The Law of Diminishing Returns is BS! A Video on the Magico M9 (TAS)

[Mike Lavigne]

The room dimensions are 20 x 32.

it might have started with a 20 foot wide space, that makes sense.

for instance, my room was designed to be built to 21' wide, and it is 21 feet wide, but an oval shape. you can get a tape measure to extend 21' in a couple places.....point to point.....straight across after the build.

 

[PeterA]

which is what i wrote. the question remains just how much less room efforts are required to still allow the M9's to sound better? agree with equal efforts i would expect the M9's to be better. then there is always better presentation, greater separation and layering, verses higher resolution but less organization. so performance judging is not so simple. where is the higher musical connection?

Mike, I think greater separation and layering and higher resolution but less organization has much to do with the recording and not so much the system once it’s at a certain level. And then I find people disagree that those various attributes sound more or less like what one hears in the concert hall.

I actually don’t want a system presentation which separates and layers everything similarly. And I’m not sure I actually hear a lot of separation and layering when I’m sitting in front of an orchestra or jazz quartet in a nightclub. There is some and really good recordings reflect that or capture that pretty realistically. We talk about these things and describe them as positives in a hi-fi sense but I think there’s some disagreement about the degree to which these are real things heard from live music.

I would like to read from a reviewer who has made the trip to this listening room and heard the M9s to simply say how much a recording of a symphony or string quartet or solo piano sounds like the real thing to him and not get into all of the audiophile terms. When I read a lot of the terms sprinkled about a listening impression, I don’t think real music. It’s a matter of dissecting the sound versus the holistic gestalt of the experience. Does he hear more details than usual from a favorite recording or is he overwhelmed by the emotion of a piece of music performed well?

 

[gleeds]

Piggy backing on Peter's comments, speaking for myself the experience of listening to a system is almost entirely physiological. Meaning assuming the system gets the basic right can I can simply sink into the recording without becoming overly analytical. There's a certain feeling of well executed reproduced sound that is sensory and leads one to lean in, slow our breathing and focus on the musical event. Without the system's ability to create that state of experience the current audio language we use to describe what we hear IMO has less validity.

I agree with Elliot, the room is the biggest variable by far when evaluating equipment at the levels most WBF readers have interest in. So we need a baseline of "room neutrality" to begin making sense of a transducer and its subjective performance envelope and overall sound.

 

[Elliot G.]

For informational purposes when I was at RH doing the removal of the XXV and the set up of the Gobel Noblesse there were 3 of us working. Oliver Gobel, Stirling Trayle and Myself. We had two days to accomplish the task and to be bruetally honest I wish we had more time. I /we were happy with the result and you can read RH's review however I know that with more time comes MORE. I know we could have gotten more.
I don't mean to insult anyone but people to need to hear some of these supper systems to get an idea of the result, the effort and what is possible, We all get USED to our systems and what we believe is excellent or great or real etc.
It is very hard to understand what actually can happen with a lot of effort and a lot of time.
All the great set up guys still have to work in most rooms with the conditions that exist. That means these are imperfect rooms , rooms with compromise, rooms with flaws. This is the reality of the overwhelming majority of people.
How many have a purpose built room? A room with as many parameters as possible checked off? A room with a full system of amazing gear that works together? Installed and set up by the best people and technology possible?
I say very very few.
As I said I have not been to Magico and to be honest I doubt that will happen lol
Oliver is building two large rooms in his new facility. I really am excited to see what he can accomplish. A Majestic in the right room with all the right gear ...should be special.
I do believe that these Mega Speakers should be available and maxed out for people to hear and get a real understanding of what they can do in a SOTA system.

It would be wonderful to hear in Mike's room what another speaker could do but these are gargantuan efforts that take lots of time, effort and funds. Picking something at these levels requires a real commitment to get to point that is being discussed. Not reaching the mountain top is not a failure only not having all the capabilities required to get there.

It would be wonderful to have a place with a few identical rooms that the best could compete in the ultimate showdown.
I'm happy to volunteer what we have an would challenge all comers !!! LOL

I am prepared to hire Michael Buffer and walk out with the belts LMAO

Since this wont happen I do suggest to those contemplating these mega products that they take more than a one shot survey in making a choice and be prepared for a long and bumpy ride to get to the pinnacle.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, I think greater separation and layering and higher resolution but less organization has much to do with the recording and not so much the system once it’s at a certain level. And then I find people disagree that those various attributes sound more or less like what one hears in the concert hall.

I actually don’t want a system presentation which separates and layers everything similarly. And I’m not sure I actually hear a lot of separation and layering when I’m sitting in front of an orchestra or jazz quartet in a nightclub. There is some and really good recordings reflect that or capture that pretty realistically. We talk about these things and describe them as positives in a hi-fi sense but I think there’s some disagreement about the degree to which these are real things heard from live music.

I would like to read from a reviewer who has made the trip to this listening room and heard the M9s to simply say how much a recording of a symphony or string quartet or solo piano sounds like the real thing to him and not get into all of the audiophile terms. When I read a lot of the terms sprinkled about a listening impression, I don’t think real music. It’s a matter of dissecting the sound versus the holistic gestalt of the experience. Does he hear more details than usual from a favorite recording or is he overwhelmed by the emotion of a piece of music performed well?

Peter,

here's the thing. with a large dynamic speaker systems with lots of driver surface in a big live room, when things get hot and heavy it can turn to mush if the room is not right. which makes you turn it down and you think it's the recording. the idea is that any sort of recording can be all it can be and be heard at realistic levels. it should scale up and down with the recording. any recording. and the room being right brings benefits on all recordings, it's simply mandatory with the large scale.

other driver types are relatively less demanding on the room being finely tuned. but there are other trade-offs involved.

the room being overly controlled and over damped and immediacy and energy being robbed is where the fine tuning comes in. my room has almost zero absorption built in; it's all hardwood and diffusion. even hardwood underneath the speakers. extremely live. so i don't lose any energy. the painstaking tuning was to bring some degree of organization without throwing out the energy. i want the flow and propulsion of the music. the opposite of 'hifi-reproduced' sounding. a musical balance.

does it go as far as the best horns in that way? probably not, but it does it's own thing.

 

[PeterA]

Peter,

here's the thing. with a large dynamic speaker systems with lots of driver surface in a big live room, when things get hot and heavy it can turn to mush if the room is not right. which makes you turn it down and you think it's the recording. the idea is that any sort of recording can be all it can be and be heard at realistic levels. it should scale up and down with the recording. any recording. and the room being right brings benefits on all recordings, it's simply mandatory with the large scale.

other driver types are relatively less demanding on the room being finely tuned. but there are other trade-offs involved.

the room being overly controlled and over damped and immediacy and energy being robbed is where the fine tuning comes in. my room has almost zero absorption built in; it's all hardwood and diffusion. even hardwood underneath the speakers. extremely live. so i don't lose any energy. the painstaking tuning was to bring some degree of organization without throwing out the energy. i want the flow and propulsion of the music. the opposite of 'hifi-reproduced' sounding. a musical balance.

does it go as far as the best horns in that way? probably not, but it does it's own thing.

I agree Mike. I’m not talking about horns versus cones and I’m not talking about your room. I’m saying if the system and room are up to it we should hear differences in the presentation between different recordings and not just praise a speaker because it separates and layers instruments.

I must not have made my point very clearly. We’re talking past each other.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I agree Mike. I’m not talking about horns versus cones and I’m not talking about your room. I’m saying if the system and room are up to it we should hear differences in the presentation between different recordings and not just praise a speaker because it separates and layers instruments.

I must not have made my point very clearly. We’re talking past each other.

organized soundstage at the expense of musical connection = bad

organized soundstage in service to the music = good.

both are possible....to me.

 

[PeterA]

organized soundstage at the expense of musical connection = bad

organized soundstage in service to the music = good.

both are possible....to me.

Anything at the expense of musical connection is bad.

I don’t really know what “organized soundstage in service to the music“ really means. The presentation of a system in a particular room on a good recording either reminds one of the live music listening experience, or it does not.

 

[godofwealth]

Ok, I will bite. Which loudspeakers sound better than the M9?

Hmm.. the Quad ESL, released in 1957? I’m not being facetious here. Anyone who’s owned a pair of Walker’s “little wonder” knows there are aspects to its sound that have never been equaled or surpassed, even by Walker’s later more technically sophisticated delay ring ESL 63 design. “Sounds better” is a highly subjective opinion, but even if I took measurements of the M9, I’d expect they’d come up short in some respects to the legendary 57s.

Of course, the M9 would allow playback levels that will shut down any Quad and plumb the depths in low bass that no Quad will match. But these may not be important to a listener for whom the 57 or 63 was designed. I’ve listened to my 57s in a cramped bedroom sitting a couple of feet away, and they sound amazing. I couldn’t do that with the M9s, which require a huge room, treated appropriately so the speaker does not overload the room, and driven by suitable electronic amplification, a boat anchor Krell or similar amplifier.

But I‘m sure given the right setup, the M9 sounds amazing, and knowing Magico’s standards, fully lives up to the house‘s reputation. But it caters to a very particular class of users, not just folks who can afford it, but those who like its particular representation of recorded sound. Alan Shaw of Harbeth, for one, would not care for its design or sound, given his preference for the BBC style bitumen-damped wooden cabinets and Radial propylene midrange.

In the end, Alon, Alan, Peter Walker and Paul Klipsch are all highly talented brilliant designers who each pursues his notion of the perfect loudspeaker. We are indeed lucky to have such people around whose dedication to their profession creates products that enriched our musical lives. To me, there’s no answer to the question “best loudspeaker“, any more than one can answer the question of “best composer” or “best artist”. Each pursues his or her creative genius and the world is a richer place for it.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Anything at the expense of musical connection is bad.

I don’t really know what “organized soundstage in service to the music“ really means. The presentation of a system in a particular room on a good recording either reminds one of the live music listening experience, or it does not.

honestly; i want more than that. since some (of the millions of variables of) the live music experience are not ideal. reproduced music can bring more in many cases. but in other ways it will always fall a bit short of live.

so we don't exactly see it the same. which is ok.

 

[Rhapsody]

I couldn’t do that with the M9s, which require a huge room, treated appropriately so the speaker does not overload the room, and driven by suitable electronic amplification, a boat anchor Krell or similar amplifier.

The M9's MXO crossover controls both the mid-bass and lower bass. The M9s regarding overloading a room regarding bass can be dialed in to any reasonably sized room. Of course to illustrate the M9s capabilities a larger room is more ideal.

 

[PeterA]

honestly; i want more than that. since some (of the millions of variables of) the live music experience are not ideal. reproduced music can bring more in many cases. but in other ways it will always fall a bit short of live.

so we don't exactly see it the same. which is ok.

Thank you for clarifying that Mike. It explains your perspective, your priorities, and your goals. I now better understand your previous comments.

 

[PeterA]

The M9's MXO crossover controls both the mid-bass and lower bass. The M9s regarding overloading a room regarding bass can be dialed in to any reasonably sized room. Of course to illustrate the M9s capabilities a larger room is more ideal.

Hello Bob, what size will Chris’s room at the Rhapsody DFW show room for the M9 system be? I just made an appointment with Chris to hear the M9s when I visit my daughter in school there. I’m really looking forward to meeting Chris and hearing that system with the VYGER red sparrow combination.

 

[Rhapsody]

Hello Bob, what size will Chris’s room at the Rhapsody DFW show room for the M9 system be? I just made an appointment with Chris to hear the M9s when I visit my daughter in school there. I’m really looking forward to meeting Chris and hearing that system with the VYGER red sparrow combination.

Hi Peter, yes by the time you visit in March things should be somewhat settled in. The room is 27.5' x 19.5' x12.5'. The adjoining room which will house the other systems/speakers is the same size.

I am excited that we will be able to "show off" the M9s with the Atlantis/RS combo in addition to the Extreme etc. for digital.

 

[Rhapsody]

Lee doesn't mention the electronics that are driving the M9s at the Magico factory showroom. The electronics are the Pilium Alexander preamp and four Hercules mono blocks.

In Dallas we will be driving the M9s with the Pilium 3 chassis Olympus preamp and two Pilium Zeus stereo amps, which of course still provide the four channels of amplification that is required to drive the M9s.

The Pilium gear was picked up this last Thursday and is en route to Rhapsody Dallas.

 

[Lee]

Lee doesn't mention the electronics that are driving the M9s at the Magico factory showroom. The electronics are the Pilium Alexander preamp and four Hercules mono blocks.

In Dallas we will be driving the M9s with the Pilium 3 chassis Olympus preamp and two Pilium Zeus stereo amps, which of course still provide the four channels of amplification that is required to drive the M9s.

The Pilium gear was picked up this last Thursday and is en route to Rhapsody Dallas.
View attachment 103006

I believe I did mention the four Pilium boxes. Pilium is a somewhat unfamiliar brand to me but they were really delivering the goods in Hayward.

 

[Lee]

Hmm.. the Quad ESL, released in 1957? I’m not being facetious here. Anyone who’s owned a pair of Walker’s “little wonder” knows there are aspects to its sound that have never been equaled or surpassed, even by Walker’s later more technically sophisticated delay ring ESL 63 design. “Sounds better” is a highly subjective opinion, but even if I took measurements of the M9, I’d expect they’d come up short in some respects to the legendary 57s.

Of course, the M9 would allow playback levels that will shut down any Quad and plumb the depths in low bass that no Quad will match. But these may not be important to a listener for whom the 57 or 63 was designed. I’ve listened to my 57s in a cramped bedroom sitting a couple of feet away, and they sound amazing. I couldn’t do that with the M9s, which require a huge room, treated appropriately so the speaker does not overload the room, and driven by suitable electronic amplification, a boat anchor Krell or similar amplifier.

But I‘m sure given the right setup, the M9 sounds amazing, and knowing Magico’s standards, fully lives up to the house‘s reputation. But it caters to a very particular class of users, not just folks who can afford it, but those who like its particular representation of recorded sound. Alan Shaw of Harbeth, for one, would not care for its design or sound, given his preference for the BBC style bitumen-damped wooden cabinets and Radial propylene midrange.

In the end, Alon, Alan, Peter Walker and Paul Klipsch are all highly talented brilliant designers who each pursues his notion of the perfect loudspeaker. We are indeed lucky to have such people around whose dedication to their profession creates products that enriched our musical lives. To me, there’s no answer to the question “best loudspeaker“, any more than one can answer the question of “best composer” or “best artist”. Each pursues his or her creative genius and the world is a richer place for it.

I have heard a lot of Quads but none of them are anywhere close to the M9 presentation I heard.

 

[Lee]

Piggy backing on Peter's comments, speaking for myself the experience of listening to a system is almost entirely physiological. Meaning assuming the system gets the basic right can I can simply sink into the recording without becoming overly analytical. There's a certain feeling of well executed reproduced sound that is sensory and leads one to lean in, slow our breathing and focus on the musical event. Without the system's ability to create that state of experience the current audio language we use to describe what we hear IMO has less validity.

I agree with Elliot, the room is the biggest variable by far when evaluating equipment at the levels most WBF readers have interest in. So we need a baseline of "room neutrality" to begin making sense of a transducer and its subjective performance envelope and overall sound.

One of the things I mentioned to Alon was that after the initial ”oh wow” phase of looking at the entire system, I settled into the music quickly. Talk turned to what music to play. The Voces 8 track was especially emotional to me.

 

[Lee]

the room being overly controlled and over damped and immediacy and energy being robbed is where the fine tuning comes in. my room has almost zero absorption built in; it's all hardwood and diffusion. even hardwood underneath the speakers. extremely live. so i don't lose any energy. the painstaking tuning was to bring some degree of organization without throwing out the energy. i want the flow and propulsion of the music. the opposite of 'hifi-reproduced' sounding. a musical balance.

does it go as far as the best horns in that way? probably not, but it does it's own thing.

This is an excellent point. I have heard many a room be destroyed sonically by too much absoprtion. Like Mike, I prefer a bit of a lively sound.

 

[Rhapsody]

One of the things I mentioned to Alon was that after the initial ”oh wow” phase of looking at the entire system, I settled into the music quickly. Talk turned to what music to play. The Voces 8 track was especially emotional to me.

I believe I did mention the four Pilium boxes. Pilium is a somewhat unfamiliar brand to me but they were really delivering the goods in Hayward.

My apologies Lee, I missed it, I went back and indeed you did mention the four Pilium mono blocks. They are Pilium Hercules mono amps and they are fed from a Pilium Alexander preamp, which feeds the M9 MXO crossover, which then feeds the Hercules four each monos.

The Hercules monos are actually the mid-level mono amps now that are available from Pilium. The current Pilium flagship mono amps that were recently released are the Atlas mono amps, which are mono versions of the Zues stereo amps, which as I mentioned we will be using in Dallas.

Lee, of course we would love to have you visit Rhapsody Dallas to hear the M9s. You can spin your own playlist and bring your own records to play as well.