Sublime Sound

[Tango]

Microstrip, Even the increased efficiency over the Mini 2s seems to produce a more effortless sound and increased sense of ease to the presentation. I have not yet decided what to do with the Minis. A friend in Europe has expressed some interest, but I am quite fond of them and may not sell them. Some of my friends even teased me that my small sailboat is not beamy enough to install them properly. And battery power is precious on a sailboat

Dear Peter,

I am happy to see you are enjoying the upgrade. I had a Q3 next to the Mini II once too. I bought the first pair Mini II in Thailand and regret to this day I sold them.

@Micro. I didn’t know you are one of the Mohicans.

Best regards,
Tang

 

[PeterA]

Dear Peter,

I am happy to see you are enjoying the upgrade. I had a Q3 next to the Mini II once too. I bought the first pair Mini II in Thailand and regret to this day I sold them.

@Micro. I didn’t know you are one of the Mohicans.

Best regards,
Tang

Tango, I never listened to either speaker while the other was in the room. I thought it might affect the sonics. How would you describe the differences between the two? Did you ever own the Q3? I know a guy in southern CA who sold his Mini 2s and regretted it. He searched for four years for another pair in mint condition and then bought another pair. IMO, they will always be classics.

 

[DaveyF]

Peter, Congratulations. You just bought one of the best speakers on the planet, IMO. The Q3's would be on my very short list if I had the room to accommodate them. Superb sound whenever I have heard them and easily one of the best Magico speakers. I know you will enjoy them into the future....

 

[PeterA]

Peter, Congratulations. You just bought one of the best speakers on the planet, IMO. The Q3's would be on my very short list if I had the room to accommodate them. Superb sound whenever I have heard them and easily one of the best Magico speakers. I know you will enjoy them into the future....

Thanks DaveyF. Now that they are discontinued, we might see a few more pair on the market. I feel strongly that the Q3 represents an outstanding value on the used market, if you can find a pair. They are so much speaker for the money, and the M3, though better, is much more expensive.

 

[Tango]

Tango, I never listened to either speaker while the other was in the room. I thought it might affect the sonics. How would you describe the differences between the two? Did you ever own the Q3? I know a guy in southern CA who sold his Mini 2s and regretted it. He searched for four years for another pair in mint condition and then bought another pair. IMO, they will always be classics.

What a beauty. I must say I am bias toward the Mini II. I sold my Mini II (the whole system actually) only because I was moving places. My room was small so Mini II worked very well and I didnt find Q3 to be more than 5% different (and only better on bass) in my room. I didn’t own the Q3 only tried them in my old system.

It would be great to have the Mini II place between my Gamma II right now. But that’s difficult to happen because I no longer have the amps to drive them effectively.

Best regards,
Tang

 

[jeff1225]

Congrats Peter. The speakers absolutely look perfect in your room. I'll be back on the Cape visiting family again soon, inviting myself over.

 

[caesar]

...

Caesar, The Q3 is my favorite speaker in the Q line. I have heard the others in various settings, perhaps not under optimal conditions. I really like the Pass/Magico pairing. The original Mini was developed in part using a Pass X350. I have no desire to change anything in my system right now. I find your comment about driver integration with the Mini curious. I never heard any issues in my system or in the four other systems in which I have heard the Mini 2. In fact, I once commented to a dealer when hearing both the Mini 2 and the M5 that I thought the latter sounded like a scaled up version of the former, with the same incredible driver integration and sonic coherence. He agreed with me. I did hear driver integration issues with the Magico V3 which is one reason I decided to buy the Mini 2 instead.


....

Hi Peter,

I guess it depends what your references are. (And I am not talking about live music here ). If you compare the Mini to a speaker such as the Martin Logan CLX, where everything is from the same cloth, the integration problemos the Mini has are glaring.

Anyways, enjoy!

 

[DaveyF]

Hi Peter,

I guess it depends what your references are. (And I am not talking about live music here ). If you compare the Mini to a speaker such as the Martin Logan CLX, where everything is from the same cloth, the integration problemos the Mini has are glaring.

Anyways, enjoy!

Caesar, the problem with the ClX is that....UNLIKE the Mini 2’s, they have a pervasive coloration...called the plastic effect. So, while the CLX may be cut from the same cloth...that cloth is a plastic cloth, to my ears and imho, YMMV.

 

[DaveyF]

Thanks DaveyF. Now that they are discontinued, we might see a few more pair on the market. I feel strongly that the Q3 represents an outstanding value on the used market, if you can find a pair. They are so much speaker for the money, and the M3, though better, is much more expensive.

Agreed 100%. The difference in price between the new M3’s and the Q3’s is so large, that it makes the Q3’s a relative bargain.
I would suspect that one can get 95%+ of the sound of the M3’s from the Q3’s, at a fraction of the price.
Unfortunately, I do not have the room to support the Q3’s...probably only a speaker as large as the Q1’s...and the Q1’s are not, at least IMO, a step up over my current SF’s.

 

[microstrip]

(...) @Micro. I didn’t know you are one of the Mohicans.

Best regards,
Tang

Yes, I have a mint pair currently staying in a system in the living room. Probably I should sell them, it is almost criminal to keep them mainly for decorative purposes ... Particularly as the Mini II's appreciate high power tubes and they are now connected to a Devialet ...

 

[PeterA]

Yes, I have a mint pair currently staying in a system in the living room. Probably I should sell them, it is almost criminal to keep them mainly for decorative purposes ... Particularly as the Mini II's appreciate high power tubes and they are now connected to a Devialet ...

I suppose someone else could be enjoying them in a main system, but what would you rather have in the living room or a second smaller system? The Mini IIs also appreciated the 320 Class A watts from my SS Pass XA160.5 and they were developed in part on the Class A/B Pass X350.

 

[PeterA]

Hi Peter,

I guess it depends what your references are. (And I am not talking about live music here ). If you compare the Mini to a speaker such as the Martin Logan CLX, where everything is from the same cloth, the integration problemos the Mini has are glaring.

Anyways, enjoy!

Caesar, I appreciate your point of view. References are one thing, and preferences are another. At times they correspond. I am not familiar with the different Martin Logan speakers. I have, however, heard several times Ack's MartinLogan Odyssey. Perhaps they are very different from the CLX which I have never heard nor compared directly to the Mini II. With the strong memory and impression of Ack's Odysseys as my reference, I hear no integration "problemos" with the Mini II. In fact, the Odyssey benefits from heavy modifications to get the woofer integrated with the panel as you can read about on Ack's thread. The cabinet also needs extensive modifications to reduce resonances. Ack has done a commendable job and made much progress modifying his speakers, yet, to my ears, in my room and system context, those drivers do not sound "as a whole" the way the Mini IIs do.

Perhaps you were sitting too close to the Minis for proper driver integration. That can be an issue with cone speakers. Have you heard the Mini IIs in a variety of system contexts? Ack made a comment about the Q3 having driver integration problems also, and yet this is one area for which Magico is known to excel. You can read about Ack's experiences at Goodwins with the Q3 years ago. He discusses listening distances to the drivers. He was seriously considering buying a pair of Q3s and even though he owns Martin Logan panels, the Q3 remain a dream speaker for him.

 

[microstrip]

I suppose someone else could be enjoying them in a main system, but what would you rather have in the living room or a second smaller system? The Mini IIs also appreciated the 320 Class A watts from my SS Pass XA160.5 and they were developed in part on the Class A/B Pass X350.

Yes, I can imagine that your Pass is an even better match for the Magico's, as they have a difficult impedance. Your current M3's have an EPDR (equivalent peak dissipation resistance) around 1 ohm in the bass - something that will forbid almost all tube amplifiers!

Are you considering subs? We should always remember the old rule - subs integrate better with speakers that apparently do not need them!

 

[caesar]

Caesar, the problem with the ClX is that....UNLIKE the Mini 2’s, they have a pervasive coloration...called the plastic effect. So, while the CLX may be cut from the same cloth...that cloth is a plastic cloth, to my ears and imho, YMMV.

Hi Davey,

I really like that analogy. I'm not a fan of the CLX either. That thinness / "window see - through transparency" just doesn’t do it for me.

Yet subjectivity is a peculiar thing and I am only making a point that people may not be aware of a shortcoming because they are not aware of it due to a lack of comparing. Obviously not everyone perceives that plastic coloration. And if they do, they don't focus on it. Different people hone in on different things to get that realism and imagination of "real" in their head. Myles B. Astor phd had Martin logans for years before magico. Valin still lists clx as a reference. Neither talked about it.

When I listen to stats, I like the boxless openness and resolution (only if it’s musical resolution, but in many cases stat resolution is spoiled by people using analytical ancillaries).

But I find many of the stats problematic as I quickly pick up on poor highs due to badly designed or pussy powered amps, poor macro dynamics - also because of people using pussy powered amps, the thinness, and incongruities of woofer integration of the hybrid models. But the biggest problem for stat technology is a lack of dynamics in the midrange. But many don’t notice it because they are used to the sound, and it only comes across when comparing to a much better designed, frequently more expensive non-stat speaker…

Anyways, I wish someone would point out to me what the “plastic coloration” sounds like so I may be aware of it…

 

[caesar]

Caesar, I appreciate your point of view. References are one thing, and preferences are another. At times they correspond. I am not familiar with the different Martin Logan speakers. I have, however, heard several times Ack's MartinLogan Odyssey. Perhaps they are very different from the CLX which I have never heard nor compared directly to the Mini II. With the strong memory and impression of Ack's Odysseys as my reference, I hear no integration "problemos" with the Mini II. In fact, the Odyssey benefits from heavy modifications to get the woofer integrated with the panel as you can read about on Ack's thread. The cabinet also needs extensive modifications to reduce resonances. Ack has done a commendable job and made much progress modifying his speakers, yet, to my ears, in my room and system context, those drivers do not sound "as a whole" the way the Mini IIs do.

Perhaps you were sitting too close to the Minis for proper driver integration. That can be an issue with cone speakers. Have you heard the Mini IIs in a variety of system contexts? Ack made a comment about the Q3 having driver integration problems also, and yet this is one area for which Magico is known to excel. You can read about Ack's experiences at Goodwins with the Q3 years ago. He discusses listening distances to the drivers. He was seriously considering buying a pair of Q3s and even though he owns Martin Logan panels, the Q3 remain a dream speaker for him.

Hi Peter,
Again, continuing with the thought in my reply to Davey, I think people hone on what they like and find realism in... There is something about speakers that have a single driver across the entire range. If you are used to that sound, everything else sticks out. Tastes are learned. Obviously, people readjust their tastes with new experiences. Coca Cola tastes Weird to someone first trying it - until they learn to like it. And remember the looks on the faces of freshmen who are new to alcohol in the first few weeks of college. That grimace is gone by spring, as they embrace the bitter taste...

I listened to the mini and q in the same room, and I am familiar with full range stats... Ack maybe right about the incongruities of the Q, but I think it's much better than the mini...

 

[caesar]

Yes, I have a mint pair currently staying in a system in the living room. Probably I should sell them, it is almost criminal to keep them mainly for decorative purposes ... Particularly as the Mini II's appreciate high power tubes and they are now connected to a Devialet ...

Hi Microstrip,
Are you sure you really want to sell those? As they say, there is a price for everything...

When I was shopping for a house, I walked into a few overpriced homes with obvious flaws (one was a house that had a circular indoor pool in the center of the house with rooms shooting off the center like spokes). The owners who designed it, thought it was a taj mahal. But, obviously, only to them...

Let me paraphrase a famous behavioral economics experiment: A guy running the experiment buys a coffee cup with a sport team logo for $10. He gives it to a fan of the team, without telling him the price. The fan drinks a cup of coffee out of it, staring at the logo. A few minutes later, the guy running the experiment asks the fan how much he wants to sell it for. The answer is $20...

The mini may be the greatest speaker magico has ever made. But if you really want to sell it, drop the price.

 

[caesar]

I suppose someone else could be enjoying them in a main system, but what would you rather have in the living room or a second smaller system? The Mini IIs also appreciated the 320 Class A watts from my SS Pass XA160.5 and they were developed in part on the Class A/B Pass X350.

I understand what you are saying... Do you think you will ever try anything other than Pass?

 

[microstrip]

Hi Microstrip,
Are you sure you really want to sell those? As they say, there is a price for everything...

When I was shopping for a house, I walked into a few overpriced homes with obvious flaws (one was a house that had a circular indoor pool in the center of the house with rooms shooting off the center like spokes). The owners who designed it, thought it was a taj mahal. But, obviously, only to them...

Let me paraphrase a famous behavioral economics experiment: A guy running the experiment buys a coffee cup with a sport team logo for $10. He gives it to a fan of the team, without telling him the price. The fan drinks a cup of coffee out of it, staring at the logo. A few minutes later, the guy running the experiment asks the fan how much he wants to sell it for. The answer is $20...

The mini may be the greatest speaker magico has ever made. But if you really want to sell it, drop the price.

Thanks for your time. I must say I do not see any connection between your examples and my eventual sales of my pair of Mini II's...

 

[ack]

I listened to the mini and q in the same room, and I am familiar with full range stats... Ack maybe right about the incongruities of the Q, but I think it's much better than the mini...

Not sure what you heard with the Mini, but to these ears driver integration is superb, at a certain distance. Perhaps the Q3 needs some good distance as well. But I can tell you, with respect to the M3, I actually wrote a while ago (I think) that I moved my head up and down the speaker baffle as close as 1m/3ft away from the speaker, and the integration is just remarkable. What I really like about the Magico approach is their strive to solve problems as their primary goal, as opposed to primarily voicing speakers one way or another as lots of others do. Sometimes, they will make two steps forward and one step back [M3]; others, the initial design is just flawed in obvious ways [S5 Series 1]; but for the most part, they push the envelope. And their drive towards fast - electrostatic - response really speaks my language. Making mistakes is human nature, but I can appreciate their efforts, considering that it has taken me 10 years to voice my own speakers, to eventually get to where I am right now, with numerous ups and downs along the way. I don't really see that same level of effort and passion with many manufacturers, until you go really high in price, very much in the 6-figure $ range. And since I brought pricing, FWIW, over the years, I have come to appreciate that a speaker like the Q3 can be had for ONLY $40K or so, and half of that right now - that to me speaks volumes. Having said that, I am not liking Magico's new pricing strategy, to be quite honest.

Since you brought up the CLX, I would like to ask a simple philosophical question that you shouldn't really respond to: why on earth is that support structure of the panels so loosely coupled, and why does it move with a simple push with the hand - that's not what I call "problem solving", and is a glaring blunder, to use your words.

 

[DaveyF]

Hi Davey,

I really like that analogy. I'm not a fan of the CLX either. That thinness / "window see - through transparency" just doesn’t do it for me.

Yet subjectivity is a peculiar thing and I am only making a point that people may not be aware of a shortcoming because they are not aware of it due to a lack of comparing. Obviously not everyone perceives that plastic coloration. And if they do, they don't focus on it. Different people hone in on different things to get that realism and imagination of "real" in their head. Myles B. Astor phd had Martin logans for years before magico. Valin still lists clx as a reference. Neither talked about it.

When I listen to stats, I like the boxless openness and resolution (only if it’s musical resolution, but in many cases stat resolution is spoiled by people using analytical ancillaries).

But I find many of the stats problematic as I quickly pick up on poor highs due to badly designed or pussy powered amps, poor macro dynamics - also because of people using pussy powered amps, the thinness, and incongruities of woofer integration of the hybrid models. But the biggest problem for stat technology is a lack of dynamics in the midrange. But many don’t notice it because they are used to the sound, and it only comes across when comparing to a much better designed, frequently more expensive non-stat speaker…

Anyways, I wish someone would point out to me what the “plastic coloration” sounds like so I may be aware of it…

I agree with you entirely about the sound of most stats. The basic technology has inherent flaws....like all other speaker technologies ( IOW, there is no perfect speaker). Having lived with stats for years, i can tell you that once you begin to hear those flaws, they are extremely annoying and frustrating---at least for me. The 'plastic' effect is clear to my ears with all 'stats' that i have heard...to a great or lesser effect. Once you listen for it, it becomes quite obvious...again to me, perhaps not to you?? Basically, it sounds like a sheen of unnatural glare, or what you would expect a plastic sheet to sound like if it was stretched across a stator and needed to vibrate...which of course is exactly what we are listening to. Next time you hear a stat, listen for this, I'm pretty sure you will hear what I am talking about. That, and all of the other issues you correctly brought up in your post.
BTW, could there be a psychoacoustic aspect to this....possibly, but if so, that psychoacoustic aspect is now always with me...and is always present with all others who i have talked to who notice the exact same thing....so psychoacoustic or not, the result is the same...an unpleasant experience with this particular type of speaker design.( Along with the other points you mentioned..are they psychoacoustic too???)