Your "World's Best Audio System" . . . 2012 Edition

[andromedaaudio]

Yes thats what he probably meant , just a write up errror

i use a nady cm 100 , although i have 1 different mic in reserve

http://www.nady.com/manuals/microphones/cm100.pdf

- 2db at 20hz + 1 at 15khz deviation , but if one knows the deviation , one can take that into account when measuring .

 

[NorthStar]

Yep, Microstrip meant 50 Hz to 5,000 Hz. :b

 

[Roysen]

Even though I think TWBAS was an insult to the readers, a big promotional boost for the participating companies and a way for the reveiwer to get audio components at great prices, the choice of the Magico Q7 loudspeaker was as the only component in the final selection in my opinion worthy as a contenteder for the "Worlds Best Audio System 2012". That is why I am really disappointed in the TWBAS review of the Q7 from the TWBAS reviewer released just now. In the review there is not a single comparison to any other loudspeaker on the planet and still the conclusion is "World Best Loundspeaker". I am pretty sure the Q7 will be a contender for such a claim but the reviwer does disservice to hiself and to Magico by writing such when he in fact does not compare it to anything. His credibility and Magicos creditibility are damaged by such drama without content. That the reviewer lived years with the Rockport Technologies Arrakis also called "The Worlds Best Loudspeaker" by himself without one word to compare the two shows lack of balls to stand by his current and previous claims to what is "The Worlds Best" in fear of stamping on the manufacturers toes. However to the reader (where his obligation really should be) this is not worth anything. He could just as well have given the text to Magico as proposed advertising material. I am looking forward to Robert Harley's write-up on the Q7 in TAS. At least he doesn't insult the readers by claiming that he is selecting components for a worlds best audio system.

 

[Randall Smith]

I am looking forward to Robert Harley's write-up on the Q7 in TAS. At least he doesn't insult the readers by claiming that he is selecting components for a worlds best audio system.

Did RH provide a comparison for the Arrakis in his preview? Did he provide one for the Altair? The X-2? In the Q-7 preview? In fact, he doesn't. He has heard each speaker, so why no comparison? Aren't they all the best too? Perhaps you will accept his excuse since he generally doesn't provide comparisons for expensive speakers? Jeff didn't in this specific review for a reason he explained. He generally provides detailed comparison in every review, but you do not seem familiar enough with his reviews. He provided examples for you in the other thread, but you seem hell bent on insulting him on multiple threads. Mods need to get a handle on this.

 

[KeithR]

Jeff- let me preface this criticism by saying I love your reviews and your honesty. You take people to task for deficiencies and I like your use of measurements and quantitative AND qualitative viewpoints. I wasn't going to write this post, but believe I should.

Reading the TWBAS was just a disappointment. I really don't believe anyone outside of you cares about this exercise anyways. Notice the dearth of comments on this thread post wrap. All I got out of the sound was a super low noise floor. Yippee. Not exactly my main criterion for a home system, but perhaps it's yours. In fact, reading the part on "Sound" would make me run far away from this system. No emotion period was delineated. It was just "wow, this blackground is so black"- that's so hi fi, it's not even funny.

HP did this a decade ago in NYC at the Stereophile show and it didn't sound close to the best system I've ever heard--most people yawned coming out of that room too. But to HP it was magic. So it's not just you - it's the premise. You are just choosing what you deem is the best in the world and getting a bunch of manufacturers to praise each other on how good their gear sounds. Again, yawn.

Seriously- your own reviews are much more interesting to read and helpful to me as a reader. I learn more from them than 99% of the reviews out there. I just think the entire premise of TWBAS is flawed or better yet eliminated in 2013.

Cheers,

KeithR

 

[Jeff Fritz]

Jeff- let me preface this criticism by saying I love your reviews and your honesty. You take people to task for deficiencies and I like your use of measurements and quantitative AND qualitative viewpoints. I wasn't going to write this post, but believe I should.

Reading the TWBAS was just a disappointment. I really don't believe anyone outside of you cares about this exercise anyways. Notice the dearth of comments on this thread post wrap. All I got out of the sound was a super low noise floor. Yippee. Not exactly my main criterion for a home system, but perhaps it's yours. In fact, reading the part on "Sound" would make me run far away from this system. No emotion period was delineated. It was just "wow, this blackground is so black"- that's so hi fi, it's not even funny.

HP did this a decade ago in NYC at the Stereophile show and it didn't sound close to the best system I've ever heard--most people yawned coming out of that room too. But to HP it was magic. So it's not just you - it's the premise. You are just choosing what you deem is the best in the world and getting a bunch of manufacturers to praise each other on how good their gear sounds. Again, yawn.

Seriously- your own reviews are much more interesting to read and helpful to me as a reader. I learn more from them than 99% of the reviews out there. I just think the entire premise of TWBAS is flawed or better yet eliminated in 2013.

Cheers,

KeithR

Fair enough. We have posted more descriptions of the sound, like this:

http://ultraaudio.com/index.php?opt...49:quo-vadis-twbas&catid=25:opinion&Itemid=27

I have not linked-in here all the articles from around the Network. Still, we did get good feedback and the traffic to the articles was very high. So I do think it was worthwhile. Not everyone will agree and I'm cool with that. Thanks for the kind words on my reviews.

 

[microstrip]

Jeff,

I enjoyed a lot your TWBAS odyssey's and articles - even before the Building the Music Vault series I appreciated your words and preferences. I understand that some enthusiasm and even some kind of hyperbolic comments should be accepted, even desired in a good article. But, using the words of other posters, I am deeply disappointed with your article on the Q7, specially with the, IMHO, absurd absolute comments. I am a Magico admirer since the Mini II, but also think that this type of writings does a bad service to the high-end as an whole.

 

[Jeff Fritz]

Jeff,

I enjoyed a lot your TWBAS odyssey's and articles - even before the Building the Music Vault series I appreciated your words and preferences. I understand that some enthusiasm and even some kind of hyperbolic comments should be accepted, even desired in a good article. But, using the words of other posters, I am deeply disappointed with your article on the Q7, specially with the, IMHO, absurd absolute comments. I am a Magico admirer since the Mini II, but also think that this type of writings does a bad service to the high-end as an whole.

What does a disservice to high-end audio is when mediocre or even poor-performing products are raved about and put on an equal plane with the few truly superior products on the market. This atmosphere of "everything is good, there's just different flavors," is not only wrong, but hurts the industry. The fact is that there are products that are just plain better, and when I find them I say so. In the case of the Q7, I think it represents the current high water mark based on everything I've heard and all of my experience with the superspeaker genre. When each product is represented as “perfect for some listener” there is no context any more. I think it is the easy way out, frankly, and a falsehood to boot.

 

[Roysen]

Did RH provide a comparison for the Arrakis in his preview? Did he provide one for the Altair? The X-2? In the Q-7 preview? In fact, he doesn't. He has heard each speaker, so why no comparison? Aren't they all the best too? Perhaps you will accept his excuse since he generally doesn't provide comparisons for expensive speakers? Jeff didn't in this specific review for a reason he explained. He generally provides detailed comparison in every review, but you do not seem familiar enough with his reviews. He provided examples for you in the other thread, but you seem hell bent on insulting him on multiple threads. Mods need to get a handle on this.

I have not attacked him personally in any regard. In fact I have only been writing about what he has written. How can that be insulting or personal attacks? Secondly Robert Harley has not announced any speaker as the worlds best. Therin lies the differance. BTW, has anyone made a case of what is written in a preview? It is only written to draw attention to the coming review anyway so why put any weight on that? Jeff's other reviews really is not of importance in this regard because it is this speaker he has announced as "The Worlds Best". I am sure the Magico Q7 is a fantastic product and might well be among the worlds best, but to claim that it is and then make no comparisons does not make the write-up believable.

 

[NorthStar]

---Michael Fremer, Stereophile writer and reviewer, is also very straightforward in his reviews and overall impressions. And he has seen the 'best' about a thousand times already. :b

* When you are used to a certain reviewer's style of writing; or you accept him just the way he is, or you don't. ...His reviews of course.
Me, I don't have any problem at all with Jeffrey or Michael's writing style. To the contrary, I have full respect on their own views.

What is the Best? ...Whatever you have experienced among your own product's accessibility,
and that you consider the best sounding so far.

Is it the truly Best in the Whole World? Yes! :b

 

[andromedaaudio]

Its not that like that at all in my opinion , if that was truly the case every designer was developing on the same approach but people/designers are different , there are many roads to rome and they are all different, there are a lot off high profile contenders
I personally would never choose digital to start with to be called the best .
I do think i would choose magico over wilson , more resolution

 

[MylesBAstor]

Its not that like that at all in my opinion , if that was truly the case every designer was developing on the same approach but people/designers are different , there are many roads to rome and they are all different, there are a lot off high profile contenders
I personally would never choose digital to start with to be called the best .

Don't forget to duck.

I do think i would choose magico over wilson , more resolution

Even the new Wilsons like the Sashas? I would agree with you on the past designs. OTOH, if we're talking about resolution, the standard are estats in the mids and Maggies in the top end. YMMV

 

[andromedaaudio]

I am under the table ,....

I heard the sashas for 3/4 of an hour last saturday , i didnt listen to them (W/P) quite a while , i would choose V 3 s preferably with tubes in the chain .
i havent heard the Q series , i did hear a (kharma) beryllium tweeter in the kharma DB 7

 

[MylesBAstor]

I am under the table ,....

I heard the sashas for 3/4 of an hour last saturday , i didnt listen to them (W/P) quite a while , i would choose V 3 s preferably with tubes in the chain .
i havent heard the Q series , i did hear a (kharma) beryllium tweeter in the kharma DB 7

Interesting. I get the feeling that Alon prefers ss and power on his speakers. Have to say that did prefer the Boulder to the Viva amps on the Q1s.

I know that DW seems to also prefer ss on his speakers but the best I've heard them is with tubes.

 

[Steve williams]

I know that DW seems to also prefer ss on his speakers but the best I've heard them is with tubes

I agree

 

[amirm]

Is there a reader's digest version of this thread? I read the start and here I am at the end. What was the selection process that led to Q7? Speakers were evaluated and then the best picked for this final take? If so, how and what?

I did take a brief look at the article. Saw that the measurements were at 1/6th octave. This was surprising to me for a measurement that went to low frequencies.

 

[Soundproof]

If a reviewer's "Best in the World" evaluation coincides with a reader's equipment choices, then the reviewer is a genius. If not, then the reviewer is insulting his readers.

Apparently.

 

[FrantzM]

If a reviewers "Best in the World" evaluation coincides with a reader's equipment choices, then the reviewer is a genius. If not, then the reviewer is insulting his readers.

Apparently.

+ 1

 

[Gregadd]

What was the selection process that led to Q7?

Here we go . . . Ultimately, I know that my process for choosing the components that make up TWBAS 2012 is flawed. I would love to take six months, hire two or three setup guys, have shipped to me from around the globe the top five or six flagship speakers, the ten or so flagship power amplifiers, the 15 best source components, and every permutation of extreme cable and isolation system, and hire an expert listening panel to help me sort through it all. But that’s just not reality, and we all know it.
I’ve loved the ultra-high end for many years. Like you, I’ve had systems come and go, I’ve coveted equipment I couldn’t get, and I’ve dreamed of that perfect component for me. TWBAS 2012 is for me pure adrenalin: no limitations on cost, and no logistical concerns beyond being able to fit it into my Music Vault.
Flawed, yes. But beautifully so.
The virtual assembly of TWBAS 2012 is complete. All that’s left is to put it all together for real.
And then listen to it.
. . . Jeff Fritz
jeff@soundstagenetwork.com

I think the word went out and submisssions were made.

 

[amirm]

I think the word went out and submisssions were made.

Was it submission*s* or offers and the attractive one accepted?

I guess I don't understand why this is not like supercar reviews in auto magazine. Folks there provide $300K cars and they are tested side by side. Why would it take 6 months to do the same with a few audio choices -- at least with speakers where the subjective sound difference and coupling to the room significant. I think the comparison could be done in a few days. If one's house is not sufficient then the local shop may have offered space.

So I keep thinking I am missing something as I don't equate this kind of testing with the typical work that Jeff and crew do. I am left thinking that they went with whatever high end product they could get an exclusive peak on rather than any other criteria. Am I mistaken?