it in my Q3. Then came the S series which was designed for a different taste, and built to a different price point. I found the early models not as accurate and transparent and tonally neutral as the Q. They came out with the Mk 2 models which are better. I have likened the Q/S distinction as similar to the Pass Labs X and XA series. Two markets, different sounds, different goals.

Now the M series is evolved from the M Pro and technology marches on, finds it way into the S series, the A series, and the newest M series. I love the M Pro, but have not heard the A series or M2 and M3 set up well enough to really know what these speakers are capable of sounding like.

The Q series has the reputation of being ruthlessly revealing, a bit bright, analytical, cold, sterile, neutral. Some love it others hate it. I hear none of those attributes in my system for whatever reason. Nor do my friends. We hear what Valin and Wolf described at the time of their release as "accuracy", and the closest they knew of how to get to what's on the recording. At least at that time.

I think an owner of the new M6, M3, or M2 who once owned the Q series, or the older wooden speakers may be able to better answer your question. But basically, I don't think there is a Magico sound, because the different lines sound different because they are voiced differently, and designed for different customers. It's hard to generalize the way Harley does in that conclusion. Is he saying the M6 is warmer/richer than the S5 Mk2? I would think it is lower in distortion and more capable in general so I would use completely different language to describe the direction the company is moving in.

It is also about construction efficiencies, profitability, and what they think can sell today to a variety of customers. I mean Porsche makes SUVs and the 9ll, plus more race ready track cars. I suspect the M series and A series sound quite different and that one should not generalize about a Magico "sound", because today, there are so many different models available. It's not like the old days when they only had the wooden speakers, or later when they had only the Q and S lines.

I think Harley wants to come across as knowing it all, but in reality, I find these generalizations a bit lazy and disappointing, frankly.

The tweeter on the Q3, which I lived with for two years, is significantly “hotter” than the tweeter on the M Pro, which I’ve lived with for four years. In the end it was the Q3’s brightness that made me move on. I didn’t make any other changes in the system but the speakers.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Exactly the same what i thought and i measured a lot on speakers.
Actually i do have a cable solution for that.
From what i know transparent and mit cables have a low pass filter ( coil in serie with the signal etc ).
Connecting this cable might roll off the highs a bit .
Depends of the value of the coil and cut off freq.
One could give it a try

 

[ack]

Exactly the same what i thought and i measured a lot on speakers.
Actually i do have a cable solution for that.
From what i know transparent and mit cables have a low pass filter ( coil in serie with the signal etc ).
Connecting this cable might roll off the highs a bit .
Depends of the value of the coil and cut off freq.
One could give it atry

The Transparents have the in-series inductor; MIT is a completely different approach and very wide bandwidth

 

[PeterA]

The tweeter on the Q3, which I lived with for two years, is significantly “hotter” than the tweeter on the M Pro, which I’ve lived with for four years. In the end it was the Q3’s brightness that made me move on. I didn’t make any other changes in the system but the speakers.

I really like the M project tweeter no question about it. I’m told the Q series have a very hot tweeter. I don’t hear that in my system or my system does not exhibit it I don’t know which but to my ears I do not hear excessive brightness. Others have heard my system as well and have generally agreed with that assessment. I did have transparent cables for a long time and I now prefer different ones.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Im talking long -time ago here 2004 something like this when I was in discovery mode ,current models I dont know , but I did see not so long ago a X ray on the net somewhere of a expensive transparent cable with a coil in the ^ box ^
I openend the MIT Iterminator 4 cable which I paid 300 euros for second hand , amazingly strong plastic I had to use a cutting grinder .
In it was a was a iron core inductor ( coil with a iron center ) in series .
When I openend the Transparent LS 200 ( think it was ) there was a capacitator in parralel which is basically also a low pass filter

 

[andromedaaudio]

By the way the next magico I heard will get a threaded hole with an eyebolt and a chain , to keep them from disappearing in J valins room .
This is not against magico I think they make fine products whether you like them or not

 

[ack]

Im talking long -time ago here 2004 something like this when I was in discovery mode ,current models I dont know , but I did see not so long ago a X ray on the net somewhere of a expensive transparent cable with a coil in the ^ box ^
I openend the MIT Iterminator 4 cable which I paid 300 euros for second hand , amazingly strong plastic I had to use a cutting grinder .
In it was a was a iron core inductor ( coil with a iron center ) in series .
When I openend the Transparent LS 200 ( think it was ) there was a capacitator in parralel.

Ah, yes that X-ray does exist out there, and yes, the very very old Terminator series from the 90s also featured low-pass filters; I thought you were talking about recent models. While Transparent is all about the same BS, MIT has taken a completely different direction since ca 2000

 

[asiufy]

KeithR just completed an extensive year-long search for a replacement speaker. He does not like the Magico brand so did not include it in his list of brands to audition, but if he had, he could have shared a valuable perspective of how they sound relative to the very many other speakers he spent significant and quality time hearing.

I'm not Keith, but since he's currently enjoying a nice roadtrip, I figured I'd chime in
I do remember him auditioning Magico at local dealers at least twice in the last couple of years, with tubes even, which he seems to prefer.
So I don't think it's not that "he doesn't like the Magico brand". He doesn't like the Magico product. Perhaps because he's heard better. It's all a matter of perspective.

 

[morricab]

Thanks for sharing. Of particular note is this comment from Magico's Fall 2019 Newsletter.

https://www.magicoaudio.com/news/magico-news-for-fall-2019

Philosophy

At Magico, our number one priority is to minimize the losses in electro-acoustic transfer, the conversion of recorded music into acoustic energy. We aim to preserve maximum fidelity to the source. We’re not out to beautify or manipulate the recorded signal. We’re not looking to add performance attributes or exaggerations, whether on purpose or through lack of knowledge. An exaggeration or attribute not in the original recording may catch the ear at first, but lead to long-term fatigue, endless system tweaks and ultimate dissatisfaction.


The above design philosophy doesn't appeal to many on this thread or in the hobby in general. However one must appreciate and respect Wolf's desire to remove these distortions in his designs.

If they actually believed this philosophy, then why make low efficiency speakers? If your speaker is only converting about 1% of electrical signal to sound waves and 99% to heat is that minimizing losses? Just sayin...

 

[VLS]

While Transparent is all about the same BS, MIT has taken a completely different direction since ca 2000

My understanding, such as it is, is that Transparent aims to filter noise, suggesting low pass filters, whereas MIT’s stated goal is the incorporation of all-pass filters which aim to “fix” voltage and current phase issues. But I’m not sure what those issues really are and if they really need fixing. And in addition MIT maybe provides impedance matching required by some amps (e.g., Spectral).

But I confess I find the whole area of termination boxes murky and confusing in spite of being an EE and laboring through MIT’s white papers. I find the manufacturers’ assertions not wholly comprehensible or convincing. But I’m eager to be educated!

 

[BruceD]

The only thing to top this latest dissapearing act , is an invisible speaker all together .

Seen and heard a pair of those-- The Iverson Force Fields of the late 70's!

BD

 

[andromedaaudio]

Really you were there , I read about that .
Seems to have been quit an expirience.

 

[BruceD]

Really you were there , I read about that .
Seems to have been quit an expirience.

The answer is yes to your question---but this is a posters Magico thread

BruceD

 

[bonzo75]

Tim, I heard my first pair of Magico speakers called the V2 at a local dealer. I directly compared them to pairs of Verity and Rockport speakers, all three pairs selling for around $20-25K. We switched speakers around and the source from vinyl to digital. When we switched the speakers, the Magico had considerably more resolution and nuance with far greater spatial information than the other two. I had the sense that the other two were somehow restricting the information from the recording coming through. They lacked resolution and sounded colored to me. When we switched the source, the differences were more evident through the Magico than they were through the other brands.

Another time, I was at a demonstration of either the Magico Q3 or Q5. We switched from CD/HDCD to streaming HiRez to vinyl. The differences were much more clear and pronounced here than when people have demonstrated these kinds of differences with mediums to me before.

Going to shows, when I stopped by various rooms in which the same model speaker was demoed, in this case either a Magico S model or Q model, each room sounded quite different because the upstream gear was different while the rooms were more or less the same. At the same shows, when I stopped by rooms with other brands which also had the same model speaker or ones very similar, the rooms had a more similar sound.

Having learned my lesson from another recent thread, I'd rather not mention brand names and start a food fight. I'd prefer to focus on the topic of Magico in this thread and what I think this brand does well rather than criticize some other brand that people prefer. I'm sure many people disagree and that is fine. Some think it is all marketing and reviewer hype, that is fine too. This is my general impression of the brand as opposed to other brands that I have heard. I am not saying they are the most transparent or lowest in distortion and noise speakers available today. I'm just saying that in my mid level models range where I dwell, this has been my experience.

There have been a number of accounts here where people have shared their impressions that they have not liked Magico because of the brands of upstream gear, mostly electronics, that they have heard the speakers paired with. This argument has been made with many brands, but it supports the notion that one is listening to the amps, or cables, or source when listening to these speakers.

KeithR just completed an extensive year-long search for a replacement speaker. He does not like the Magico brand so did not include it in his list of brands to audition, but if he had, he could have shared a valuable perspective of how they sound relative to the very many other speakers he spent significant and quality time hearing.

Honestly, you seem quite interested in this thread and Magico in particular, yet you have written that you do not have much experience with the brand. Rather than taking my word for it or continuing to ask me what I think or how I would defend my opinion, I respectfully suggest you go out and hear a couple models for yourself. The Magico S5II and M2 models would be a good place to start, in my opinion.

I have heard old S3 with Levinson , S5 with Kondo kagura and Vitus SS 102, Conrad Johnson, MSB, s1 mk2 with Vitus, s5mk2 with jadis 200, Q7 mk2 with Alieno, I forget audioquattr's Magico model but that with both Alieno and dagostino. Across they have been various TTs including techdas AF1, AF3, kodo beat, Vyger, VPI DD, plus digital. And phonos from Aesthetix IO eclipse, Allnic 5000, and many others. Carts including atlas, Etna, koetsu, Benz, vdh MS Stradivarius, and many others included in compares. Also tape machines.

So I choose to disagree that differences with Magico are more evident, that's all. If you really want to hear differences between sources, you should try on a beryllium driver TAD or Radian powered by simple triodes. The differences in a 600 pound AT33 cart or a SPU will be through basic phono stages will be greater, as will differences between recordings. That is really transparent. Funnily enough at much cheaper prices the Devore orangutan are very transparent to recording changes.

For me a speaker like Magico should be best managed by gain. and room of course. The gain from source to pre and power needs to be spot on, to have energy, grip, excitement. The focus should not be on tone. Such speakers are better suited to digital than to analog. For analog have big sounding bassy high gain phono like Aesthetix

 

[microstrip]

Thanks for sharing. Of particular note is this comment from Magico's Fall 2019 Newsletter.

https://www.magicoaudio.com/news/magico-news-for-fall-2019

Philosophy

At Magico, our number one priority is to minimize the losses in electro-acoustic transfer, the conversion of recorded music into acoustic energy. We aim to preserve maximum fidelity to the source. We’re not out to beautify or manipulate the recorded signal. We’re not looking to add performance attributes or exaggerations, whether on purpose or through lack of knowledge. An exaggeration or attribute not in the original recording may catch the ear at first, but lead to long-term fatigue, endless system tweaks and ultimate dissatisfaction.


The above design philosophy doesn't appeal to many on this thread or in the hobby in general. However one must appreciate and respect Wolf's desire to remove these distortions in his designs.

Nice words, but IMHO practice if very different. Magico different lines of speakers and evolution show it clearly. Measurements taken on their speakers show that they wisely manipulate the frequency response in some of their models. IMHO unless a manufacturer clearly publishes his objective aims and measurements of his speakers claims of fidelity to the source are just nice words.

It is knownn since long that fidelity to the source is a very ambiguous claim concerning speakers.