The new Magico M6, M Pro replacement

XV-1

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
1,745
129
63
Sydney
#41
Nope. I prefer the look of the MPro so I won't be tempted.
Plus 3. Your speakers look a lot better.....and a lot cheaper.

That said, the M series look light years better than the ugly S series - imo
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2010
6,135
127
63
La Jolla, Calif USA
#42
Beryllium is a bad thing?
Not a bad thing...but also not IMHO the best available solution for a multi $$ SOTA speaker. Couple of reasons I think this...1) Tendency to ring as volume increases. 2) Limited extension compared to a great ribbon 3) Propensity to beam.

I think the new YG silk dome hybrid is far more advanced of a driver. So, if I'm paying $172K for a speaker, i want a more able high frequency driver like the YG, plain and simple. YMMV.
 
Jan 31, 2014
404
7
18
Italy
#43
Not a bad thing...but also not IMHO the best available solution for a multi $$ SOTA speaker. Couple of reasons I think this...1) Tendency to ring as volume increases. 2) Limited extension compared to a great ribbon 3) Propensity to beam.

I think the new YG silk dome hybrid is far more advanced of a driver. So, if I'm paying $172K for a speaker, i want a more able high frequency driver like the YG, plain and simple. YMMV.
Ribbons tweeters, do not necessarily extend more then Be tweeters, nor have better power handling, and have lots of other issues, definitely not a SOTA solution. YG new silk dome tweeter is just that, a silk dome tweeter, I am not sure what an aluminum frame behind the dome does but add weight, which is not a good thing, BTW. The tweeter on my S5 Mk2 is the best tweeter I have heard by far, superb extension and certainly does not ring and can handle all the power I can throw at it.
 
Last edited:

Audiocrack

Active Member
Aug 10, 2012
1,917
8
38
#44
Ribbons tweeters, do not necessarily extend more then Be tweeters, nor have better power handling, and have lots of other issues, definitely not a SOTA solution. YG new silk dome tweeter is just that, a silk dome tweeter, I am not sure what an aluminum frame behind the dome does but add weight, which is not a good thing, BTW. The tweeter on my S5 Mk2 is the best tweeter I have heard by far, superb extension and certainly does not ring and can handle all the power I can throw at it.
How do you guys rate real diamond tweeters to beryllium to silk dome tweeters? I am quite familiar with the former as well as ribbon tweeters and like them both.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
4,336
258
83
Greater Boston
#45
Not a bad thing...but also not IMHO the best available solution for a multi $$ SOTA speaker. Couple of reasons I think this...1) Tendency to ring as volume increases. 2) Limited extension compared to a great ribbon 3) Propensity to beam.

I think the new YG silk dome hybrid is far more advanced of a driver. So, if I'm paying $172K for a speaker, i want a more able high frequency driver like the YG, plain and simple. YMMV.
Apparently you haven't heard the M Pro. The treble is as clean, extended and at the same time, unobtrusive, as it gets. No ringing, no beaming. At high volumes, too. The diamond coating probably helps as well.

Also the beryllium tweeter in my own 'budget' speakers (no diamond coating there, obviously ;)) is remarkably well behaved (the more I upgrade the system around the speakers, the more I notice that, with the latest being new interconnect/amp stands).

Technology advances, and so do implementations of technology that at first were seen as problematic. Digital, anyone?
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2011
5,400
329
83
North Shore of Boston
#46
Apparently you haven't heard the M Pro. The treble is as clean, extended and at the same time, unobtrusive, as it gets. No ringing, no beaming. At high volumes, too. The diamond coating probably helps as well.

Also the beryllium tweeter in my own 'budget' speakers (no diamond coating there, obviously ;)) is remarkably well behaved (the more I upgrade the system around the speakers, the more I notice that, with the latest being new interconnect/amp stands).

Technology advances, and so do implementations of technology that at first were seen as problematic. Digital, anyone?
Very well stated, Al.
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2010
6,135
127
63
La Jolla, Calif USA
#47
Apparently you haven't heard the M Pro. The treble is as clean, extended and at the same time, unobtrusive, as it gets. No ringing, no beaming. At high volumes, too. The diamond coating probably helps as well.

Also the beryllium tweeter in my own 'budget' speakers (no diamond coating there, obviously ;)) is remarkably well behaved (the more I upgrade the system around the speakers, the more I notice that, with the latest being new interconnect/amp stands).

Technology advances, and so do implementations of technology that at first were seen as problematic. Digital, anyone?
Al, I have not heard the MPro, but I have heard the Q7mk 2 and others in the range. In those examples, I felt that the treble was extended, but also prone to glare and a certain hardness ( I did not hear ringing) that would bother me over time. YMMV.
Unfortunately, to my ears, digital still has a certain "signature" that I can always recognize. That signature leaves me a little cold and is frankly not my cup of tea. Compared to good analog or tape, it's to me a distant third...and again YMMV. If I am plonking down $172k for any speaker, I don't want to hear issues at all...none. That may be unrealistic, but then so is that price IMHO!
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
4,336
258
83
Greater Boston
#48
Al, I have not heard the MPro, but I have heard the Q7mk 2 and others in the range. In those examples, I felt that the treble was extended, but also prone to glare and a certain hardness ( I did not hear ringing) that would bother me over time. YMMV.
That must have been system context.

BTW, I cannot emphasize enough: while artificial hardness of sound and glare is bad, a system must be capable of reproducing the natural hardness of certain instruments, e.g. brass as played in all but the most smooth sounding venues. While others may not like any hardness they hear from a system, I simply cannot stand an unnaturally smooth, polished sound. It irritates me. It's hifi-ish.

But then, I trust that you meant an unnatural kind of hardness, Davey.
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2010
6,135
127
63
La Jolla, Calif USA
#49
That must have been system context.

BTW, I cannot emphasize enough: while artificial hardness of sound and glare is bad, a system must be capable of reproducing the natural hardness of certain instruments, e.g. brass as played in all but the most smooth sounding venues. While others may not like any hardness they hear from a system, I simply cannot stand an unnaturally smooth, polished sound. It irritates me.

But then, I trust that you meant an unnatural kind of hardness, Davey.
Al, that is correct.
I also do not think it was upstream gear that elicited the sound I heard, since I heard the same issue on other occasions and with completely different upstream gear feeding the Magico's.
BTW, I totally agree with you in regards to the fact that some instruments sound hard...particularly those that are of the brass orientation. This is not what I am talking about at all, since I feel it is a major failing if the speaker cannot reproduce this sound!
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
4,336
258
83
Greater Boston
#50
Al, that is correct.
I also do not think it was upstream gear that elicited the sound I heard, since I heard the same issue on other occasions and with completely different upstream gear feeding the Magico's.
BTW, I totally agree with you in regards to the fact that some instruments sound hard...particularly those that are of the brass orientation. This is not what I am talking about at all, since I feel it is a major failing if the speaker cannot reproduce this sound!
Glad we agree, Davey!

Also, thanks for the extra info regarding system context. While I have had other experiences, I will not dispute yours. I did notice that those Magico speakers are very revealing of weaknesses upstream.
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2011
5,400
329
83
North Shore of Boston
#51
Does anyone know if the new M6 is at Munich? I had assumed the "05.17" was a reference to a launch at the Munich High End show, but perhaps it was just an announcement about when information about the new speaker was going to be released.
 

asiufy

Member Sponsor
Jul 8, 2011
3,091
205
63
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
#52
I haven't seen it.
 

KeithR

VIP/Donor
May 7, 2010
3,429
323
83
Marina del Rey, CA
#53
Al, that is correct.
I also do not think it was upstream gear that elicited the sound I heard, since I heard the same issue on other occasions and with completely different upstream gear feeding the Magico's.
BTW, I totally agree with you in regards to the fact that some instruments sound hard...particularly those that are of the brass orientation. This is not what I am talking about at all, since I feel it is a major failing if the speaker cannot reproduce this sound!
Dave, the M3 was the first Magico I'd heard in a long time without the treble sharpness.
 

Elberoth

Member Sponsor
Dec 16, 2012
1,918
59
48
Poland
#54
Does anyone know if the new M6 is at Munich? I had assumed the "05.17" was a reference to a launch at the Munich High End show, but perhaps it was just an announcement about when information about the new speaker was going to be released.
No, not even on display.
 

XV-1

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
1,745
129
63
Sydney
#55
Does anyone know if the new M6 is at Munich? I had assumed the "05.17" was a reference to a launch at the Munich High End show, but perhaps it was just an announcement about when information about the new speaker was going to be released.

Very good dual meaning advertising. It got everyone excited. Round 2 will now start when it comes to seeing the M6 in the flesh,
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2011
5,400
329
83
North Shore of Boston
#57
Dave, the M3 was the first Magico I'd heard in a long time without the treble sharpness.
Keith, are you talking about the Q and S series, or do you include the older M5, Mini, V2 and V3? Could you be a bit more specific? I do agree that the tweeter of the M Pro, and I assume M3, is very different sounding that the Q series and first generation of S series.
 

KeithR

VIP/Donor
May 7, 2010
3,429
323
83
Marina del Rey, CA
#58
Keith, are you talking about the Q and S series, or do you include the older M5, Mini, V2 and V3? Could you be a bit more specific? I do agree that the tweeter of the M Pro, and I assume M3, is very different sounding that the Q series and first generation of S series.
Yes, I am talking Q and Sv1 series - although I did hear the S5 on Constellation once which reduced the effect (and Constellation is known to be tame at the extremes). I heard the M3 on Soulution and wasn't bothered by the treble at all. I look forward to hearing the S3v2 at LAAS in two weeks.

But also, Davey comes from SFs on tubes - that's a totally different sound. Its also not just the extension, but the shape of the treble curve.
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
5,434
122
63
Boston, MA
#59
I heard the M3 extensively recently and I thought the tweeter was out-of-this-world good, very powerful, very well integrated with the rest of the speaker, and evident even at a close distance. It probably matched the seamless integration in the M Project
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. A place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss existing and new audio products, music servers, music streamers and computer audio, digital to audio convertors (DACS), turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel to reel, speakers, headphones, tube amplifiers and solid state amplification. Founded in 2010 What's Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing