It's a shame that the previous Magico thread was derailed by off-topic posts and needed to be closed, as I think Magico is an interesting company, and one that has an outstanding reputation and yet many interested people have yet to hear any of their products.

I was lucky enough to accidentally "run into" a Magico dealer today, as I was actually looking for a Revel dealer to hear the Ultima Studio2s. I guess something was lost in translation when I called them earlier as they didn't carry Revels, but did Magico and Von Schweikert.

After reading so much about the M5, this was the Magico speaker I wanted to hear, but the dealer said they are not coming in until at least March. What they did have was the Mini 2, V3 and M6.

As I was with my pregnant wife and she was already tired after auditioning with me the Wilson Audio MAXX 3s vs. the MBL 101Es at another dealer for about two hours, I knew I could only choose 1 speaker to listen to without getting into serious trouble. So I choose the V3 as it's gotten excellent reviews and a lot of buzz here, and I figured maybe I could come back in a couple of months to listen to the M5 vs. the M6. The Mini 2s were not set up anyway.

The V3s were being driven by BAlabo electronics. I had some CDs with me from my previous session, one with was "Dark Side of the Moon", which we put in. What I heard was quite surprising.

I'm not sure if it's because the speakers were set up only about 10-12 feet away from the listening position, but these speakers will painfully disappointing. The soundstage had no dimension to it, as if it was in 2D rather than 3D. There was hardly any imaging to speak of, and it was as if I heard the vocals separately from the left and right speakers, but not as one coming from the phantom center. The separation of the different instrumentation and vocals was weak too. There was also a distinct lack of bass. In fact, it seemed to lack dynamic range, with the sound focused mostly in the upper-midrange and treble frequencies.

Overall, I was very disappointed with this speaker. And I wasn't judging it from its $25,000 price point. Even at $10,000 or less, I don't think I would be interested in this speaker.

Perhaps if I got a chance to listen to some other source material, my impression would change. But after listening to two such different speakers as the MAXX 3 and 101E using the same CD and performing at such a high level and bringing it to life (with very different types of sound), the V3 fell absolutely flat. Even my wife complained I had "wasted her time" and that we should have just gone home, and she usually loves listening to speakers with me. Made me regret not choosing the M6 to demo instead. :(

Anyway, I wanted to hear from other people who have heard and perhaps own the V3 to comment. How is this speaker good for you? I listen to a lot of different speakers and I understand a lot of everything is about taste, but this speaker's performance was beyond a taste issue for me. It was really a noticeable lack of performance, and I'm having trouble understanding how it got such stellar reviews in Stereophile and other publications, and what the fuss is about on this forum.

No offense intended for anyone that likes the V3, these are just my impressions and even though I have somewhat high expectations, I don't think my expectations were what caused my disappointment. Would love to hear other opinions of this speaker.

I've heard the V3 plenty lately, my best bud owns a pair and I'm often at his place.

Paired with a well worn set of Levinson reference kit, the V3 is brilliant. Significantly better than the pair of Revel Salons (not 2s) which he replaced. Nothing at all like what you describe. Something's awfully wrong with the setup you listened to.

(I'm sure our "friendly" ex-NHT-now-Revel dealer is going to come and derail this thread. But hes never heard the V3, so, be forewarned ;) )

I've heard the V3 plenty lately, my best bud owns a pair and I'm often at his place.

Paired with a well worn set of Levinson reference kit, the V3 is brilliant. Significantly better than the pair of Revel Salons (not 2s) which he replaced. Nothing at all like what you describe. Something's awfully wrong with the setup you listened to.

(I'm sure our "friendly" ex-NHT-now-Revel dealer is going to come and derail this thread. But hes never heard the V3, so, be forewarned ;) )

Hey, I'm in Hong Kong too! I heard them at The Sound Chamber on Duddell Street. Have you heard them there or seen their set-up?

Briefly heard the M6 a couple of weeks ago and had a similiar experience to yours. I think with these ultra high end auditions that the surrounding equipment can make a significant difference. I was testing out a very well regarded and recently reviewed DAC I was interested in and it may have made the difference - very dull and flat sounding. When we briefly accidentally swapped another digital source (on the Rockport) things suddenly got quite interesting - dimensional full bodied, air, dynamic, tonally colorful etc. I was actually yawning and checking my emails on my PDA with this DAC and M6. I guess that unless you're very familiar with supporting equipment I wouldn't make any final determinations on this one experience, as a very good speaker will be a chameleon and can easily not come alive if all the supporting elements are not there and if setup is not correct (polarity was inverted in the DAC)

It almost sounds as if they were wired out-of-phase.

Lee

It's a shame that the previous Magico thread was derailed by off-topic posts and needed to be closed, as I think Magico is an interesting company, and one that has an outstanding reputation and yet many interested people have yet to hear any of their products.

I was lucky enough to accidentally "run into" a Magico dealer today, as I was actually looking for a Revel dealer to hear the Ultima Studio2s. I guess something was lost in translation when I called them earlier as they didn't carry Revels, but did Magico and Von Schweikert.

After reading so much about the M5, this was the Magico speaker I wanted to hear, but the dealer said they are not coming in until at least March. What they did have was the Mini 2, V3 and M6.

As I was with my pregnant wife and she was already tired after auditioning with me the Wilson Audio MAXX 3s vs. the MBL 101Es at another dealer for about two hours, I knew I could only choose 1 speaker to listen to without getting into serious trouble. So I choose the V3 as it's gotten excellent reviews and a lot of buzz here, and I figured maybe I could come back in a couple of months to listen to the M5 vs. the M6. The Mini 2s were not set up anyway.

The V3s were being driven by BAlabo electronics. I had some CDs with me from my previous session, one with was "Dark Side of the Moon", which we put in. What I heard was quite surprising.

I'm not sure if it's because the speakers were set up only about 10-12 feet away from the listening position, but these speakers will painfully disappointing. The soundstage had no dimension to it, as if it was in 2D rather than 3D. There was hardly any imaging to speak of, and it was as if I heard the vocals separately from the left and right speakers, but not as one coming from the phantom center. The separation of the different instrumentation and vocals was weak too. There was also a distinct lack of bass. In fact, it seemed to lack dynamic range, with the sound focused mostly in the upper-midrange and treble frequencies.

Overall, I was very disappointed with this speaker. And I wasn't judging it from its $25,000 price point. Even at $10,000 or less, I don't think I would be interested in this speaker.

Perhaps if I got a chance to listen to some other source material, my impression would change. But after listening to two such different speakers as the MAXX 3 and 101E using the same CD and performing at such a high level and bringing it to life (with very different types of sound), the V3 fell absolutely flat. Even my wife complained I had "wasted her time" and that we should have just gone home, and she usually loves listening to speakers with me. Made me regret not choosing the M6 to demo instead. :(

Anyway, I wanted to hear from other people who have heard and perhaps own the V3 to comment. How is this speaker good for you? I listen to a lot of different speakers and I understand a lot of everything is about taste, but this speaker's performance was beyond a taste issue for me. It was really a noticeable lack of performance, and I'm having trouble understanding how it got such stellar reviews in Stereophile and other publications, and what the fuss is about on this forum.

No offense intended for anyone that likes the V3, these are just my impressions and even though I have somewhat high expectations, I don't think my expectations were what caused my disappointment. Would love to hear other opinions of this speaker.

I share the OP and owl1's impressions (in my case it was the V3s). Hey Owen, what did you think of the Rockports?

Briefly heard the M6 a couple of weeks ago and had a similiar experience to yours. I think with these ultra high end auditions that the surrounding equipment can make a significant difference. I was testing out a very well regarded and recently reviewed DAC I was interested in and it may have made the difference - very dull and flat sounding. When we briefly accidentally swapped another digital source (on the Rockport) things suddenly got quite interesting - dimensional full bodied, air, dynamic, tonally colorful etc. I was actually yawning and checking my emails on my PDA with this DAC and M6. I guess that unless you're very familiar with supporting equipment I wouldn't make any final determinations on this one experience, as a very good speaker will be a chameleon and can easily not come alive if all the supporting elements are not there and if setup is not correct (polarity was inverted in the DAC)

Yep. It doesn't take much to make even the best loudspeakers in the world sound totally average. Also, don't forget about room acoustics. My best friend owns a pair of V3's and hearing their sound quality transform as the room treatments increased (absorption panels for front wall, side walls, corners and ceiling - diffusion in rear) and as the drivers slowly broke in really opened my eyes as to what a difference a well-treated room can make. They went from being only "very good" to "O....M....G!" Simply put, unless you are auditioning fully broken-in speakers in a well-treated listening room (highly unlikely), you cannot possibly know what they are fully capable of, which is one of the most frustrating things about this hobby.

It almost sounds as if they were wired out-of-phase.

This wouldn't surprise me one bit. If there is one thing I've learned about this hobby and just in life in general, it's to never take for granted that the "experts" truly know what they are doing and/or taking about. :o

Simply put, unless you are auditioning fully broken-in speakers in a well-treated listening room (highly unlikely), you cannot possibly know what they are fully capable of, which is one of the most frustrating things about this hobby.
That is of course true for every speaker.

I share the OP and owl1's impressions (in my case it was the V3s). Hey Owen, what did you think of the Rockports?

Only had a brief listen to the smaller Ankaa's which have similiar driver config to the smaller Wilsons. Very transparent, detailed and textural - quite promising in the brief time I had to listen. I especially like speakers that disappear and they did so, leaving that very focused 3D imaging with density that gives goosebumps. I'd like to hear them again (with a different DAC). They did not move as much air as I'd hoped, like perhaps the larger Rockports can.

It almost sounds as if they were wired out-of-phase.

Lee

This is what I thought in my audition also, and I told them it was out so they checked and said no, it was fine. I then asked them to check polarity which they state was actually out on the DAC but although it improved it never sounded quite right to me after they inverted it. Could have been a first impression or perhaps something else in the design or manufacture... They did show some promise but perhaps with a different front end ...

I own a pair of V3 for almost 2 years now. What you are describing does not make much sense. I mean, it is still possible for you to prefer the Maxx or the MBL or the Rockport (God only knows why;)), but you are describing the sound of a broken set up. Regardless of what speakers were playing.

Yes, i recently heard Magico from CES 09. i have to admit that their song setup must have some problem because the speaker isn't live at all. and the gears was soulution systems. I use it compare to Avalon and Adam or Burmester. But Your experience might be different. but magico speaker need a real room treatment in help to make it shine.

ismewor

It almost sounds as if they were wired out-of-phase.

Lee

That is possible, though I can usually tell this within the first few seconds of the beginning of a song, as another AVSer knows :) I have heard many big speakers that exhibit this phenomenon, so I wouldn't count it out. The old B&W Matrix 800s did that. I called it the "dumbbell image" because you could hear a halo of sound around each speaker with a thin 'bar' of sound connecting them. So it happens.

I would keep in mind, though, that imaging is about 50% speaker and 50% environment, so I'd never totally judge imaging/soundstaging by auditioning them elsewhere unless another, similar speaker is clearly better in the same environment. Maybe nothing images in that room. We had an instance where I'd left a powered PJ screen down for several months and for several months I couldn't figure out why my speakers all sounded out of phase when they were clearly hooked up properly. Then one day, I looked at the screen, it looked at me, and I pressed the button on the remote, it went up and imaging went back to normal. Doh! Aside from that, some speakers soundstage only at a certain distance from the speaker and 'snap in' at a particular distance which may vary from person to person, so I like to move forward and back until it locks in. But, of course, my favorite DSP speakers don't suffer from that kind of finicky behavior except in completely undamped rooms where the reflection gets overpowering ;)

(I'm sure our "friendly" ex-NHT-now-Revel dealer is going to come and derail this thread. But hes never heard the V3, so, be forewarned ;) )

Keep in mind that I have no serious idea whether I would like or not like a Magico speaker, except that they are expensive and great sound is not necessarily that expensive. All I stated in the other thread is that I was very skeptical of the idea that the V5 was a 'breakthrough' based on its design (I generally don't like woven drivers, ring radiators and big flat baffles) and other reports. I also stated that I would be surprised if it didn't sound very good if price is no object to you and if it had the type of sound you like. I never commented on its actual sound or even predicted it, one way or another.

The room acoustics could definitely have been a factor. Basically the demo room had two glass walls, one behind the speakers and one to the right. I'm sure the set up was done for aesthetic reasons, so the whole shop looks bigger and transparent with you being able to see all three listening rooms from anywhere in the shop, but sacrificing room acoustics as a result.

The Wilson and MBL dealer had it done right. Three well-treated listening rooms with thick, soundproofed doors and walls. It made the attack and slam of the MAXX 3s unbelievable. I couldn't help but visualize the drum set on this jazz disc almost exploding with the kick of the bass drum and the intricate work between the snare and the high-hat.

I might have to go back to the Magico dealer for another listen. The M6s were set up in the same room. If they sound just as bad, it might be the room. But if they sound great, well then?

I am quite interested by Magico speakers. The Mini was as good as they say when properly setup .. I had the opportunity to audition it and Yes! It is THAT good... I have not heard any other Magico speakers but it they resenble the Mini they are serious speakers...
A product may not sometimes be able to live up to the hype that it elicits it... One can begin to expect too much from the product and ultimately feel disappointed... It must be said however that the original poster mentioned having Auditioned other speakers of considerable reputations ... Maybe he simply doesn't like these...

The room acoustics could definitely have been a factor. Basically the demo room had two glass walls, one behind the speakers and one to the right. I'm sure the set up was done for aesthetic reasons, so the whole shop looks bigger and transparent with you being able to see all three listening rooms from anywhere in the shop, but sacrificing room acoustics as a result.

Asymmetry, especially glass on one side of a room, can be brutal on imaging. That would be an odd choice for a 'high-end' salon selling 5-figure speakers.

Asymmetry, especially glass on one side of a room, can be brutal on imaging. That would be an odd choice for a 'high-end' salon selling 5-figure speakers.

Yeah, that store had a lot of glass. Here are some photos from their website.

http://www.thesoundchamber.com.hk/en/showroom/images/showroom_1.jpg

Here's a photo of the V3s in their showroom, but when I was there they were moved to another room, and the Von Schweikerts were in this room instead. But you can see the large glass wall on the right, which is similar to the other listening rooms.

http://www.thesoundchamber.com.hk/en/showroom/images/showroom_5.jpg

Here's a photo of the M6s at the same store. The V3s were actually in the same room, but on the other side.

http://www.thesoundchamber.com.hk/en/showroom/images/showroom_2.jpg

I'm wondering if part of the problem is because they had to split the room for the V3s and M6s, where basically the seats are in the center of the room, and the speakers are closer to the walls facing each other.

The speaker distance from the listening position seemed very close to me. Perhaps the V3s weren't toed-in properly. Flat soundstage, zero imaging, lack of dynamics and bass were the results.

When you go back to listen again, treat yourself and listen to the VSA 5 anniv. You might be surprized.

When you go back to listen again, treat yourself and listen to the VSA 5 anniv. You might be surprized.

I only saw the Valor VR-9 SE there. Definitely want to hear it. How does it compare to the VSA VR-5 Anniversary?

Kong Hei Fat Choi! :)

Not the V3 setup, but I was there about a year ago, with a friend who was auditioning the Mini II. I can't quite recall the combination of electronics they were using, but the whole sounded really weak, far below what the Mini II was capable of. When I commented on it, they made all sorts of excuses. So too was their FM Acoustics setup (electronics and speakers) with 47Labs front end, sounded like a mass market system that NAD or Denon could easily deliver IMHO.

Nice people, but they have no clue what they're doing in terms of really show casing the sonic ability of the systems they represent. Now I'm not at all surprised by what you heard :D

Hey, I'm in Hong Kong too! I heard them at The Sound Chamber on Duddell Street. Have you heard them there or seen their set-up?

Here's a photo of the M6s at the same store. The V3s were actually in the same room, but on the other side.

http://www.thesoundchamber.com.hk/en/showroom/images/showroom_2.jpg

I'm wondering if part of the problem is because they had to split the room for the V3s and M6s, where basically the seats are in the center of the room, and the speakers are closer to the walls facing each other.

The speaker distance from the listening position seemed very close to me. Perhaps the V3s weren't toed-in properly. Flat soundstage, zero imaging, lack of dynamics and bass were the results.

Those M6s look awesome. If anyone hears them please post what you think of them.

One of the things that comes to mind from the pics is that they space the speakers too far apart when they could put them a bit closer together and away from the side walls. That just exaggerates the asymmetry of the rooms.

Potential acoustic shortcomings aside, it is beautiful looking store!

Sean

Kong Hei Fat Choi! :)

Not the V3 setup, but I was there about a year ago, with a friend who was auditioning the Mini II. I can't quite recall the combination of electronics they were using, but the whole sounded really weak, far below what the Mini II was capable of. When I commented on it, they made all sorts of excuses. So too was their FM Acoustics setup (electronics and speakers) with 47Labs front end, sounded like a mass market system that NAD or Denon could easily deliver IMHO.

Nice people, but they have no clue what they're doing in terms of really show casing the sonic ability of the systems they represent. Now I'm not at all surprised by what you heard :D

Kung Hei Fat Choi!

Yes, it's a shame that the systems aren't set up properly there as that's probably a major reason why the V3 performed so poorly when I listened to it. Unfortunately, I believe they are the exclusive distributor of Magico in Hong Kong so I don't think I can hear them anywhere else. Still, I'll go back later to hear the M5 vs. M6, but I'll have to keep in mind the less-than-optimal listening conditions.

It is a beautiful shop and the people are nice enough. Wouldn't be that hard to fix the glass at least, just put up some thick curtains that can be drawn during auditioning. ;)

i wouldn't be buying anything from a relatively new manufacturer in this environment.

What a silly thing to say. Do you think that any of the “relatively old manufacturers ” are immune to what is happening? On the contrary the bigger you are, the harder you may fall. It may be easier for a small, lean outfit to weather the storm.

You know what amazes me, is how a high end/quality dealer can create demo rooms that has one side wall completely glass.
Maybe it is style over substance by the showroom architects, but it does not cost them much to have real rooms, both small-medium and a medium-large so the customer can choose the room environment.

Looks like I am in a more fortunate position with my dealers here in the UK.
Sorry to hear that the room was less than ideal, although maybe it could had been great for a demo of room correction I guess.

Cheers
DT

Looks like I am in a more fortunate position with my dealers here in the UK.

Cheers
DT

DT,

Glad to hear there are some, as in my UK locale, there is no thought given to room acoustics at all.

Sean

Maybe it is style over substance by the showroom architects

Happens in speaker design, too!

This is not a serious way to spend $30K. Wouldn’t the dealer allow you to audition the speakers in-house?

You know what amazes me, is how a high end/quality dealer can create demo rooms that has one side wall completely glass.
Maybe it is style over substance by the showroom architects, but it does not cost them much to have real rooms, both small-medium and a medium-large so the customer can choose the room environment.

Looks like I am in a more fortunate position with my dealers here in the UK.
Sorry to hear that the room was less than ideal, although maybe it could had been great for a demo of room correction I guess.

Cheers
DT


Hi

I have been very busy lately and been pondering in my (very few) spare moments my next move in Audio... Probably Digital Music Server then New Loudspeakers (maybe)... and thinking about High End Audio in general.. I will post a new thread on the subject

Style over substance, I am, sad to say has been happening for a good while in High End Audio , style is all over substance... The better equipment costing more and more with (almost) no end in sight.. So the High End Audio stores are no longer a place that catters to thos who love the equipment and (maybe?) music, they cater to peoole who can spend a good amount. good sound takes a back seat to exclusivity... Room Acoustic usually are very difficult to fit within the realm of sheer style for most people anyway so style is what counts as exmplified by this store which in all likelihood can only sound bad.. The problem is the relationship between the expense and the performance derived from it... and lately the ratio has not been very high.. You spend a lot in Audio and do not get much more if much at all...
I sincerely hope the Magico is not that, there are some serious contenders out there, the Evolution Acoustics seem to be making some waves and so does the Vandersteen both half its price... Audition will tell me but it remains a very dear item.. whose performance need to be spectacular to command this tag.

Unfortunately, the new breed of 'audiophile' connects price and exclusivity with performance. Therefore, a $300K speaker, however it sounds, must sound better than a $150K, which in turn sounds better than one at $75K and so on. Even though they probably all use similar quality parts and even though the less expensive speaker may measure substantially better. The most expensive drivers on the most expensive speakers still only cost manufacturers a couple $hundred at most. You can get some tweeters that are extremely good for $10-$25 in bulk. A new trend in sales is to specify the retails cost of the parts, so that you can say things like "each tweeter costs $400" though in bulk, at wholesale, it may be $100-$150. But if the tweeter costs $400 retail, it must be better or no one would buy it, right? And if everyone thinks the same thought, they actually buy it even if it is no better or even worse than a $10 tweeter.

Frantz, you've really been on bender lately about overpriced high-end. It sounds like you're putting both feet on the ground, but maybe not so happy about it at the same time. I just prefer to look at the cup being half full. So what if all that stuff is overpriced with little to no benefit - it means you can get great sound for less and, if you want, more sound in more rooms or just spend money on other things like PJs where you get more benefit for the money.

I was actually looking for a Revel dealer to hear the Ultima Studio2s

:) This makes me happy inside.

I've also wondered about the magico's. Their website makes the speakers look amazing.

What a silly thing to say. Do you think that any of the “relatively old manufacturers ” are immune to what is happening? On the contrary the bigger you are, the harder you may fall. It may be easier for a small, lean outfit to weather the storm.

huh? small, new manufacturers have less access to capital to weather the storm. they also have less pricing power with suppliers. since the demand for any luxury item has fallen off a cliff, i'd prefer to invest in a company i know will be around for a long time and has gone through the ups and downs before.

if you don't believe me---check out BMW sales, Porsche sales, Richemont earnings, etc. this recession is far worse than anything we have experienced before in the last 50 years.

Cheers,

KeithR

So what are you saying? That BMW and Porsche will survive it or not? How about Ford and GM? They are plenty old. Should I buy Bose just because they have been here longer then Magico? If you are worried, you should not buy anything. BUT to buy based on company size or age is ludicrous. Buying a speaker is not an investment. If you like what you hear and you can afford it, by all means, that is the best time to go shopping.

comparing car manufacturers to audio equipment manufacturers is irrelevant. because the capital requirements are higher for car manufacturing. you can start up speaker manufacturing from your garage but you cannot start car manufacturing from your garage. in addition there are smaller number of car manufacturers that exist comparing with numerous audio equipment manufacturers. simply put just different industries.

One could also add tht it is much more difficult to produce a car on a commercial bais than a speaker.. I agree qirh CPU... the thread was about the Magico V3 and I will bow out of my rants about the (unjustified?) price of High End Audio gear.. I may open a thread about this in the future

huh? small, new manufacturers have less access to capital to weather the storm. they also have less pricing power with suppliers. since the demand for any luxury item has fallen off a cliff, i'd prefer to invest in a company i know will be around for a long time and has gone through the ups and downs before.

if you don't believe me---check out BMW sales, Porsche sales, Richemont earnings, etc. this recession is far worse than anything we have experienced before in the last 50 years.

Cheers,

KeithR

Well, I just bought a Mercedes thinking that if company survived for the last 100+ years while their country was on the losing end of two world wars, this recession shouldn't be huge problem for them.
But I agree that the demand for luxury goods has fallen or will fall partly as a result of uncertainty but also partly as a result of tax policy.

Just saw this:

http://www.soundstage.com/traveler/

Not the V3 but a good assessment of what the Magico’s should sound like if set up properly.

Hi

I have been very busy lately and been pondering in my (very few) spare moments my next move in Audio... Probably Digital Music Server then New Loudspeakers (maybe)... and thinking about High End Audio in general.. I will post a new thread on the subject

Style over substance, I am, sad to say has been happening for a good while in High End Audio , style is all over substance... The better equipment costing more and more with (almost) no end in sight.. So the High End Audio stores are no longer a place that catters to thos who love the equipment and (maybe?) music, they cater to peoole who can spend a good amount. good sound takes a back seat to exclusivity... Room Acoustic usually are very difficult to fit within the realm of sheer style for most people anyway so style is what counts as exmplified by this store which in all likelihood can only sound bad.. The problem is the relationship between the expense and the performance derived from it... and lately the ratio has not been very high.. You spend a lot in Audio and do not get much more if much at all...
I sincerely hope the Magico is not that, there are some serious contenders out there, the Evolution Acoustics seem to be making some waves and so does the Vandersteen both half its price... Audition will tell me but it remains a very dear item.. whose performance need to be spectacular to command this tag.

The irony is that my favourite dealer is more than happy to sell the low end as well as £100k systems.
This attitude and enthusiasm combined with two excellent demo rooms designed around a large room and then also a medium room to show the equipment at its best means they are doing excellent business.

A classic example of substance surviving in a hard time compared to those stores using style, one will hope these others will learn and realise this.

I hope your auditioning goes well, and that you are able to find a great dealership.

Cheers
DT

it is odd a hi end retail shop has such bad room treatment. perhaps they want to sell more cables as equalizers to tame the deficiencies?

an expensive pair of speakers gives crappy sound so the cheapos sound so good. hummm very good sales strategy.

is that the shop that sold lots of cracked wilson speakers a while back and lost the dealership in hong kong?

is that the shop that sold lots of cracked wilson speakers a while back and lost the dealership in hong kong?

Yes and No. Yes they're the same ones that lost the WA dealership. But no they didn't "sold lots of cracked wilson speakers", there was other factors involved in why the lost the dealership. The cracked business was smoke screen.

posts deleted

the thread may not be shut down...but we will shut down individual posters if this stuff continues

The aforementioned listening impression certainly seems to support Grellberg's idea that these are a breakthrough speaker at the same time supporting my idea that most upper 5-figure speakers simply aren't that good to support their price. So, given Alon Wolf's statement that they were simply using the best available technologies and others have not, does this mean that the rest of the exotic speaker industry has been utterly slacking? Or will we soon be back in the realm of differing and inconclusive subjective impressions and 'one man's passion is another man's poison'?

What the hell is this guy is saying??

What the hell is this guy is saying??

Quite obviously his only purpose in participating in this thread is to knock on Magico. Hes just trying to find more and more obtuse ways of spouting the same nonsense. :mad:

Quite obviously his only purpose in participating in this thread is to knock on Magico. Hes just trying to find more and more obtuse ways of spouting the same nonsense. :mad:

I get it. What a bore...

FWIW, I was simply acknowledging the positive comments made about the Magico which substantiated Grellberg's comments from a week or two ago. Some might actually call that a bit of a backpeddle.

You know what amazes me, is how a high end/quality dealer can create demo rooms that has one side wall completely glass.
Maybe it is style over substance by the showroom architects, but it does not cost them much to have real rooms, both small-medium and a medium-large so the customer can choose the room environment.

Looks like I am in a more fortunate position with my dealers here in the UK.
Sorry to hear that the room was less than ideal, although maybe it could had been great for a demo of room correction I guess.

Cheers
DT

Well I wouldn't paint all Hong Kong dealers with the same brush. There are quite a few reputable dealers here that have great listening rooms. The Wilson Audio/MBL dealer here has some of the best treated rooms I've been in, and there are quite a few others with very capable set-ups.

That said, there are also those shops that carry dozens of brands and have 50 pairs of speakers set up in one listening room...:rolleyes:

I've heard the M6's twice... with Boulder and Spectral electronics.

They are pretty incredible. Hands down, the most neutral large speaker that I've heard. With good to excellent recordings, they are like a big window into the actual performance. I played a very nice Chet Baker LP, and the acoustic instruments had the raw tone and drive of live music like nothing I've heard.

Personally, I like the Wilson Maxx and the Alexandria better. They are a bit more extroverted with their dynamics, which at this stage of the game is something that I find fun. I suppose you could call this coloration.

As I get older though, I could see myself gravitate more towards the Magico sound. The M6 is so transparent that I would probably want another stereo to play my less than stellar recordings.

Can't comment on the V3, as I haven't heard it yet.

I would be highly skeptical of anything Jonathan Valin is ga-ga over. The Magicos are undoubtedly fine speakers; whether they are the best speaker ever made is an entirely different matter. Query: what speaker will the best speaker ever made next year and how many orders of magnitude better than the Magicos will it be to his discerning ear? Another veil has been lifted blah, blah, blah.

No offense intended for anyone that likes the V3, these are just my impressions and even though I have somewhat high expectations, I don't think my expectations were what caused my disappointment. Would love to hear other opinions of this speaker.

When I heard the Mini2s I wasn't thrilled, but I didn't feel they were off the wall terrible as your experience seemed to be with the V3s (OK, they were a bit screechy IME). I don't think it is a stretch to believe that both the Mini2s and V3s would measure similar, so I would assume, as others have, that it is a problem with the room setup, malfunctioning electronic equipment and/or broken speakers...

I've heard the M6's twice... with Boulder and Spectral electronics.

They are pretty incredible. Hands down, the most neutral large speaker that I've heard. With good to excellent recordings, they are like a big window into the actual performance.

<snip>

As I get older though, I could see myself gravitate more towards the Magico sound. The M6 is so transparent that I would probably want another stereo to play my less than stellar recordings.


So you think they are the most neutral speaker you ever heard? I find that intresting, that is my kind of "sound". But I could not understand what you said about "less than stellar recordings". If the M6 is so neutral, then those "less stellar" would also sound as good as they can? Or?

I've heard the M6's twice... with Boulder and Spectral electronics.

They are pretty incredible. Hands down, the most neutral large speaker that I've heard. With good to excellent recordings, they are like a big window into the actual performance. I played a very nice Chet Baker LP, and the acoustic instruments had the raw tone and drive of live music like nothing I've heard.
.

I do not have any experience with the Boulder gear. I do have extensive expereince with Spectral and have found them consistently amongst the best electronics I have heard... Not terribly popular in these quarters of AVS but IMHO one of the most neutral gear I have heard.. Their sound and presentation is very similar to my current reference the Burmesters. I recently received an e-mail from a friend who has heard the Magico V2? I will fish the e-mail, his comment were very similar to yours... He actually thinks I might very much like the M5... I still shudder at the price of admission however.. yet the darn thing seems to be exceptional from several reports... Audition will tell...

NIN74, in my experience, if you have a dead-on neutral and ruthlessly revealing system, bad recordings will not be as "fun" to listen to. If the recording is thin, too sibilant, compressed, etc, then you will hear this loudly and clearly with the system that is the "true window."

Alternatively, something more colored may mask out some of the recordings imperfections, and can make bad recordings easier to "get into." The downside, obviously, is that this coloring will also be homogenizing the great recordings with the colored system's "sound." The best recordings will sound best on the more transparent system.

So, in my experience, there's always a balance. I guess that's where taste and objectives comes into play.

goatwuss, my experience is, well a little different. I'm not saying that dead neutral system will make Katie Perry sound superb, but I would say that it will make the album sound as good as it can. Why, if the system reveal all problems, you say? Just because it will not add more problem.
As I see it, it is better with "the albums problem" than "the albums problem + the speakers problem".

Yes, you will hear if the album is thin, compressed, distorted, etc, but I find that better than "the albums distortion" + "the speakers distortion".

So I find that with the most neutral system, one can truly get the best on both good and bad records. I have some "killer" tracks I use to test speakers with, tracks that are not good sounding track but they can be very revealing. Because a already distorted track will sound even worse with more distortion.

I hate it when I find myself in agreement with NIN:mad: Let me hear the album as it is I'd rather avoid the editing aspects of some electronics or speakers...

"ruthlessly revealing" remains a euphemism for a harsh and/or bright system. My Xd system is *incredibly revealing* but doesn't make recordings sound bad or source components sound bad. In fact, it makes everything sound better. Not always the way I *wish* they'd sound, but better and more interesting. A little EQ or PLII, Tri-field, etc can take the bad recordings and make them enjoyable. The Xds also showed off the differences between different preamps very easily. None sounded bad, but you could tell slight differences and some were preferable to others.

"ruthlessly revealing" remains a euphemism for a harsh and/or bright system.


I agree and I'm not saying that Magico is that. Just that many times I see that what some say is neutral is something else than neutral.

I agree and I'm not saying that Magico is that. Just that many times I see that what some say is neutral is something else than neutral.


would you be kind enough to define "neutral" for me


could you elucidate as to how you know your speakers are neutral and others are colored

"Neutral" has taken its share of beating.. another word which has lost its meaning is "transparent"... The pitfalls of trying to convey perceptions with words...

I will simply repeat that from all reports the Magico and the Rockport seem to be the new kids in town... The Altair for example has been described by some friends as one of the most "formidable" speaker around, from their report the speaker is superlative-sounding but the bass seem to be simply out of this world, one friend describes it as being in Gotham-powerful territory no faint praise... The Magico M5 has been said to redefine how a speaker sound... Audition will tell... I will have in a month or two, the opportunity to audition at length to the Altair and after the M6.. I will report to you...

"Neutral" has taken its share of beating.. another word which has lost its meaning is "transparent"... The pitfalls of trying to convey perceptions with words...

I will simply repeat that from all reports the Magico and the Rockport seem to be the new kids in town... The Altair for example has been described by some friends as one of the most "formidable" speaker around, from their report the speaker is superlative-sounding but the bass seem to be simply out of this world, one friend describes it as being in Gotham-powerful territory no faint praise... The Magico M5 has been said to redefine how a speaker sound... Audition will tell... I will have in a month or two, the opportunity to audition at length to the Altair and after the M6.. I will report to you...

Thanks Frantz but I would much appreciate NIN74's responses to my questions inasmuch as he espouses that his speakers and system are so "NEUTRAL"

I merely am asking how he defines neutral and to elucidate as to why "HIS" speakers and system are so neutral.

Hi Guys,

Just to be clear, when I said "ruthlessly revealing," what I meant in the context of the Magicos is that if there is a deficiency in the recording, you will hear it. I agree that this expression can be used to describe a harsh and fatiguing system, but that is not what I meant. The Magico M6 sound is not overally bright and fatiguing whatsoever.

Is this a good thing? For good recordings, absolutely. The more transparency the better. For bad recordings? That where subjectivity comes in. For me, if I have a so-so recording, I would rather have a stereo system that hides the recording's flaws that I can better ignore them, and focus more on the musical message.

In an ideal world, I would have 2 audio rooms. 1 would have something like the Magicos, where I could enjoy the subtle nuances of my best recordings. Another room, I would want something different, probably with some sort of coloration that may make so-so recordings sound more "fun."

Hi Guys,

Just to be clear, when I said "ruthlessly revealing," what I meant in the context of the Magicos is that if there is a deficiency in the recording, you will hear it. I agree that this expression can be used to describe a harsh and fatiguing system, but that is not what I meant. The Magico M6 sound is not overally bright and fatiguing whatsoever.

Is this a good thing? For good recordings, absolutely. The more transparency the better. For bad recordings? That where subjectivity comes in. For me, if I have a so-so recording, I would rather have a stereo system that hides the recording's flaws that I can better ignore them, and focus more on the musical message.

In an ideal world, I would have 2 audio rooms. 1 would have something like the Magicos, where I could enjoy the subtle nuances of my best recordings. Another room, I would want something different, probably with some sort of coloration that may make so-so recordings sound more "fun."

Phew, when you originally said "ruthlessly revealing" I imagined two nads and a-rod.

http://www.audioadvisor.com/images/NAC372-M.jpghttp://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/columnists/jimbaumbach/blog/a-rod.jpghttp://www.audioadvisor.com/images/NAC372-M.jpg

A lot of older recordings have a bass and treble deficiency and a thin lower midrange, so something that is fat, with a warm, forgiving 6" mid and just a touch of extra treble can make these recordings sound remixed (PSB Golds, for instance). I think we can agree that very accurate speaker won't fix that, but there's no such thing as a speaker that's 'too revealing', aka 'transparent'.

would you be kind enough to define "neutral" for me


Well, I would say that you don't feel/hear that anything is added or taken away.


could you elucidate as to how you know your speakers are neutral and others are colored


I don't truly know, I can only compare them to other. For one, we can measure and see so the speaker don't have very bad FR. We can also measure distortion and other stuff.

But when I compare speaker I use many different songs/tracks to see how they reproduce the sound. We can probably agree that distortion is not correct, and I would say most agree that any element that are sticking out (for exampel a treble that gives a little more "air" but are in reality just bad FR) is not correct. Clean sound that sound correct instead of muddy sound. How clear and sharp focus the speaker gives the soundstage. How different the soundstage are reproduced (many speakers give a unreal soundstage and they cannot do really small and focused soundstages). Are some points

I would say that the speakers that gives the cleanest, less distorted, with homogeneous frequency respons (no can-hear-where-the-treble-takes-over), with best focus and the most different soundstage sizes, etc, are probably the most correct one

Thanks Frantz but I would much appreciate NIN74's responses to my questions inasmuch as he espouses that his speakers and system are so "NEUTRAL"

I merely am asking how he defines neutral and to elucidate as to why "HIS" speakers and system are so neutral.


I know most parts in the system are transparent or extremely close to transparent. The speakers are another thing but I have not found any that does it better. But I'm looking, I would be very happy if I find a even better speaker. :)

Is this a good thing? For good recordings, absolutely. The more transparency the better. For bad recordings? That where subjectivity comes in. For me, if I have a so-so recording, I would rather have a stereo system that hides the recording's flaws that I can better ignore them, and focus more on the musical message.


Just a question, how can you hide the problems? And are all problems alike so you can use the same "anti-coloration" to fix them all? :)

Well, I would say that you don't feel/hear that anything is added or taken away.

I don't truly know, I can only compare them to other. For one, we can measure and see so the speaker don't have very bad FR. We can also measure distortion and other stuff.

But when I compare speaker I use many different songs/tracks to see how they reproduce the sound. We can probably agree that distortion is not correct, and I would say most agree that any element that are sticking out (for exampel a treble that gives a little more "air" but are in reality just bad FR) is not correct. Clean sound that sound correct instead of muddy sound. How clear and sharp focus the speaker gives the soundstage. How different the soundstage are reproduced (many speakers give a unreal soundstage and they cannot do really small and focused soundstages). Are some points

I would say that the speakers that gives the cleanest, less distorted, with homogeneous frequency respons (no can-hear-where-the-treble-takes-over), with best focus and the most different soundstage sizes, etc, are probably the most correct one

What speakers do you have in your system?

I know most parts in the system are transparent or extremely close to transparent.


not to be a troll, but "i know" is exactly what all the cable believers say as well. and, just because "you think" your system reproduces music the way it should sound really means nothing. every dealer, and audiophile friend i have, believes their system is neutral and transparent and resembles live music. of the hundreds of systems i have heard over the years, i think none of them sounded anything like live music sounds in my system. now im sure they all think the same about my system, so all these terms such as neutral, transparent, warm, etc. really are only people's opinions.

not to be a troll, but "i know" is exactly what all the cable believers say as well. and, just because "you think" your system reproduces music the way it should sound really means nothing. every dealer, and audiophile friend i have, believes their system is neutral and transparent and resembles live music. of the hundreds of systems i have heard over the years, i think none of them sounded anything like live music sounds in my system. now im sure they all think the same about my system, so all these terms such as neutral, transparent, warm, etc. really are only people's opinions.
Precisely the reason of my two questions to NIN.

not to be a troll, but "i know" is exactly what all the cable believers say as well. and, just because "you think" your system reproduces music the way it should sound really means nothing. every dealer, and audiophile friend i have, believes their system is neutral and transparent and resembles live music. of the hundreds of systems i have heard over the years, i think none of them sounded anything like live music sounds in my system. now im sure they all think the same about my system, so all these terms such as neutral, transparent, warm, etc. really are only people's opinions.

No speaker is truly accurate or transparent and none have made me think they were, but some get closer to others and that is measurable.

No speaker is truly accurate or transparent and none have made me think they were, but some get closer to others and that is measurable.

No speaker ever will be truly accurate or transparent. Those are concepts like infinity; you can approach infinity, but you can never reach it.

I just was playing the part of Captain Obvious :)

Q

That is a truism, perfection is an ideal. The reality is how "unperfect" speakers are compared to the rest of the Audio reproduction chain. ANY amp even the most basic ones found in the cheapest receivers (or clock radio?) are far more linear than the best speakers around... The nice curves we see as FR for speakers are not smooth, they are jagged in a way that would give most people pause... Speaker THD is usually in the single digits and most (all?) of them suffer from serious power compression ... You will have speaker that would measure almost flat from say 20~20KHz at 75 dB but CANNOT measure anywhere near that flat at 85dB.. IOW they will play loud in the midrange but will not keep up in the bass for example... This happens even in the better speaker... Speakers are not only the weakest part of the reproduction chain.. They are so very flawed... ridiculously inefficient..
Advances in the High End Audio lie in the way of Loudspeaker Design... Digital Crossover and driver correction (Not necessarily Room Correction although it is easy to integrate the two) should be embraced not frown upon.. Digital Crossover can do what NO analog crossover is even theoretically capable.. The next step lie in this direction... and they do not need to cost several hundreds of thousands of dollars....

Well FrantzM, I think that you are ready for a Magico...

Frantz, my brother! :)

Speakers are not only the weakest part of the reproduction chain.. They are so very flawed... ridiculously inefficient..
Advances in the High End Audio lie in the way of Loudspeaker Design... Digital Crossover and driver correction (Not necessarily Room Correction although it is easy to integrate the two) should be embraced not frown upon.. Digital Crossover can do what NO analog crossover is even theoretically capable.. The next step lie in this direction... and they do not need to cost several hundreds of thousands of dollars....

Sounds a lot more like he's ready for something like the Legend Tikandi than a Magico to me ;)

John
:D..

I have taught myself not to be married to any particular technology. To me the proof is in the pudding... So far the few DSP-based speakers I have heard were not totally pleasing to me, hasten to say that the Xd you so love is an extremely good speaker not the giant killer you hyperbolicly declared. That does not mean I would not like the Tikandis but it needs to surpass what I have at this point. Same with the Magico.. I must say I am very interested to hear the Magico following comments from some friends some on this board ( Grellberg) and some not...

One cannot say that the Tikandis will be better than the Magico speakers simply because they use digital crossovers... I am saying and believing that tomorrow better speakers SHALL use digital crossovers. Digital is upon us and it has fulfilled its promise of better sound, witness the HRx from Reference Recordings from all reports the best sound they have ever heard...

Q

That is a truism, perfection is an ideal.

What can I say, I guess neither one of us has anything new or interesting to say...

What can I say, I guess neither one of us has anything new or interesting to say...


Yet, you insist in doing so... Practically ruining many interesting threads here.

Yet, you insist in doing so... Practically ruining many interesting threads here.

I can see you have a bright future here, since you are attacking people who have been here for years after just 14 posts... :rolleyes:

Add me to your ignore list if you don't like what I have to say; you've already made mine. ;)

Speakers are not only the weakest part of the reproduction chain..

I disagree. By now most high precision main monitors have almost overcome most of the cons mentioned above and that for good to entry level prices when compared.

The weakest part in the chain remains IMHO most often the room, really, most often, not in amplitude, but in decay/reverb. Especially in concrete build European houses bass reverb can be forever. I have a friend with alot of glass windows and four old B+W reference towers, the old Matrix 800 from the 80ties, each 6 feet high or so. The windows resonate so long, he has decay in full seconds.

Only then comes a poorly designed passive speaker.

Then comes a poorly designed active speaker.

And then comes a poorly designed DSP based speaker.

There are neutral speakers, on and off axis, but whatever you throw in a bad room, will struggle, and most often fail. We all have 95% experiences in bad rooms and probably only 5% in rooms that sustain the above doubted linear experience.

I envy those building reference rooms and listening in them even with crap much more than those that have the most bizare and shocking expensive hardware.....

I have taught myself not to be married to any particular technology. To me the proof is in the pudding... So far the few DSP-based speakers I have heard were not totally pleasing to me, hasten to say that the Xd you so love is an extremely good speaker not the giant killer you hyperbolicly declared.

Well, as you know, that has not been my experience in direct A/B comparison. Of course, I haven't put them up against 6 figure speakers, just a lot in the $15K-$25K range and those were total blowouts. They still measure better in many, if not most ways than 5 and 6 figure speakers, so there's obviously something there. Keep in mind that you probably did not hear the upgraded version of Xd that specifically addressed a few small shortcomings. So, objectively, measurably, they're mighty embarrassing to high-end products. Subjectively, it's all what you like.

That does not mean I would not like the Tikandis but it needs to surpass what I have at this point.

Well, I don't know. Ribbons are so unique that nothing 'surpasses' them, you just get an entirely different sound. Personally, I don't like ribbons except for maybe some tweeters. Too inaccurate, too high in distortion, too quirky. But I can tell you that the Tikandi addresses pretty much every arguable weakspot in Xd - better amps, digital inputs, much lower processor noise, more powerful integrated woofers, potentially nicer tweeter.

Same with the Magico.. I must say I am very interested to hear the Magico following comments from some friends some on this board ( Grellberg) and some not...

Me too. I'd like to hear the SOTA in analog one last time before giving up entirely on it. Well, if it's easy, but I probably won't ever hear them. One of the great things about digital speakers - cheap/easy upgradability. Swap in a new driver, change a filter. Swap out a processor board for more power. Download new processing algorithms. Can't do that with even the best analog speakers. Well, you can, but the upgrades often cost $20K or $30K for $250-$500 worth of parts :confused:

One cannot say that the Tikandis will be better than the Magico speakers simply because they use digital crossovers... I am saying and believing that tomorrow better speakers SHALL use digital crossovers. Digital is upon us and it has fulfilled its promise of better sound, witness the HRx from Reference Recordings from all reports the best sound they have ever heard...

I'd bet money on the Tikandis, at the very least with measurements and in blind testing :) I just wish there were more choices available, though there is the DEQXed Pulserod and Acoustic Zen Maestro as well. It's just that the Tikandi is the most sensible design of the bunch. I would also argue that, no matter how good the Magico is, that it could be better with active DSP crossovers.

I'd bet money on the Tikandis :) I just with there were more available, though there is the DEQXed Pulserod Acoustic Zen Maestro as well. It's just that the Tikandi is the most sensible design of the bunch. I would also argue that, no matter how good the Magico is, that it could be better with active DSP crossovers.

Then why not NHT? Cheaper still…:eek:

I can see you have a bright future here, since you are attacking people who have been here for years after just 14 posts... :rolleyes:

;)


I have only 14 posts cause I tend to write only when I have something meaningful to say.;)

I would also argue that, no matter how good the Magico is, that it could be better with active DSP crossovers.

John, have you heard of anyone performing an active crossover on any of the Revel Ultima2 speakers yet? I'd be curious what kind of results could be attained.

I'm thinking of adding more powerful amps to my setup, but if the active approach is feasible, I wouldn't be opposed to that instead of passive amplification.

Then why not NHT? Cheaper still…:eek:

Good point, the Xds measure notably better than the Magico V3, so you have to ask - do you prefer whatever sound the more expensive speaker makes just because it makes it? But they are discontinued and the Tikandi addresses some of the limitations of the Xd as I mentioned above. I've been listening to the Xd so long that everything else sounds kinda broken, certainly limited. And the more you listen, the better it gets. I've had a lot of people that listened and didn't like it. But kept coming back. After a few more auditions, they realized that they truly were beyond the current analog SOTA. YMMV because YTMV.

John, have you heard of anyone performing an active crossover on any of the Revel Ultima2 speakers yet? I'd be curious what kind of results could be attained.

No, but that would be my dream speaker to DEQX. I spoke with Mark Glazer (Revelman) about DSP speaker design and asked the question - "It's been said that the Salon2 is the best speaker Revel can build with current technology, but could you build a better speaker using DSP crossovers". He didn't even wince, he just said "Oh, of course. The problem is *selling* it". He just felt that the public isn't ready for it yet. Xd kinda proved his point. I did get him interested in DEQX, so hopefully I can get them together. He did say it would be a bit tricky to yank the crossovers on the Ultimas and route the cables, but it's doable.

I'm thinking of adding more powerful amps to my setup, but if the active approach is feasible, I wouldn't be opposed to that instead of passive amplification.

I know that when I A/Bed the Studio2 and the Xd, the Studio2 had a bit more resolution in most areas but also had more of an analytical sound, didn't quite throw the soundstage or have the sweetspot or the depth of bass. The Studio2 did some things better, somethings worse, but when it came to what I wanted to listen to, it was the Xd, hands down, mainly because they played louder with less fatigue than the Studio2s. I sold off my Studio2s partly for that reason and had intended to replace it with the Tikandis, but the economy just doesn't make it worth it right now. But the Studio2 and Salon2 have even better configurations for DEQX than Xd or the Tikandi (and the Studio2 was the only speaker I put up against Xd that didn't get completely embarrassed - B&Ws, Genesis, Thiels, JMlabs, etc all just sounded bad by comparison). Only problem is the 4-way design, but you could run it as a 3-way and use the 6.5" as an additional bass unit. The Aussie is WAY down on the dollar, so it is very advantages to buy DEQX products right now. The only trick really is the measurement process, but you've got a nice big, well done room to do it in so it shouldn't be an issue.

Good point, the Xds measure notably better than the Magico V3, so you have to ask - do you prefer whatever sound the more expensive speaker makes just because it makes it? But they are discontinued and the Tikandi addresses some of the limitations of the Xd as I mentioned above. I've been listening to the Xd so long that everything else sounds kinda broken, certainly limited. And the more you listen, the better it gets. I've had a lot of people that listened and didn't like it. But kept coming back. After a few more auditions, they realized that they truly were beyond the current analog SOTA. YMMV because YTMV.


Measure better then the V3? Are you serious? There are more to loudspeakers then just flat FR you know? Are you looking at SP or SS measurements of this contraption? Have you notice the amount of ringing these have due to the sharp XO slopes? How about the cumulative spectral-decay? Or the lack of decay I should say? There is almost as much output from the enclosures then the drivers in that kit. All and all, the NHT are some of the worst sounding speakers I have ever heard. One that definitely gives DSP a bad rap.

John

Please do not transform this into a Xd better than anyone thread...

not to be a troll, but "i know" is exactly what all the cable believers say as well. and, just because "you think" your system reproduces music the way it should sound really means nothing. every dealer, and audiophile friend i have, believes their system is neutral and transparent and resembles live music. of the hundreds of systems i have heard over the years, i think none of them sounded anything like live music sounds in my system. now im sure they all think the same about my system, so all these terms such as neutral, transparent, warm, etc. really are only people's opinions.


No, I'm not talking about "listen-and-try" test but before-after test. You compare the insignal to the outsignal and see if it have changed in some way. Done right this is much more accurate than listen-and-try test, because you can isolate the part you are testing. You cannot do that with listen-and-try tests.

I don't see DSP crossovers as a "fix it all". Passive filter can do it as good as active to, depends on the guy that makes them.

I don't see DSP crossovers as a "fix it all". Passive filter can do it as good as active to, depends on the guy that makes them.

Not a 'fix it all', but an obvious augmentation, just like 4-wheel drive, traction control, anti-lock brakes and stability control, on a high powered sports car. You're adding lossy components in the signal path with passive crossovers. They do absorb signal and turn it into heat, they do modulate up and down with driver impedance and signal, they do throw away amplifier energy.

If I were crazy enough and rich enough to spend $90K on a speaker, the first thing I'd have them do is remove the crossovers and implement a digital active front end. The amount of time and energy required to make a passive speaker do what a well done digital active speaker can do effortlessly makes for a good 'look how much work we put into the speaker' story, but you're still talking about a few $hundred in drivers and crossovers, maybe $1000, in the speaker. No excuse for not putting in some serious science.

And, of course, this is *before* you get into impulse response correction, steeper crossovers and other capabilities.

Nah, I have no intention of taking the bait. Everyone has their own opinion, even people with 14 posts.

Sorry, but seniority does not automatically enlighten.Your DSP song is old news. Yes, in theory, a marvelous thing, but in reality, implementation of DSP driven systems leave a lot to be desire. All, BTW, is explainable and measurable. You can start by the less than optimal, of-the-shelf, cheap D/A converted that the DEQX and similar devises use. OK for PA and/or mid-fi systems but nothing I would use in my system. You can then go and measure the bit count when these systems are trying to correct time domain and FR issues in real time. You will be quite disappointed when you learn that you are actually listening to a 12 bit recording when it is all said and done (Although, they are getting better in that regards). On top of it, you are completely ignoring the most important part of the loudspeaker equation, physics. You can have the electrical part all nice and dandy but it is not worth much if it is playing out of a card box enclosure. Or if the drivers are not pistonic in their audible range etc. Of course, it looks to me that you are not into sound quality at all so it very well not matters much. However, by the end of the day, whatever it is you think you like is not ready yet for prime time and will mean absolutely nothing if all other design elements are not addressed properly.

Passive filter can do it as good as active

Here I have my real doubts. Big coils and capacitors in the passive x-over, leading to a nice feed-back loop between driver feed-back and x-over once the later warms up...and no real FR adaptions, like you find in pro gear...another nice feature to have small boxes in actives design by using bass eq.

Sorry, but seniority does not automatically enlighten.Your DSP song is old news. Yes, in theory, a marvelous thing, but in reality, implementation of DSP driven systems leave a lot to be desire. All, BTW, is explainable and measurable. You can start by the less than optimal, of-the-shelf, cheap D/A converted that the DEQX and similar devises use.

DEQX uses 24/96 ADCs and DACs.

OK for PA and/or mid-fi systems but nothing I would use in my system.

"it looks to me that you are not into sound quality at all"

You can then go and measure the bit count when these systems are trying to correct time domain and FR issues in real time. You will be quite disappointed when you learn that you are actually listening to a 12 bit recording when it is all said and done (Although, they are getting better in that regards).

Apparently, they already have since DEQX processes at 24-bit depth, so that's far higher than required to preserve the original 16 bits and then some.

On top of it, you are completely ignoring the most important part of the loudspeaker equation, physics. You can have the electrical part all nice and dandy but it is not worth much if it is playing out of a card box enclosure. Or if the drivers are not pistonic in their audible range etc.

Not at all. Most of the good DEQX implementations take advantage of pistonic drivers like never before by more completely using their precision while cutting off their achilles heel. The Tikandi and Xd use the SEAS W15 Excel magnesium midrange. BTW, the Xd enclosure (poured composite) is extremely rigid, like a Wilson, but they didn't tighten the stand to the speaker when measuring it, so there was a low frequency vibration from the stand.

The part of physics that gets is ignored is what passive crossovers do to the signal, regardless of how much money you throw at them and how comb filtering from having multiple drivers playing the same or shared information colors the sound. Once you are freed from this, you can't go back. It reminds me of front projectors. Some people go on and on about how great their expensive LCD or Plasma is, but have never experienced a front projector and think of them from 10 years ago, not ever understanding how far the ball has moved.

Besides, there's absolutely nothing amazing about building a $100K loudspeaker and managing to have it sound good. Anybody can do that. Well, anybody but McIntosh, apparently, but take any of these guys and try to get them to build a $1000 speaker that sounds good and I'll bet they can't. That takes a whole lot more talent. So while I very definitely am into sound quality, I am not going to reward amateur speaker 'designers' (rather than engineers) who go out and find the most expensive way of building a speaker possible, then congratulate themselves as a visionary. Especially when those products measure notably worse than a 4-figure passive Revel or PSB or NHT or whatever.

DEQX uses 24/96 ADCs and DACs.

"it looks to me that you are not into sound quality at all"

Apparently, they already have since DEQX processes at 24-bit depth, so that's far higher than required to preserve the original 16 bits and then some.

how would you be playing your 24/176 or 24/192, SACD or Analog via these devices? Are you willing to down sample all these?



The part of physics that gets is ignored is what passive crossovers do to the signal, regardless of how much money you throw at them and how comb filtering from having multiple drivers playing the same or shared information colors the sound. Once you are freed from this, you can't go back. It reminds me of front projectors. Some people go on and on about how great their expensive LCD or Plasma is, but have never experienced a front projector and think of them from 10 years ago, not ever understanding how far the ball has moved.

You are confusing too many issues here. No one is arguing that in theoretical terms, an active setup is superior. However, in practicality, it is very difficult to achieve and DSP unites, are not there yet. The pitfall of these executables are more harmful to the sound than those of a well design passive XO.

Besides, there's absolutely nothing amazing about building a $100K loudspeaker and managing to have it sound good. Anybody can do that. Well, anybody but McIntosh, apparently, but take any of these guys and try to get them to build a $1000 speaker that sounds good and I'll bet they can't. That takes a whole lot more talent. So while I very definitely am into sound quality, I am not going to reward amateur speaker 'designers' (rather than engineers) who go out and find the most expensive way of building a speaker possible, then congratulate themselves as a visionary. Especially when those products measure notably worse than a 4-figure passive Revel or PSB or NHT or whatever.

Quite the opposite. Most of them sucks. Apparently, it is very hard to build a $100K good sounding loudspeakers. BUT don’t throw the baby with the bucket. There are exceptions. That has nothing to do with your DSP argument. Some companies have chosen to use solid engineering to develop their products and some did not. Price has nothing to do with these decisions. I do agree with you that unfortunately, the high-end industry does not discriminate much between the two approaches.

how would you be playing your 24/176 or 24/192, SACD or Analog via these devices? Are you willing to down sample all these?

I am because I don't find much useful music on SACD/DVD-A. Besides, I think the new DEQX boxes handle high bit PCM over coax. I got out of vinyl 25 years ago.

You are confusing too many issues here. No one is arguing that in theoretical terms, an active setup is superior. However, in practicality, it is very difficult to achieve and DSP unites, are not there yet. The pitfall of these executables are more harmful to the sound than those of a well design passive XO.

Have you tried DEQX? I was a dealer, as well as a dealer for Meridian and for NHT's Xd (we were the biggest by far). So I am very familiar with what digital can and can't do. I say it's 'there' though it hasn't reached its limits. Besides, you can use DSP in a very benign, limited fashion, emulating passive crossovers (but without the loss) or you can get aggressive and start making major corrections and steep crossover filters. But you choose very easily. Passive doesn't give you that choice. DSP is the most flexible approach and, IMO, will always yield the better sound, whether emulating passive crossovers or going well beyond them.

Quite the opposite. Most of them sucks. Apparently, it is very hard to build a $100K good sounding loudspeakers.

No, it really isn't. But a lot of these people aren't engineers and just 'have a wacky idea'. It may be difficult for a pharmaceutical salesman or a graphic designer, but not for a real engineer. Real engineers rarely bother to build anything over about $20K because there's not much point.

BUT don’t throw the baby with the bucket. There are exceptions. That has nothing to do with your DSP argument. Some companies have chosen to use solid engineering to develop their products and some did not. Price has nothing to do with these decisions. I do agree with you that unfortunately, the high-end industry does not discriminate much between the two approaches.

Oh, sure, I imagine the Magicos could be one of those exceptions, but I'd have to hear it to believe it. I've been told about the greatness of many speakers before, only to walk away baffled. But having lived with DSP speakers for the past 5+ years has made me more baffled by conventional speaker design than ever.

Also, ask most speaker engineers if they can build a better speaker with DSP crossovers and they will tell you 'yes, of course'. But it's also a hard sell at the moment.

I am because I don't find much useful music on SACD/DVD-A. Besides, I think the new DEQX boxes handle high bit PCM over coax. I got out of vinyl 25 years ago.

I think that that will sum up our discussion. I am interested in this field because I am interested in high-end music sound not just music. I could have used my son iPod if music was all I wanted. The future of this hobby is in high-res download digital files. You may want to get up to speed on these. None of your thesis are practical for those of us who are interested in true high-fidelity. Now, if you wish to argue about the Magico V3 validity (I believe that that was the subject matter), you should at least go and hear it first.

Interesting perspective. Personally, music is far more important to me than just sound. But that is the difference between a music lover and an audiophile. I listen to music on my system, not the other way around. But to say sound quality doesn't matter to me simply because I don't believe it is the most important thing is preposterous. I have replace almost my entire collection with remasters to get the most out of that music as I can and I use speakers that are technically more advanced than typical expensive 'prestige' speakers in order to get the most of that music as I can. High resolution music files maybe be 1 or 2% better than standard CD, so if all of that is destroyed by a colored speaker with a passive crossover, I submit that CDs on a digital active system will sound better than SACD or DVD-A will on typical high-end speakers, maybe even the best ones available. There is nothing in the design that proves a Magico to be better than something like the DSP driven Tikandi. They both use very high-end drivers, they're both 3-ways, they both can move a lot of air, but the Tikandi has quite a few technical advantages because of the DEQX. But sure, I'd love to hear the Magicos and even more, I'd love to hear them side by side with the Tikandis or Acoustic Zen Maestros or the Pulserod speakers.

The thread has left the Magico V3 and has veered toward a very important aspect of loudspeaker design: The relative merits of Digital and Passive Crossovers. A more thorough discussion of Filters, this will not be but let it be clear that what can be accomplish in digital with respect to crossover and Signal Filtering in general CANNOT be accomplished or even approximated in Analog.
I don't know the particular of the DEQx and it should not be taken as the Poster Child of Active Digital Crossovers, there are others some could be said to be better: The TacT system for one and the no-hold-bared assault of Behold besides I strongly doubt DEQx uses "cheap"DAC and that the result are 12-bit resolution, even the violently and unabashedly cheap Behrinher units use 24/96 DACs. DSP have followed Moore's Law: they are getting better, more powerful, less expensive and quite available witness the price of really good stand-alone Digital To Anlog Converters such as the Benchmark DAC-1 and others.
I really would like to open a thread on this very subject but let it be said that Passive crossovers only approximate the Mathematical function that a Filter/crossover is, The approximation is rather poor and crude. A well implemented Digital crossover can entirely IMPLEMENT the Mathematical function with vanishingly low errors... If needs be it's pretty easy to have a DSP mimic to the utmost precision the crude approximation of a passive (or active) analog filter/crossover. One advantage of the Digital Filter is that driver correction can be implemented in the filter crossover. Let us say the designer has found the best midrange but with a nasty peak at 2.17 Khz a peak of about 10 dB, else, perfect driver, linear everywhere else.. with analog one would have to build a notch filter to tame this particular peak and its interaction with the other part of the filter network may not be ideal... with Digital, it is a very simple correction...

Not to come to John defense but we will soon see great speaker with active Digital Filter... it is a matter of time. Look how Audiophiles, even the more purists are embracing HDD-based Music Servers... and yes! it is easier to design a $100,000 than a great $10,000 speaker... I would not go as far as to say that ANYBODY can do it...I will also advance that several >$100K speaker would have their ass kicked by much less expensive ones.. not in the measurements department, in overall sound quality.. I do not yet care about most speaker measurements and measurements protocols...

Most of the good DEQX implementations take advantage of pistonic drivers like never before by more completely using their precision while cutting off their achilles heel. The Tikandi and Xd use the SEAS W15 Excel magnesium midrange.

Truly pistonic drivers, eh? And the Tikandi uses the same midrange as the Xd? Which had crossover points of 110hz and 2100hz?

NHT Xd Loudspeaker System
THD+N @ 90dB, 50Hz - 10kHz (measured @ 2m)
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/speakers/nht_xd/thd_90db.gif

THD+N @ 95dB, 50Hz - 10kHz (measured @ 2m)
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/speakers/nht_xd/thd_95db.gif

A bit disappoining, distortion-wise. I really don't understand how you can be so rah, rah about a speaker you've never heard, and assume that it will also measure well too, since the Xd doesn't measure all that great relative to your claims. Compared, for instance, to the PSB Synchrony One that costs less (than the original Xd, before it was canned), and which you also sell in your store:

THD+N @ 90dB, 50Hz - 10kHz (measured @ 2m)
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/psb_synchrony_one/thd_90db.gif

THD+N @ 95dB, 50Hz - 10kHz (measured @ 2m)
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/psb_synchrony_one/thd_95db.gif

EDIT: Source: Soundstage

Truly pistonic drivers, eh? And the Tikandi uses the same midrange as the Xd? Which had crossover points of 110hz and 2100hz?

Yes, though the Tikandi uses higher crossover points.

A bit disappoining, distortion-wise. I really don't understand how you can be so rah, rah about a speaker you've never heard, and assume that it will also measure well too, since the Xd doesn't measure all that great relative to your claims.

Perhaps, but it's still very low. They could have gone for lower distortion very easily with a bigger midrange and giving up some dispersion, but they tuned it for the best overall balance and it worked. That was the beauty of Xd - it did *everything* well, not just a few things. It could have done everything a bit better, but most speakers are great at a few things and lousy at all the others. The Tikandi was already measured by an Australian Hi-fi magazine and bumped the Xd from the best measuring speaker to 2nd best.

Compared, for instance, to the PSB Synchrony One that costs less (than the original Xd, before it was canned), and which you also sell in your store

Synchrony is an example of an *excellent* 3-way passive speaker with steep 4th order crossovers. BUT, it still can't do what Xd does. It doesn't image as well, doesn't soundstage as well, isn't as resolving or precise, or go as deep, nor does it play as loud without fatigue factor. This is no slam against the S1. I'd put it up against a lot of $10K-$12K speakers. Every speaker I've put Xd up against gets buried. This is partly because of good acoustic engineering, but without DEQX, it would be a really unremarkable speaker. The Tikandi is pretty much everything I liked about Xd with icing on top. Even if I didn't like the sound as is, I could easily retune it.

I have listened to the V3 in an excellent room with top-notch gear and I thought it was fantastic. Still, I'd have to hear them in the same room alongside my Xd's to tell you which one I prefer.

Every speaker I've put Xd up against gets buried

Perhaps but just not up against any good speakers.

Two years ago when you frequented this forum as Alimental (note only one "l") an ENT MD from Harrisberg Pa and you were brow beating everyone to death about NHD you offered up a challenge to put it against the Wilson X-2's. NHD headquarters are just north of Danville where I live and one of its officers lives in Danville. He was nice enough to bring the Xd setup to my house for that very comparison. We did it with ~10-12 other listeners on a Saturday. Everyone agreed that it was a good midfi speaker at best but didn't stack up anywhere to the X-2. For you to say that every speaker gets buried in a head to head is ludicrous and misleading. Even Jack from NHD admitted the same. The problem is your listening experience with speakers is somewhat limited so please save your hyperbole for elsewhere.

The Tikandi was already measured by an Australian Hi-fi magazine and bumped the Xd from the best measuring speaker to 2nd best.

Can you link to the review, please? And if not, you might suggest to Legend that they secure permission to post it on their website.

Every speaker I've put Xd up against gets buried.
Okay everybody, repeat after me: "Every speaker I've put [insert your favorite speaker here] up against gets buried." Now wasn't that enlightening?

Perhaps but just not up against any good speakers.

Well, at least the speakers I put them up against measure well.

Two years ago when you frequented this forum as Alimental (note only one "l") an ENT MD from Harrisberg Pa and you were brow beating everyone to death about NHD you offered up a challenge to put it against the Wilson X-2's. NHD headquarters are just north of Danville where I live and one of its officers lives in Danville. He was nice enough to bring the Xd setup to my house for that very comparison. We did it with ~10-12 other listeners on a Saturday. Everyone agreed that it was a good midfi speaker at best but didn't stack up anywhere to the X-2. For you to say that every speaker gets buried in a head to head is ludicrous and misleading. Even Jack from NHD admitted the same. The problem is your listening experience with speakers is somewhat limited so please save your hyperbole for elsewhere.

Well, again, your speakers don't measure as well as Xd in many if not most ways and the upgraded filters weren't available when the comparison was done, so I guess we'd have to do a rematch and make it blind. If a speaker doesn't as measure well, how can it sound better? Or do you mean that your speakers are more pleasantly colored? My main challenge was for you to put your money where you mouth was and let Stereophile's measurements show whether the Xd or Wilson MAXX measured better. The most pessimistic person would say the Xds tied. And you didn't put up the money while I was willing.

Keep in mind I *never* said you or anyone else would prefer Xd, only that it measures better in as many or more ways than Wilsons and other high end speakers. Subjective preference is often driven by emotion, money spent, aesthetics, hero worship, preferred flavors, musical tastes etc, etc.

Can you link to the review, please? And if not, you might suggest to Legend that they secure permission to post it on their website.

I'll see if I can find it. I found it once, but haven't been able to find it since.

There lie the pitfalls of hyperbole... This thread was about the the V3.... I will try to remind myself of that but once the term Xd is mentioned... POW!!!
I have heard the Xd ... It is fair to say that IMO it is a very good system, since it comes with its subwoofer and amplification. There is a tendency to condescend a good product with a "for its price" qualification.. No! It is a very good speaker, it is NOT the Giant Killer that John tend to force-feed on people. I would not qualify it as a mid-fi speaker but it is not in the league of Reference speakers. It will give several 10K speakers however a good run for their money and would plaster a few 20K speakers as well.. Yet compared to speakers in the Big leagues it was lacking... Can NHT improve upon the Xd? I think it is doable .. One of the Design limitation to me was the small size of the speaker.. There was a threadbare in its sound especially in the upper bass to lower midrange that cried for an additional driver to fill that region... it does go low, very low but did not present the music with a sense of authority the way the better speakers even some with limited low frequency output (read NO BAss under 80 Hz) like the Magico Mini ( Can someone say SUPERLATIVE Please!? no hype here).. I will not go on reviewing a speaker I heard almost 2 years ago but that was what I remember as most striking from this Audition, that and a tendency for the treble to be overbearing and thin at the same time...
John has so much hyped this speaker that people in this board cringe at the very mention of it... It was good, very good and offered a lot for the money..it remained a work in progress, a speaker that could be ameliorated not the Ultimate speaker at any price.. It is (was) far from that...

To force myself back to the Original thread: I have heard only one Magico speaker: the Mini and it is all that you have read about.. Spooky, excellent and leaves you wanting for more.. It will not play loud and will not present much in the way of bass, else simply great.. whether the V3 is that good remains to be proven

Well, again, your speakers don't measure as well as Xd in many if not most ways and the upgraded filters weren't available when the comparison was done

nor were my present X-2 Series ll so I am up to the challenge if you want to arrange for Jack to bring by his system for a head to head test

To force myself back to the Original thread: I have heard only one Magico speaker: the Mini and it is all that you have read about.. Spooky, excellent and leaves you wanting for more.. It will not play loud and will not present much in the way of bass, else simply great.. whether the V3 is that good remains to be proven

IME, the Mini2 is not anywhere near as good as the hype... It isn't total crap, but it isn't worth anywhere near its price sound quality-wise as far as I am concerned.

It is a pretty looking speaker though; I'll give it that. I guess Alon's industrial design degree paid off in that respect. Hopefully he will get a mechanical or acoustical engineering degree next. :D

nor were my present X-2 Series ll so I am up to the challenge if you want to arrange for Jack to bring by his system for a head to head test

I would not give much weight to the notion of "measuring better"... It does not mean much IMO.. and NOOOOOOO the XD is not in that class.. Not a matter of price really simply not in this class of performance... In the Wilson range it would be up with maybe the Sophia.. with these 2 ...People would draw their own conclusion but above that.... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! Not the same ballpark...
In the same room as an X-2...They both would play music and that's where the similarities would end...

Queue you admitted that the room was not adequate in your audition of the Minis..I did hear at an owner's in a properly treated room and with good electronics... extensively not a quickie...

I would not give much weight to the notion of "measuring better"... It does not mean much IMO..

Agree 100%

Frantz my friend....this was without question the most profound of this entire thread

IMHO measuring better or measuring flat mean nothing to me. Too bad he makes determinations of what a speaker sounds like is not by listening but rather how it measures. I say "give us ALL a break"

And you didn't put up the money while I was willing.Wow a money on the table challenge, I see that lots with pool games , but never with speakers. That's pretty funny..


IMHO measuring better or measuring flat mean nothing to me
My subs sounded/felt a lot better after I had them eq'd. So I think measurements definitely tell us something..

and NOOOOOOO the XD is not in that class.. Not a matter of price really simply not in this class of performance... In the Wilson range it would be up with maybe the Sophia.. with these 2 ...People would draw their own conclusion but above that.... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! Not the same ballpark...
In the same room as an X-2...They both would play music and that's where the similarities would end...


Frantz...what most here don't know is that not only have you heard the Xd but so also my initial X-2's and now my X-2 series ll. Therefore your comments are based on actual listening not comparing charts as John does or telling us how "they measure"

Just as he excuses the Xd because they didn't have the current filter I can also say that the X-2 series ll is further than anything I have ever heard in over 40 years in this hobby. There are other great speakers but to say that the Xd is giant slayers is utter BS

Wow a money on the table challenge, I see that lots with pool games , but never with speakers. That's pretty funny..

Joey I have a rule with myself through life is to never take money from the destitute or from Canadians;)

You can't really compare the Xd to a speaker like the X-2 because the Xd can't move the kind of air that the X-2 can. It's a different experience altogether when playing something that is very dynamic or that was recorded in a large space. It just feels a lot more real when you are playing something like a Pink Floyd concert at high volumes. Of course, you need a big room, too.

You can't really compare the Xd to a speaker like the X-2 because the Xd can't move the kind of air that the X-2 can. It's a different experience altogether when playing something that is very dynamic or that was recorded in a large space. It just feels a lot more real when you are playing something like a Pink Floyd concert at high volumes. Of course, you need a big room, too.

Spot on Tim

Do you want to listen to music the way it is performed or rather talk about how it measures?

BTW, the best demo of my system is with Pink Floyd DSOM.

Joey I have a rule with myself through life is to never take money from the destitute or from Canadians

With the healthcare system up here it would of been hard to:)

I would much rather listen to system that can deliver the overall accurate dynamics of a live event.

With the healthcare system up here it would of been hard to:)

down here Joey we say "it would have been difficult to...";)

I would much rather listen to system that can deliver the overall accurate dynamics of a live event.

Joey...I am starting to like you. I can't believe you said that and nor do I believe I just said that

As I predicted in post #2 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15629323#post15629323) of this thread, the ex-NHT dealer has derailed this thread as usual. Some individuals have absolutely no sense of etiquette whatsoever. No wonder the over 13,000 posts, he can't have very many friends in the real world! :)

Frantz,

There were significantly cheaper speakers that sounded better under the same conditions, but it is obvious you have your mind set on Magico speakers and nothing else...

As I predicted in post #2 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15629323#post15629323) of this thread, the ex-NHT dealer has derailed this thread as usual. Some individuals have absolutely no sense of etiquette whatsoever. No wonder the over 13,000 posts, he can't have very many friends in the real world! :)

You can say the same for the QueueCumber guy. Silly provocative comments with no substance behind them.

You can say the same for the QueueCumber guy. Silly provocative comments with no substance behind them.
Thank you for that substantive contribution to the forum.

You can't really compare the Xd to a speaker like the X-2 because the Xd can't move the kind of air that the X-2 can. It's a different experience altogether when playing something that is very dynamic or that was recorded in a large space. It just feels a lot more real when you are playing something like a Pink Floyd concert at high volumes. Of course, you need a big room, too.

I agree.

I am a 'measurements' guy I suppose, well pretty sure heh heh, but I have often come across things that sort of don't stack up if you take measurements only. It is really obvious in the bass area.

I mean you can measure in room the bass response of speakers with an eight or ten inch woofer, and they can measure going low and flat, in many cases much lower than my 18's (mine are pro 18's, very hard to get them low)

However, let me tell you that subjectively there is a world of difference in the bass presentation, the sheer solidity and impact of the 18's has not been bettered in any system I've heard yet, even tho I can only get them to around 35 hz (I think).

That may have a lot to do with headroom etc rather than 'pure' FR.

I have heard the Tikandis, and whilst very good to my tastes (now) the bass, as good as it is, will simply not stack up for me.

This is probably where the scale of the much larger speakers shine through as against something like the NHTs.

Frantz prob hit it fair and square on the head when he mentioned the idea of 'for it's price'.

You need to be able to move air, a lot of it easily and without strain.

You need to be able to move air, a lot of it easily and without strain.

I agree and I will also say that the term "it measures flat" is the bane of any good sound system.

I agree and I will also say that the term "it measures flat" is the bane of any good sound system.

Whoa, OB, you're really going to have to explain that one. (OK, I think I missed the joke. Dang!)

I agree and I will also say that the term "it measures flat" is the bane of any good sound system.

As I said before there is much more to loudspeakers performance then flat FR. However, when you have severe FR anomalies due to poor phase integration between drivers and/or efficiency discrepancies, nasty break-ups etc, the argument for “Do you want to listen to music … or rather talk about how it measures?” becomes a bit more relevant.

I agree and I will also say that the term "it measures flat" is the bane of any good sound system.

well it's the bass obviously that is where the air need to be moved, and is also where the peaks and dips (usually induced by the room) are most prominent (broad peaks and dips thruout the rest of the speakers performance gives us 'nasally', 'bright and forward' etc etc).

Removing humps and dips in the bass is exactly why an awful lot of money is spent on bass traps, room construction, room design etc etc, because it IS important that the bass measures 'flat'.

I mean smooth and even here, personal taste may dictate a rising bass response, a dropping bass response or somehow tailored otherwise. No matter what the personal taste, it should (must?) be smooth without any big departures.

However, let me tell you that subjectively there is a world of difference in the bass presentation, the sheer solidity and impact of the 18's has not been bettered in any system I've heard yet, even tho I can only get them to around 35 hz (I think).

That may have a lot to do with headroom etc rather than 'pure' FR.

I have heard the Tikandis, and whilst very good to my tastes (now) the bass, as good as it is, will simply not stack up for me.

...

Speaking of bass, here's what Jonathan Valin (of TAS fame) has to say about the Magico M5....


First, about the M5's bass: It's just terrific. The M5's dual, nearly flat (as opposed to concave), 9" Nano-Tec woofers ("tension-coupled" to a convex baffle of 6061-T aircraft-grade aluminum—CNC-machined from a 200-pound slab of metal--and sealed in Magico's 17-ply Baltic birch cabinet) start and stop on a dime, go exceptionally deep, are extremely high in resolution, are gorgeously rich in tone color when notes are sustained (the harmonics of pedaled bottom-octave piano seem to rise and hang almost visibly in the air like steam above a pot of boiling broth), are sensationally quick and powerful on staccato notes, and perhaps most impressively are so flat in frequency response vis-à-vis the midrange and treble octaves, so much audibly lower in the usual harmonic and Doppler-like distortions, and so well integrated with Magico's own midrange and treble drivers that they never stand out the way woofers always seem to do when you turn up the juice (or turn it down).

Frankly, it took listening to the M5s to teach me why I generally prefer two-way cone loudspeakers (like the Magico Mini and Mini II) or bass-shy planar loudspeakers like the MartinLogan CLX to cone multiways. It is not because I don't like bass instruments; it's because I don't like dynamic loudspeaker bass (and the room/setup problems that inevitably accompany it). I think I could almost truthfully say that I hate dynamic loudspeaker bass, but it took the M5s to show me why, simply because--thus far—they aren’t doing any of the things that make dynamic loudspeaker bass (and dynamic woofers) stick out like sore thumbs. The gains here in you-are-there realism are substantial.


Now, many would consider JV as being prone to hyperbole and belonging to "best I've ever heard... of the month" club, but you can't deny his regular exposure to more high-end gear in his own home than most of us put together! :eek:

Removing humps and dips in the bass is exactly why an awful lot of money is spent on bass traps, room construction, room design etc etc, because it IS important that the bass measures 'flat'.

I mean smooth and even here, personal taste may dictate a rising bass response, a dropping bass response or somehow tailored otherwise. No matter what the personal taste, it should (must?) be smooth without any big departures

I agree

Many here have used the Rives approach to room modification and it is very very good. I went in a different direction and had Acoustic Sciences do my room Taming bass response was paramount. The design they proposed involved all different sizes of tube traps along the sides and rear with sound planks on the front. They proposed stalking the tube traps and inverting the top over the trap below it. I did it in stages starting in the corners, working down the side and then the front of the room. With each addition there was more to be gained. I was told that my room had bass traps second in number only to the Skywalker Ranch. Recently my room is on the ASC website although it is with my former X-2's

Q

What do you mean by under the same circumstances.. Same amplifiers, ancilliary electronics, same position in the room, same room?

I do not have my mind set on many things the Magico Minis included... I have heard the Minis under close to ideal conditions: Dedicated room, xcellent electronics at a friend's. I spent several hours listening to music I know and like for 2 days... I was that kind of good to me...Could well be the ebst Mini-monitor I have heard...

On the subject of flat... There is more to in-room speaker performance than a Flat FR taken at a given position with a microphone... We need to look more into the FR and the power response of a speaker... Put in layman terms you may not want the speaker to be spitting too much treble in the room, Listening room cannot be anechoic not really a logistical problem but a psychological one.. People would not feel comfortable in these "listening" rooms so in a real room even in a treated one... The way the speaker load the room with its treble is important and could be more so than having wide dispersion and being flat within that angle of dispersion... Thus the paradox of flat-in-axis speakers sounding bad... Some old Thiel speakers tended to measure quite nice but sounded not so great.. Audiophile would call these "analytical" but ultimately ditch these. It may look like I am defending speakers with poor FR, mine in particular the MG 20.1 are horrendous in this regard, yet they sound real and rather than pooh-poohing the fact that they simply sound real it would be better to try to determine why is that so...
Concerning the notion of Air moved by speaker.. Physically with its subwoofer the Xd does move a lot of Air... I have yet to find a small satellite / subwoofer combination that provide the sense of air that most big speakers do... On this, the X-2 do what big speakers do they play big, VERY Big but only when the score demands it, if the score change to smal scale so do they as small as a mini-monitor and with the pinpoint imaging mini-monitors are noted for (another big speakers that do that in my experience are the Dynaudio Evidence) ... This most big speakers, including mine do not do it as well.. I have not heard the latest Von Shweikert, Evolution Acoustics, Rockport and Magico so I don't know how they would do in this department but the X-2 are the nimblest and most chameleon-like Big (VERY BIG, by the way) speakers I have auditioned

And OB, DOSM does sound spectacular on most big systems but the spookiest demo is the Boz Scagg recording when he is simply speaking to someone in the studio... The Boz Man was THERE and in an eerie-fashion... almost scary!

I agree

Many here have used the Rives approach to room modification and it is very very good. I went in a different direction and had Acoustic Sciences do my room Taming bass response was paramount. The design they proposed involved all different sizes of tube traps along the sides and rear with sound planks on the front. They proposed stalking the tube traps and inverting the top over the trap below it. I did it in stages starting in the corners, working down the side and then the front of the room. With each addition there was more to be gained. I was told that my room had bass traps second in number only to the Skywalker Ranch. Recently my room is on the ASC website although it is with my former X-2's

OB
The best rooms I've been in have been ASC rooms. While I haven't had the opportunity to check out a Rives room, have read some very mixed things about them and heard even more thumbs downs directly from others. I think it falls somewhere in the middle, but ASC has impressed me firsthand, with some fairly amazing results.

Interesting, my impressions of those Magnepans were also not very great either. I had the opposite experience than you with those in a couple of different rooms...

Rives is great for the money. The people I have heard whining about him are looking to get the performance out of their design that you would have to pay $30k+ to get. Rives charges a couple thousand... It is an excellent value for the price differential. Next time they shouldn't try to save money and should spend the $30k to 60k+ for the acoustical design schematics. ;)

These are two completely separate issues.

1. A contoured FR is one thing: Overall smooth, but perhaps a slight tilt one way or the other. Or perhaps a slight rise in the mids. A contoured FR will not sound as if there is something completely out of balance or obviously wrong. I agree with those that say a flat line in a room might sound bad. However, a contoured FR is WAY different than . . .

2. A mountian range. Huge peaks and troughs are problems that get in the way of the music. This is either caused by a room that is not designed properly or a speaker that is not designed properly. If a speaker does not measure essentially flat anechoically (or quasi-anechoically), taking into consideration its on- and off-axis response, then it has not been engineered properly. Period. It won't get better in room unless all the stars align perfectly, and they almost never do.

I'm all about a contoured FR. I'm not about broken speakers or a horrible room.

Rives is great for the money. The people I have heard whining about him are looking to get the performance out of their design that you would have to pay $30k+ to get. Rives charges a couple thousand... It is an excellent value for the price differential. Next time they shouldn't try to save money and should spend the $30k to 60k+ for the acoustical design schematics. ;)

Well, unless they have changed the guys at Acoustic Sciences provide at NO Charge a CAD of what they recommend. You can either buy from them or from a dealer to implement the design

Rives is great for the money. The people I have heard whining about him are looking to get the performance out of their design that you would have to pay $30k+ to get. Rives charges a couple thousand... It is an excellent value for the price differential. Next time they shouldn't try to save money and should spend the $30k to 60k+ for the acoustical design schematics. ;)
Who charges $30-60K+ to design a listening room?

Q

And OB, DOSM does sound spectacular on most big systems but the spookiest demo is the Boz Scagg recording when he is simply speaking to someone in the studio... The Boz Man was THERE and in an eerie-fashion... almost scary!

Funny you mention Scagg. In the CES Magico were plying high-res Scagg number on the M5. By far, the most spooky thing I ever heard. That kinda summed up the show for me. There was nowhere to go after that...

Agreed wouldn't be buying anything from a relatively new manufacturer in this environment.

Agreed wouldn't be buying anything from a relatively new manufacturer in this environment.

And the developments at Pioneer seem to show that a premium pricing strategy might not be right for the environment. I bet that half of the high end speaker companies out there won't be with us three years from now.

Well, unless they have changed the guys at Acoustic Sciences provide at NO Charge a CAD of what they recommend. You can either buy from them or from a dealer to implement the design

I got one from them. They wanted me to mimic the Absolute Sound room. The guy I spoke with on the phone was very nice.

Who charges $30-60K+ to design a listening room?

A few people that are considered some of the best acoustical designers in the field. You are paying for some of the best computer simulations money can buy though... Even those people claim only a ~60% success rate without needing EQ of some sort. If you want to unbury names, you'll have to find the thread awhile back where I was asking who people thought were the best acoustical designers in the field.

I spent a week talking with people on the phone and realized that no one could guarantee an EQ free room, though they all said they could get it fairly close. My conclusion, don't bother, get someone with experience and competence and just plan on EQing. Then it turned out that the issue that might have caused me to move didn't occur, so I didn't need to build a new room in another house. If I were going to do it all over again, I would likely use Dennis Erskine because of the turn-key approach. General contracting the room myself was a wonderful learning experience, but not one I feel the need to repeat...

I agree

Many here have used the Rives approach ........snip.....I was told that my room had bass traps second in number only to the Skywalker Ranch. Recently my room is on the ASC website although it is with my former X-2's

Re measurements etc, it would not be a stretch to say that during this process you were doing measurements, just with your ears? However it was being measured, the process was the same, judging the amount of smoothness imparted to the bass by the additions.

Is it rude to ask how much the ASC treatment cost??? Trouble is, over here, it would be horrendously expensive to do a full teatment.

What I have read about ASC tube traps has appealed to me in particular.

There is a link on their website to a rather large and complete writeup in his dedicated room, cannot off hand recall who it was. Interesting read nonetheless.
These are two completely separate issues.

.........SNIP........

I'm all about a contoured FR. I'm not about broken speakers or a horrible room.

what he said I tried to said.

I find the pro measurement - anti measurement divide interesting.

Surely all of the high end speakers (esp in this section) have been measured many times to within an inch of their lives??? At least we hope so!!...:eek:

Additionally, I think the 'measurements don't tell the whole story' has a flaw in it.

Probably comes about because we have all heard one set of speakers (that measure flat say) and another that might not, and prefer the second.

That can lead to the conclusion that 'FR (measurements) don't tell the whole story', cause I preferred an unflat speaker over a flat one. Fair enough as far as that goes.

What of course it leaves out is the ability of the speaker to reproduce transients, space etc etc etc, which varies dramatically from driver to driver.

So the REAL question (to my way of thinking) is not the comparison of two completely different speakers, but rather on the same speaker 'would it be improved or not if IT'S measurements were better?"

I have yet to find a set of speakers that did not improve when it's measurements were improved, all the usual checkpoints got better, imaging, soundstage, detail etc etc.

So to me the arguments of measurements are kinda self contained, can we improve THIS speaker by having better measurements? My experience to date has always been yes.

There is often another side to this debate, and it is something like ' the non flat speaker has a set of attributes that endear it to it's adherents', with the implication that somehow it would lose those attributes if it were made to measure better.

Again, I personally have never found that, and for the life of me I cannot see why these magic attributes and flat FR (for example) are mutually exclusive.

Why not have speed and detail ALONG with no colourations? why is it one or the other??

Bass is a funny creature, it somehow seems to have an effect on the rest of the frequency spectrum. Clean it up and make it non-mountainous as so well put by jeff, and suddenly the midrange becomes clearer and the treble more extended (or whatever, but I think you get my drift)

So it is absolutely essential that the bass is right, it is the hackneyed 'foundation upon all else rests'

A few people that are considered some of the best acoustical designers in the field.
Like I said, who charges $30-60K+ to design a listening room?

I have yet to find a set of speakers that did not improve when it's measurements were improved, all the usual checkpoints got better, imaging, soundstage, detail etc etc.
Can you give a couple of examples of speakers that you have heard that improved when their measurements were improved?

Like I said, who charges $30-60K+ to design a listening room?

Look up the thread and call them yourself. I'm not discussing which people; it would break the confidence of my conversations with them. Use the search function.

Look up the thread and call them yourself. I'm not discussing which people; it would break the confidence of my conversations with them.
If it is so super secret that it would breach confidences to disclose their names, how is the search function going to help?

So it is mysterious people who no one can talk about that charge $30-60K+ to design a listening room.

Well, instead of being naive in a world filled with million dollar home theaters, you could always stop being lazy and look up the thread. It shouldn't be too difficult...

Well, instead of being naive in a world filled with million dollar home theaters, you could always stop being lazy and look up the thread. It shouldn't be too difficult...There is a significant difference between designing a listening room for good acoustics like Rives does for $1-10K, and designing a million dollar home theater. Who charges $30-60K+ to design a listening room for good acoustics.

faber,

I don't feel it is appropriate to discuss which people in particular gave the pricings I was offered. People here consider them to be two of the best acoustical design groups in the field. Look up the thread and call them up, and then ask them what it would cost for the best acoustic design schematics they can simulate...

There is a significant difference between designing a listening room for good acoustics like Rives does for $1-10K, and designing a million dollar home theater. Who charges $30-60K+ to design a listening room for good acoustics.

Yep, that was my entire point...

Now stop being lazy and research it yourself.

faber,

I don't feel it is appropriate to discuss which people in particular gave the pricings I was offered. People here consider them to be two of the best acoustical design groups in the field. Look up the thread and call them up, and then ask them what it would cost for the best acoustic design schematics they can simulate...
What are the search words that would lead me to this mysterious thread that discloses the names of the people who names you can't disclose without violating their confidences.

Hmm, I don't know, perhaps you could ask people here in the thread, since they participated in it. ROFL...

I'm on my iPhone or I would try and find it myself.

Now stop being lazy and research it yourself.
You're just making this stuff up as you go along.

You're just making this stuff up as you go along.

You're in way over you head and have no idea what you are talking about. ;)

Hmm, I don't know, perhaps you could ask people here in the thread, since they participated in it. ROFL...

I'm on my iPhone or I would try and find it myself.
You alleged it so I'm asking you. Why would you have to look it up if you already know who they are.

You're in way over you head and have no idea what you are talking about. ;)
Typical avoidance. Can't answer even a simple question.

I'm not wasting more time on this... Get back to me after you do some research yourself. :rolleyes:

BTW, they charge on a per page basis, and the amount per page depends on which simulation software was used...

I'm not wasting more time on this... Get back to me after you do some research yourself. :rolleyes:
If you knew you could tell me but you don't so you can't. Don't waste any more of your time BS-ing me. Now go on back to your iPhone.

Hey Guys take this romance to PM....If he doesn't tell you he loves you there he never will:D

hey guys take this romance to pm....if he doesn't tell you he loves you there he never will:d

:d

Maybe if he tells me he loves me I'll PM him the two groups... I did a search and couldn't find the thread any longer. I think it was locked down, so perhaps it is in the archives?

There lie the pitfalls of hyperbole...

I don't believe I've been using hyperbole. The closest to it was that the Xds pretty well trounced anything I've compared it to in the $15K-$25K range. But that's true. There was hardly an area with any of the speakers where it was close. The only one that *did* come close were the Studio2s, but they're not as enjoyable to listen to and don't have the soundstaging, sweetspot or depth of bass. They were more detailed in many frequency areas, but it came with a fatigue factor that just doesn't exist with the Xds. I say this as a Revel dealer versus being an X NHT dealer. It would be in my favor to tell the opposite story, but it would be a lie.

I have heard the Xd ... It is fair to say that IMO it is a very good system, since it comes with its subwoofer and amplification. There is a tendency to condescend a good product with a "for its price" qualification.. No! It is a very good speaker, it is NOT the Giant Killer that John tend to force-feed on people.

Again, I wasn't throwing around the term "giant killer". What I have said is that it offers a combination of all around performance that is lacking in most exotic high-end speakers (and this shows in the measurements). Most exotics play loud and have low distortion and not much else, though a few manage to image. But Xds have a *much* wider sweetspot, typically smoother/wider off axis dispersion, more of a 'point source' precision, bigger soundstage, etc. With a typical high-end speaker, the 'sweetspot' is about 3'x3'x1'. With Xd, it is pretty much your entire room, front to back, side to side, top to bottom. And with that comes a more natural experience and less 'hi-fi' sound.

I would not qualify it as a mid-fi speaker but it is not in the league of Reference speakers. It will give several 10K speakers however a good run for their money and would plaster a few 20K speakers as well.. Yet compared to speakers in the Big leagues it was lacking...

Care to name names? I can tell you that Xds are, IMO and measurably, better than Thiel CS6s, Genesis 5.1s, B&W 800D/801D/802D, Meridian DSP5500s/6000s, Vandersteen 5As, Focal Electra Bes and Linn Espek actively triamped speakers off the top of my head. Maybe that isn't big leagues to you, but I would say it is. Keep in mind that hearing Xd by itself can be an impressive or puzzling experience, but A/Bing it with speakers often shows exactly how colored other speakers are. I suspect I would even find OB's system quite colored and not to my taste.

Can NHT improve upon the Xd? I think it is doable .. One of the Design limitation to me was the small size of the speaker.. There was a threadbare in its sound especially in the upper bass to lower midrange that cried for an additional driver to fill that region... it does go low, very low but did not present the music with a sense of authority the way the better speakers even some with limited low frequency output (read NO BAss under 80 Hz) like the Magico Mini ( Can someone say SUPERLATIVE Please!? no hype here).. I will not go on reviewing a speaker I heard almost 2 years ago but that was what I remember as most striking from this Audition, that and a tendency for the treble to be overbearing and thin at the same time...
John has so much hyped this speaker that people in this board cringe at the very mention of it... It was good, very good and offered a lot for the money..it remained a work in progress, a speaker that could be ameliorated not the Ultimate speaker at any price.. It is (was) far from that...


Keep in mind that you never heard the upgraded filter set, nor do I believe you heard the dual woofer, high output setup which specifically addresses *all* of your quibbles. So, yes, they did make it better and even then, there's always room for improvement. Just as there is with $45K "giants" that measure +/- 8dB. The 'ultimate' digital speaker would be something like the Revel Salon2s with several subwoofers running in a 5-way DSP configuration and still costing less than $50K. That would be virtually as good as is possible, cost no object, with current driver technology.

Also, Frantz, keep in mind we have different tastes. I really don't care for Magnepans and while they are to you what Xd is to me, I could spend all day putting them down but I think you just have a different sound you are seeking. I'm kind of done with 'hi-fi'.

I would not give much weight to the notion of "measuring better"... It does not mean much IMO.. and NOOOOOOO the XD is not in that class.. Not a matter of price really simply not in this class of performance... In the Wilson range it would be up with maybe the Sophia.. with these 2 ...People would draw their own conclusion but above that.... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! Not the same ballpark...
In the same room as an X-2...They both would play music and that's where the similarities would end...

I've had lots of people tell me that the Xds are far better than Watt Puppies and down. A lot of people tell me they can't stand the Wilson sound at all. To each his own. But given two different sounds, I'd go for the one that measures better because it's closest to what is on the recording.

You can't really compare the Xd to a speaker like the X-2 because the Xd can't move the kind of air that the X-2 can. It's a different experience altogether when playing something that is very dynamic or that was recorded in a large space. It just feels a lot more real when you are playing something like a Pink Floyd concert at high volumes. Of course, you need a big room, too.

True, though what I like about the sealed bass is that it sounds more controlled and precise than most ported units. And Xd plays FAR louder than I care to play music, even as they are begging to be turned up.

BTW, the best demo of my system is with Pink Floyd DSOM.

Personally, it has been The Wall that has sold by far the most Xds for me. Totally new experience. Peter Gabriel Security, Up and other dense and tricky recordings that trip up most speakers.

I would much rather listen to system that can deliver the overall accurate dynamics of a live event.

Live acoustic music or the dynamics of a really crappy PA speaker?

I'm not sure if it's because the speakers were set up only about 10-12 feet away from the listening position, but these speakers will painfully disappointing. The soundstage had no dimension to it, as if it was in 2D rather than 3D. There was hardly any imaging to speak of, and it was as if I heard the vocals separately from the left and right speakers, but not as one coming from the phantom center. The separation of the different instrumentation and vocals was weak too. There was also a distinct lack of bass. In fact, it seemed to lack dynamic range, with the sound focused mostly in the upper-midrange and treble frequencies.

Overall, I was very disappointed with this speaker. And I wasn't judging it from its $25,000 price point. Even at $10,000 or less, I don't think I would be interested in this speaker.


Getting back to this, I guarantee running DEQX on it would solve all of those issues as it has on far less exotic speakers. That's what makes DEQX so cool.

I suspect I would even find OB's system quite colored and not to my taste

Interesting how you have such preconceived notions as once again you "suspect".........

by your own admission you have NEVER heard a Wilson speaker but you have such comments to make.

Interesting how you have such preconceived notions as once again you "suspect".........

by your own admission you have NEVER heard a Wilson speaker but you have such comments to make.

Well, you yourself said that you don't like accuracy in that it is 'the bane of high-end speakers' or something to that effect. I believe it is a *requirement* of a high-end speaker.

Secondly, people I like and trust have waved me off Wilson, with reactions being between "decent but horribly overpriced" and "awful at any price". I've never had anyone I know well tell me that they like Wilson speakers.

Third, they measure poorly (+/-8dB?!?) and have design aspects I really dislike in many cases, including a poor understanding of basic acoustics. At least the Magicos and Rockports measure reasonably well.

John
The Ultimate question remains: If this speaker was that great.. Why did NHT canceled it? Mind you.. It was good no doubt... so why?

Now on the mating of Digital crossovers with Passive speakers... I believe it is an experience that is overdue. I for one would like to hear the results of my speakers with Digital Crossovers in an active configuration. I tend to think the results should be very good, probably better than the current passive crossover they use.
Again John while you may retract from time to time.. You have a penchant for hyperboles and it drowns the sometimes excellent points you make... There is a tendency for Magic Bullets in your thinking.. XD was that and so is now DeQX ... I do not know the Legend Tikandis at all and it could be the best speaker ever... but how can you infer its superiority on other speakers from graphs and its use of DeQX? There is another speaker, an assault on the State of the Art from Graz, basically an Apogee design with updated drivers... Could it be better ? it also uses DeQX... Reading you the use of DeQX ia a panacea, it solves all problems and any speaker using it is AUTOMATICALLY good... I will not get into a back and forth with you but you KNOW that not to be true...

I do not care about a kind of "sound"... I place a great importance on the kind of reproduction that fools me into thinking I am in a live venue... I listen to quite a bit of Live Music and I have been doing it for many years, since I was a kid actually. I am a lover of Music first and an audiophile second... I make a conscious effort not to be drawn in the sound of the moment kind of thing... I had that when the Martin Logan CLS was all the rage, I acquired it and was not pleased with its non-existence below 300 Hz ...Oh yeah it played below that but with no conviction... and its tendency to sound too bleachy in the treble../
What the Magnepan do for me is just that .. Often creating a cessation of disbelief... I tend to favor large speakers because they sound real most of the time, smaller speakers while sometimes satisfying do not really replicate the live experience, they seem to DESCRIBE it, kind of listening to a radio play by play of a football game and hearing: What a hit! what a hit! and not really"feeling" it... I admit that the Magnepan can sometimes sound too big... This can ameliorated by careful placement and room treatment but it does not do any impersonation of a small speaker on a small ensemble.. That the X-2 does and in uncanny almost unique in my experience ... There is much I could say about speakers... I'll leave it for a different thread...

John
The Ultimate question remains: If this speaker was that great.. Why did NHT canceled it? Mind you.. It was good no doubt... so why?

Very simple. Poor consumer acceptance, poor marketing. It had audiophile quality, but wasn't aimed at audiophiles. It was powered, which is unconventional and many thought it was horribly ugly. By the time they came out with a pretty color combination, most every dealer had sold it off. Also, it has no aspirations of being a home theater speaker when everyone is looking for high-end home theater. No matching center, no matching rears. Custom install guys didn't know what to do with it, couldn't demo it and the high-end guys viewed it as a threat to the sale of $25K-$50K 'purist' systems. I could go on, but there were HUGE mistakes in the marketing of this speaker, mistakes I begged them to fix both before and after, but they refused in the typical "we know what we're doing" vein.

Again John while you may retract from time to time.. You have a penchant for hyperboles and it drowns the sometimes excellent points you make... There is a tendency for Magic Bullets in your thinking.. XD was that and so is now DeQX ... I do not know the Legend Tikandis at all and it could be the best speaker ever... but how can you infer its superiority on other speakers from graphs and its use of DeQX?

Because I have done so much work with DEQX and know what kind of design it likes and what the results tend to be. Experience, IOW.

There is another speaker, an assault on the State of the Art from Graz, basically an Apogee design with updated drivers... Could it be better ? it also uses DeQX...

Don't know, haven't seen it, though ribbons and dipoles are harder to get the best results from and don't like being EQed much!

Reading you the use of DeQX ia a panacea, it solves all problems and any speaker using it is AUTOMATICALLY good... I will not get into a back and forth with you but you KNOW that not to be true...

Actually, I'd say DEQX automatically gets you a *good* result. With good design, it can easily get you a great result. Do it right, and you have a result no passive speaker can match.

The Ultimate question remains: If this speaker was that great.. Why did NHT canceled it?

For me the ultimate question is "if John was the largest NHD dealer (by his own admission in a recent post) why did NHD cut him loose?

Heck when the NHD exec (Jack ?) brought the Xd to my house for the shootout, it seemed he was constantly apologizing to everyone present for John's inexcusable actions on the internet re their product.

Because I have done so much work with DEQX and know what kind of design it likes and what the results tend to be. Experience, IOW

but you have as much or more to say about speakers with which you have absolutely no experience

Because I have done so much work with DEQX and know what kind of design it likes and what the results tend to be. Experience, IOW.

John after such a reply I can only bow out.. You possess the unique ability to infer the sound of a speaker from a FR taken by someone else and you know that all DEQX-based system are of superior performance .. What can one answer to that?
I sincerely would like to subject you to a double blind test with some Wilson Speakers in the mix and see what the results would have been...

John after such a reply I can only bow out.. You possess the unique ability to infer the sound of a speaker from a FR taken by someone else and you know that all DEQX-based system are of superior performance .. What can one answer to that?
I sincerely would like to subject you to a double blind test with some Wilson Speakers in the mix and see what the results would have been...

well here is John's reply as to why he has never heard a Wilson speaker and why he feels he can say what he does about them

Secondly, people I like and trust have waved me off Wilson, with reactions being between "decent but horribly overpriced" and "awful at any price". I've never had anyone I know well tell me that they like Wilson speakers

Now that is what I call an educated response:rolleyes:

"Secondly, people I like and trust have waved me off Wilson, with reactions being between "decent but horribly overpriced" and "awful at any price". I've never had anyone I know well tell me that they like Wilson speakers"

Why don't you take OB up on his offer, go to the Bay area and listen to his system? My suspicion is that if it were not blind, you would decide that the Wilson's were still no good no matter how wonderful it sounds.

" My suspicion is that if it were not blind, you would decide that the Wilson's were still no good no matter how wonderful it sounds.

My sentiments exactly

At this point I think it's obvious that the next logical step in this saga is (assuming both parties are willing) to have John hear OB's system. We could all chip in to buy John a plane ticket and to hire security in case it gets ugly. :D

On a more serious note, I know that John's enthusiasm for the Xd turns a lot of people off but it really is an excellent system. In fact it was John's enthusiasm for the Xd that first got me interested in them and I thank him for that because the Xd is hands down the best audio purchase I have made to date.

Anyone who has not hear the Xd with dual subs and the revised filters has not heard the true capabilities of the system. IMO the improvement is not subtle (read JA's follow-up in Stereophile). That said, it cannot compete with super speakers like the X-2s and the Magico M6, it simply doesn't have the horsepower to make a fair comparison. However, in small to medium size rooms I think it is competitive with just about anything in its weight class.

As I've said before, prior to owning the Xds I had Dynaudio C1s (paired with a Velodyne DD-15) which are considered to be among the best monitors around and, IMO, the Xd was clearly the superior speaker in every way.

Tim

I have heard the Xd about 2 years ago with dual subs .. I don't know what filter were in then .. I have posted here it is a very good system... NOT FOR ITS PRICE, it is truly a very good system... At the present price, they are the proverbial steal... John has unfortunately taken to his over the top comments and put the speaker in a league where it does not belong... Kind of the kid who is great in Street Basketball but would not be able to play one quarter in the NBA...
I would say that because of John almost bullyish attitude with regards to the Xd, this very good performer has been seen by many as an inferior performer. I can say from memory that it is not. A fair comparison would have been to compare the Xd in a smaller room with the Wilson Sophia or other contender in this class not with one of the best speakers around.. The best comparison to me: Once we have seen what MJ, Kobe or Lebron do, <fill here with one of your favorite NBA player> looks well... OK maybe very good not superlative. Taken on his own far from the comparison with these elvated Mega Star ( By the way Kobe is a once-in-a-decade type of player, He is the closest thing you will get to MJ for several years, maybe decades).. your favorite NBA player is very good simply NOT MJ, NOT Kobe, NOT Lebron..these are exceptional , rare and extravagantly talented athletes...Man ! Was that OT or what :)

At this point I think it's obvious that the next logical step in this saga is (assuming both parties are willing) to have John hear OB's system. We could all chip in to buy John a plane ticket and to hire security in case it gets ugly. :D

On a more serious note, I know that John's enthusiasm for the Xd turns a lot of people off but it really is an excellent system. In fact it was John's enthusiasm for the Xd that first got me interested in them and I thank him for that because the Xd is hands down the best audio purchase I have made to date.

Anyone who has not hear the Xd with dual subs and the revised filters has not heard the true capabilities of the system. IMO the improvement is not subtle (read JA's follow-up in Stereophile). That said, it cannot compete with super speakers like the X-2s and the Magico M6, it simply doesn't have the horsepower to make a fair comparison. However, in small to medium size rooms I think it is competitive with just about anything in its weight class.

As I've said before, prior to owning the Xds I had Dynaudio C1s (paired with a Velodyne DD-15) which are considered to be among the best monitors around and, IMO, the Xd was clearly the superior speaker in every way.

Tim

you make good sense to me. I take you as an honest down to earth guy and for low cost got a truly great system. You are right on however in terms of the amount of air the X-2 moves and I did a comparison in my room 2 years ago at John's suggestion. It was agreat afternoon and IIRC there were at least 10-12 people there. There were glaring differences between the two most noteably the very small (but real soundstage). I listen to music the way it was performed and in my room you can walk up and touch Roger Waters or see every string move on Boz' guitar when he plays "Low Down"

John is a dealer and IMHO is given far too much leeway on this Forum by the mods. What people want to read about here is first hand experience not spurious comments by such an opinionated and biased individual who has so much to say in a negative fashion about gear he has never heard. Most of us here find that offensive.

To Mark Rubin who is a great mod. I hope you don't delete this post but if you do I understand. Those who frequent this Ultra High End Forum will understand the spirit within which my post here was made.

arguments/comments between OB and Allimental = REALLY DEAD F*&%$^G HORSE!


I certainly agree but as long as he infects this Ultra High End Forum with his crap and no one challenges him, then I will.

I would be highly skeptical of anything Jonathan Valin is ga-ga over...


Why?? JV is one of the two best audio writer ever with Tom Norton and one of the three or four best reviewer in the industry.:rolleyes:

I've never had anyone I know well tell me that they like Wilson speakers.
Okay, everyone repeat after me: "I've never had anyone I know well tell me that they like [insert your least favorite speaker here] speakers." Now wasn't that enlightening?

Why?? JV is one of the two best audio writer ever with Tom Norton and one of the three or four best reviewer in the industry.:rolleyes:

You mean the same JV that has keeps a "reference" Walker Proscenium turntable for free without paying a dime, as long as it remains his "reference"? And as long as Lloyd Walker shows up on regular basis to upgrade it and keep it tuned, also for free?
Of course, maybe he will try to sell the "free" Walker on audiogon, as he has done with items in the past that he has gotten for review, as soon as he can succer a new manufacturer into giving him a "free" expensive new reference.
He also follows Michael Fremer's favorites like a jealous girl and tries to pan every item that Fremer likes.
JV needs "credibility therapy".

...
He also follows Michael Fremer's favorites like a jealous girl and tries to pan every item that Fremer likes.
JV needs "credibility therapy".

JV doesn't follow Fremer. For one thing JV is a better writer (I did not say reviewer).

Actually it is Stereophile who copied TAS in recruiting Fremer and giving so much emphasis to vinyl for the first time. Stereophile was pro CD before getting Fremer on board. How many vinyls did Gordon Holt had?

JV doesn't follow Fremer. For one thing JV is a better writer (I did not say reviewer).

Actually it is Stereophile who copied TAS in recruiting Fremer and giving so much emphasis to vinyl for the first time. Stereophile was pro CD before getting Fremer on board. How many vinyls did Gordon Holt had?

I would agree that JV is a better writer, per se. It is too bad his ethics do not fall in line with his writing skills.

I would like to add that I don't expect "perfect" ethics from audio reviewers, just reasonable ethics, it is a hobby, not brain surgery.
I don't have a problem with critics getting discounts on items they intend to use as references for a reasonable period of time, or enjoying products for a certain period after they have completed a review.
It is probably not possible to have magazines and reviewers without a certain amount of accommodation and politics.
I think what JV does has other un-sanguine words to describe it than "reasonable ethics" or "reasonable industry accommodation."

NHT Xd = dead horse

NHT Xd vs. anything = dead horse

arguments/comments between OB and Allimental = REALLY DEAD F*&%$^G HORSE!


Here's what I don't understand; this is the 20k+ forum- the place to discuss the ultra high-end, as in-stupidly expensive products. Yet, thread after thread gets infected with the likes of Doug Winsor, NIN74, and John constantly cramming this anti-high-end agenda down our throats and derailing these threads into oblivion.

I don't hardly post anymore because quite honestly I'm increasingly bored with reading the same s*&t time after time. This has to be the 50th time this same diatribe has happened regarding NHT Xd, Wilson X-2s, John's multiple ids on the forum, etc. The recent posts about the Lumis, and HD6K-M have been the most interesting lately because they actually contain NEW conversation and information. This particular thread about the Magicos died weeks ago, but people just don't have the decency to let it rot.

For crying out loud- leave the dead horses the F____ alone!

Magico builds a phenomenal speaker, Alon is probably one of the top three or four speaker designers in the world- they are worth every penny, so are Wilsons, and Rockports, and several others.....and once again, unless you've actually worked for one of these ultra high end speaker companies (I have)- you have NO CLUE about their business model, manufacturing costs, development costs, driver selection, etc.

Dan

+1
Excellent post!

those three members you mention pretty much keep me away from this entire section. It is a shame because there are some great members and great discussion that frequent this section, but it seems no matter what the topic, it always ends with the three amigos destroying whatever it was. It really is sad and I wish there was some way to change this (I have a feeling I am not alone in this sentiment).

John after such a reply I can only bow out.. You possess the unique ability to infer the sound of a speaker from a FR taken by someone else and you know that all DEQX-based system are of superior performance .. What can one answer to that?

It's not 'unique'. DEQX has a predictable effect on the sound of a speaker. It also normalizes the FR to a flat target curve *if* you wish it to do so. You can play with smoothing or parametric EQ, but it will try to accomplish the same thing with every speaker. And that's a good thing. But don't put words in my mouth. I said that DEQX will make pretty much any speaker sound "good". Getting to 'exceptional' takes more work as there are designs that take better advantage of the processing.

Here's what I don't understand; this is the 20k+ forum- the place to discuss the ultra high-end, as in-stupidly expensive products. Yet, thread after thread gets infected with the likes of Doug Winsor, NIN74, and John constantly cramming this anti-high-end agenda down our throats and derailing these threads into oblivion.

I don't have an 'anti-high-end agenda'. I do have an agenda against overpriced, underperforming gear. I have an agenda *for* technological progress that leads to higher performance.

Magico builds a phenomenal speaker, Alon is probably one of the top three or four speaker designers in the world- they are worth every penny, so are Wilsons, and Rockports, and several others.....and once again, unless you've actually worked for one of these ultra high end speaker companies (I have)- you have NO CLUE about their business model, manufacturing costs, development costs, driver selection, etc.

Actually, I do have a clue. I don't know if Alon is a great speaker designer or not. If he truly is a great speaker designer, he should be able to design a $500/pr bookshelf speaker and compete with NHT, PSB, Revel, Paradigm and others that use actual engineers rather than 'designers'. But regardless, I don't believe they are worth every penny because there are less expensive ways to get from here to there, if you're willing to give up archaic analog crossovers. Most people aren't, so they'll have to keep paying more.

Why don't you take OB up on his offer, go to the Bay area and listen to his system? My suspicion is that if it were not blind, you would decide that the Wilson's were still no good no matter how wonderful it sounds.

I don't recall him offering. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it sounds fine if you toss value out the window, but not likely to be my cup of tea. I could have heard Wilsons many times at CES or CEDIA, but never bothered simply because I don't like the designs, certainly not the pricing and they really don't measure well. As Frantz often says (and I trust his opinions more than most here), the lesser Wilsons aren't terribly competitive and, for me, a speaker designer is really defined by the least expensive products he does, not the most expensive. IOW, I wouldn't *avoid* hearing them, I just don't feel any reason to spend time or energy seeking them out.

I certainly agree but as long as he infects this Ultra High End Forum with his crap and no one challenges him, then I will.

Cable elevators are 'crap'. Advanced DSP impulse response correction and crossovers, not 'crap'. Personally, I think it would be great to split this forum into the "High Performance Forum" and the "Just Plain Expensive Forum" so some of us could have serious conversations about getting from here to there without all the personal attacks.

Personally, I think it would be great to split this forum into the "High Performance Forum" and the "Just Plain Expensive Forum" so some of us could have serious conversations about getting from here to there without all the personal attacks.

There doesn't have to be a split...just start your own thread(s) about DEQX and/or the Tikandi.

...It is a shame because there are some great members and great discussion that frequent this section, but it seems no matter what the topic, it always ends with the three amigos destroying whatever it was...

Absolutely agreed. Pretty much every speaker thread is destroyed by one or more of these trolls.

Obviously the three amigos thrive on conflict. If everyone stops responding to their posts, I'm sure sooner or later they will get the message and either change their ways (unlikely), or disappear.

There doesn't have to be a split...just start your own thread(s) about DEQX and/or the Tikandi.

I'm more of a contributor than a starter when it comes to threads. Don't know why.

Absolutely agreed. Pretty much every speaker thread is destroyed by one or more of these trolls.

Obviously the three amigos thrive on conflict. If everyone stops responding to their posts, I'm sure sooner or later they will get the message and either change their ways (unlikely), or disappear.

Actually, no, that's not true. I just have my own opinions, experiences, POV. What happens is that people like to tell me that my opinions, experiences, POV are "WRONG" and that I'm a bad person, rather than simply allowing me to throw in my 2¢ unmolested. I mean, I don't mind discussing things, but what happens here is that I or NIN or someone says something and then we spend the next 5 pages trying to defend ourselves from personal attacks and silly argumentation and howls of "troll". So I'd be glad for the 'gang' to stop responding and then the forum would be far more civil.

It's like four or five bullies complaining that their hands are getting hurt by some kid's nose. I mean, I'm exhausted by people like OB and others that think they own and control the forum through personal attack, but I put up with it because that's apparently the price of being here.

+1
Excellent post!

those three members you mention pretty much keep me away from this entire section. It is a shame because there are some great members and great discussion that frequent this section, but it seems no matter what the topic, it always ends with the three amigos destroying whatever it was. It really is sad and I wish there was some way to change this (I have a feeling I am not alone in this sentiment).


Ditto but in my case I have been equally bored my one poster in particular always pushing his Wilson's speakers. I'll always rebember how better sounding speakers the $5,000 Hales Concept V were compared to overpriced Wilson's WP IVs&Vs and later on how much better B&W Nautilus 802s sounded compared to Wilson's.

I'm more of a contributor than a starter when it comes to threads. Don't know why.
Because you have an opinion on everything (and love to hear yourself talk) but nothing constructive to share?

Ditto but in my case I have been equally bored my one poster in particular always pushing his Wilson's speakers. I'll always rebember how better sounding speakers the $5,000 Hales Concept V were compared to overpriced Wilson's WP IVs&Vs and later on how much better B&W Nautilus 802s sounded compared to Wilson's.

I respect that because at least you have heard these speakers and can make an educated decision. What I can't stand is someone passing judgement who has never heard the speaker. A decision based on measurement rather than listening.

I guess is John's case sometimes the penalty of of kicking the arogant and boastful bully off the top of the mountain is that you then become it.:eek:

I'll butt out and go back to my own thread after this reply . . . ;)

But I just don't understand the mentality of only measurements or only listening. That is completely anti-discovery -- one of the beautiful things that drew many of us to high-end audio.

On the one hand: Making proclamations about a product's sound without hearing it is obviously wrong-headed. Now, you can make proclamations about the measurements without hearing it, but you cannot tell exactly how something will sound unless you bother to go hear it for yourself. High-end audio lives and dies by the sound -- how it makes music and connects to the listener! There are myriad sonic characteristics that are important and I don't think anyone will tell you that we know exactly how something will sound by looking at a few graphs. As well, unless you listen, how would ever know how a specific measurement even correlated with the product's sound? By all means, if you are going to comment on products, please make the effort to go and hear them. Become an educated listener by listening to lots of products. Measurements only go so far -- hearing a product is the final test to determine its true worth.

On the other hand: Making proclamations about a supposed high-fidelity product while ignoring the technical facts is just as bad. If a speaker, for instance, has poor frequency response, or high distortion, or whatever technical failing, it is not state of the art, period! Wishing away these measurements won’t make them go away. Saying they don't matter doesn't make it true! The facts always matter. Good products are a product of good engineering. The best products aren't a byproduct of luck or some artsy-fartsy pipedream. If you think you have a state-of-the-art product and it isn't thoroughly engineered and therefore technically incompetent on the test bench, you're just kidding yourself.

So when you put them both together, there is really only one conclusion in my mind: listening tests and technical measurements are the only way to get the complete picture. I guess it is just human nature to want to debate and "pick a side." But the reality is that the truth is in the middle: leave either test, objective or subjective, out, and you have a limited viewpoint that is of limited value on these forums. Pay close attention to both, as I believe most here do, and you end up far more aware. I'm sorry if this sounds self righteous or preachy -- not my intention -- but these debates rage all the time here, many in my TWBAS thread, while the answer seems to stare us in the face.

Pardon my intrusion. But I feel better now.

Jeff Fritz, aka Thread Killer.

Don't feel bad, Jeff. That was a very good post.

I'm another of those who sit in amazement at how this forum continually gets ruined by someone who doesn't actually own gear that qualifies for it.

To me, it's almost a waste of time and energy to post something here, knowing that it will be subjected to the same, tired "debate".

Lee

There really isn't anything new and great to post about... We've heard it all; the minute something new happens it is posted here and becomes old news within minutes...

... I'm sure it sounds fine if you toss value out the window

Here is where you show that aspect that drives everybody nuts!

VALUE... is a huge variable and means different thing to everyone. i cannot see myself every buying Wilson as i do not feel that i will ever have that budget. but i am at least able to listen to a speaker and make an objective evaluation as to whether it sounds good. the first time i hear ob's system, i did not go in and say "well, these are really pricey, i need to filter 100k of value out of my perception"

I have also heard other wilsons in another setup and was not as impressed.

Value (like beauty) is all in the eye (and wallet) of the beholder. when i worked for kaleidescape, nobody who ever saw a demo said that it was no good due to its price, they said they liked it, but wished it was less so that they could afford it.

If you think price makes something better or worse... then that is really rather snobby.

I second RBFC post.. The idea is to teach ourselves to filter the noise.. I do believe that some point of views are challenging and have the potential to lead to better results or better allocation of resources:

I am by profession an engineer, yet I admit to have often put my engineer cap off in following some Audiophile Orthodoxies. Cables being one of these. On the surface I was willing to believe there were some properties of cable that could amount to VAST differences... No longer I have subjected myself to DBT on cables as well and well I will keep the one I have forever... They are good looking :)
It does not go as far as that Digital is perfect and that ALL High End speakers are crap but the challenge to some of our beliefs is to me at times healthy.
The problems are the condescending tones, the thread-hijacking, the opinion without any substances or justifications that are thrown as "scientific truths" and lately an almost populist attitude in which those who are able to afford expensive AUDIO gears are automatically labeled as incompetent and un-knowledgeable individuals with more money than brains. I will quickly add that Prices in High End Audio have followed a strange upward path while the cost of material and tools, has a totally reverse path. SOftware that are available for free matches what was available to designer engineers a10 years for tens of thousands of dollars...Think about what one have in a software such as Garage band compared t what he Studio did have only 10 years ago, Garage band is thrown in FOR FREE with every Apple Mac you purchase.. I will also add in passing that if making money were that easy, there will be much less complaints on these expenditures). The populism does not seem to applly when the expenditures are in video, strangely enough.. ( Let us see.... why in the f#$%^&ing world does that lens would cost the same as a High ENd PJ all by its lone self..)...
SO the whole thing is to me the tone and the honesty of the debate .. Intellectual honesty is particularly in short supply in most of the derailers... Contrarian views should be welcomed if they are honest, on-topics, well presented and argumented without regard to whom they come from. It becomes too easy to reject a post because it comes from someone with contrarian attitude, this can be comforting but does not advance the discussion or our understanding. I do not mind the challenge on the Magico speakers, esepcially if there is a substance to the challenge. Not from someone who has not heard it or is simply reading a FR graph... An example is the opinion of QueueCumber on the Minis, different from mine but hey! he's heard and didn' like it and I will add that I although I, although I do recognize it as a very special speaker would not be able to live with it... my speakers need to be FULL RANGE else I am not enjoying the music.. so I can understand his reaction and should respect it..

I would lke to see more honesty and respect in this part of the forum.. There is a level of knowledge in this AVS Forum that seems unmatched.. Audiogon for example does not challenge me ... Seems to be a cozy audiophile place where we can share our audiophile othodoxies not where we can be challenged and advance our knowledge of the hobby that should allow us to enjoy more of the music we love..

On this I am enjoying IMMENSELY a James Taylor Session which started a few hours ago and damn the man is good!... People properly set up the Magnepan are mighty impressive ( I recently added more ASC tube traps to my re-found listening room... long story but OB will understand ;) ) ... the V3 have better be superior to the 20.1 in ALL areas including bass where a combination of Mye stands and frame bracing have made a substantial and measurable difference

I respect that because at least you have heard these speakers and can make an educated decision. What I can't stand is someone passing judgement who has never heard the speaker. A decision based on measurement rather than listening.

It's nothing personal, but it's not just the measurements, it's the design. IMO, it's too much of a compromise for the price. At $10K or $15K, I'd be more curious.

I guess is John's case sometimes the penalty of of kicking the arogant and boastful bully off the top of the mountain is that you then become it.

Goodness, I hope not! I'm just trying to defend something I said threads ago, I can hardly even remember what it was!


On the one hand: Making proclamations about a product's sound without hearing it is obviously wrong-headed.

On the other hand: Making proclamations about a supposed high-fidelity product while ignoring the technical facts is just as bad.

Bingo. I don't see bad measurements as equalling bad sound. I view it as a limitation. And I wouldn't expect to see such limitations on very expensive speakers. Sound be damned! There are plenty of flawed, enjoyable speakers under $10K. The higher the price, the more I expect 'flawless'.

There really isn't anything new and great to post about... We've heard it all; the minute something new happens it is posted here and becomes old news within minutes...

Nothing like the same old tired arguments about how tired and old the arguments are ;)

Here is where you show that aspect that drives everybody nuts!

Point taken. I'm just a sucker for value at any price. The more value it has, the more I like it. But I do think high-end products should be measurably better, not just more expensive and supposedly subjectively better. My pet peeve is when manufacturers go to great lengths to tell how much it costs to build something, as though there is a direct relation. It used to cost a lot to build a car too!

The problems are the condescending tones, the thread-hijacking, the opinion without any substances or justifications that are thrown as "scientific truths" and lately an almost populist attitude in which those who are able to afford expensive AUDIO gears are automatically labeled as incompetent and un-knowledgeable individuals with more money than brains.

The folks who have enough expendable income to afford high-end audio (and understand it so that they can set it up) are actually very intelligent individuals. The persons who level the usual criticisms must certainly understand what it demands to be a successful doctor or lawyer, which both involve the ability to wisely assimilate and apply vast amounts of information. Do you really feel that all these faculties are immediately absent when the subject is audio/engineering?

The subject of value vs. performance is somewhat meaningless at the level WHICH THIS FORUM IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS. Choose automobiles, watches, carpeting, virtually anything..... There is a point at which one gets a bit more performance, a bit more aesthetics, etc., but the price goes up considerably. For those who have worked very hard, spent years in post-graduate training & internship, etc., if they wish to have that last bit of quality in their chosen vice/pursuit, they well deserve to have it. Sour grapes posts that they wasted their money for a minimal increase in quality have no place in this world, as these individuals are well aware of the cost of this equipment and the associated performance. I personally am well aware of the measured performance as well as the listening quality of equipment that I purchase (or don't buy). If, after 28 years in my field, I decide to buy that $20K Krell amp, then I'll damn well do it and enjoy the hell out of it.

I've learned a great deal by paying attention to the discussions here. I'm also dismayed that the usual spoiling "agenda" posts by those who typically want to hawk EQUIPMENT THAT DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THIS FORUM SECTION (and don't participate substantially in any other part of AVS) always show up with the same comments. These comments may as well be "cut & pasted" from one thread to another.

If the technologies for DSP-based crossovers, etc. were available from good manufacturers on products which could actually compete AND WIN in listening quality with the current "big guns", the intelligent individuals on this forum and elsewhere would be buying them with all those piles of money. They just haven't matured the technology to that market level yet.

I will end this rant with one final comment. Some of the finest audio connoisseur minds post here, and I am tired of seeing every thread about "the best...." end up being the same old argument. I will refrain from publicly posting more pertinent information in this matter.

I sincerely hope that the moderators put an end to this process, which is surely destroying this sub-forum.

Lee

Don't feel bad, Jeff. That was a very good post.

I'm another of those who sit in amazement at how this forum continually gets ruined by someone who doesn't actually own gear that qualifies for it.

To me, it's almost a waste of time and energy to post something here, knowing that it will be subjected to the same, tired "debate".

Lee

Just got back from San Francisco where we saw Wicked. Definitely two thumbs up. A wonderful story set to music and I heartily recommend it.

Where I have all of the heart burn is not about differences of opinions as surely one man's passion is another man's poison, but rather how predictably in this forum the same three people will always derail, high jack and take off topic EVERY thread that is ever started on speakers. I need not mention them as this has been done before. This thread was about Magico speakers, having been started when it's predecessor literally vanished from AVS because of the very thing I just mentioned. Personally I believe Alon is a wonderful individual who makes great speakers. I am tired of reading about how there is nothing new, it is over priced and could have been done for less...blah, blah blah. Then predictably every thread is interjected with DEQX and how things could be made better if it had only been used. Alon is a gentleman. He has been to my house and did measurements (unsolicited) of my room and offered suggestions. Jeff Fritz is building a wonderful system in his house with another remarkable speaker. All of us (except three) are interested in discussing the virtues of these thread topics. I remember how John tried the same tricks in Jeff's thread until Jeff implored him to "stop" and to stay on topic. I look forward to making a trip back east to hear Jeff's room as I bet it will be truly spectacular. I said before that hearing first hand from people with first hand experience is what drives me here to the Ultra High End Forum. It helped me make a decision in the purchase of a projector. I value the opinions of people with experience in high end audio. They have helped educate me. The rest are nothing more than annoying distractions. If each thread could only stay on topic, AVS would be a better place. We need more moderator intervention here.

Man

What a debate!!

The Value proposition cannot be entirely removed form the equation... In High End Audio as I perceive it the proposition is performance not some kind of Jewelry.. There is a concrete stated objective.. it may ultimately be deprecated or bastardized but the purpose is Audio Performance.. Transporting the listener to the venue.. We can assign to it some other purposes such as for the equipment to deliver what the Artists intended... The Objectives remain CONCRETE, they may be influenced by subjective perception but the goal is clear defined and solid nit a perception like Jewelry or Status... Owning a watch whose purpose of defining time has been subjugated to that of a status symbol or jewelry is not the same as owning an expensive amplifier The Amp must be better than the $500 Pioneer receiver else someone is been taken for a ride.. My Breitling although based on a Quartz movement is less precise than the Atomic Pulsar... it remains a Breitling and is perceived to be a luxury watch not a simple time keeper.. if the value proposition of a KRell is to be simply more expensive than a panasonic receiver they will not survice long...So price for the sake of price SHOULD be challenged ... A brutal exemple are DVD players.. where the PS3 will run circles on Blu Ray around ANY SD DVD at any price, Ayre, Krell, Linn, you name it... If a speaker indeed advances the SOTA then it is worth its price until another advances the SOTA at a lesser price... The fixation on a higher price has the perverse effect of not considering less expensive products as worthy of the SOTA because they are not in the same price range.. WRONG! and easily challenged... To come back to the Magico if they do advance the SOTA then they are worth every penny, else...

On the subject of the value of Active Digital corssovers I beg to differ.. The Technology was available from VERY good manufacturers and is now available from really serious manufacturers and they are the harbingers of the future, I predict that soon we will see the usual High End Heavyweights jumping on this bandwagon.. Look at what is happening with Music Servers which have now obtained their High End Audio creds with some declaring they have heard from these the best Sound they have heard... Audiophiles are quite conservative and tend to stick to orthodoxies... The SigTecjh has been there since the 1990s but was not well received by the Audiophile community although its performance was extremely good... So was the RDP Z-1 and the Tact has been around for a good while.. Europeans are taking the lead on Active Digital crossovers .. with Companies such as Ascendo and the Formidable behold electronics.. What one has to understand is that passive crossovers introduce errors that can entirely be corrected in digital.. DSP has matured and we will see these more and more often...

On the subject of the value of Active Digital corssovers I beg to differ.. The Technology was available from VERY good manufacturers and is now available from really serious manufacturers and they are the harbingers of the future, I predict that soon we will see the usual High End Heavyweights jumping on this bandwagon.. Look at what is happening with Music Servers which have now obtained their High End Audio creds with some declaring they have heard from these the best Sound they have heard... Audiophiles are quite conservative and tend to stick to orthodoxies... The SigTecjh has been there since the 1990s but was not well received by the Audiophile community although its performance was extremely good... So was the RDP Z-1 and the Tact has been around for a good while.. Europeans are taking the lead on Active Digital crossovers .. with Companies such as Ascendo and the Formidable behold electronics.. What one has to understand is that passive crossovers introduce errors that can entirely be corrected in digital.. DSP has matured and we will see these more and more often...

Well, if the digital speakers you mention out-performed the current SOTA passive models, why did they not take over the high-end market? As intelligent individuals, the denizens of this forum would absolutely jump onto something that was "all that". As for the DSP-based speakers, did they look like 55 gallon oil drums or something? I submit that aesthetics does have/has had a place in high-end speaker design. Many of us just can't set some god-awful thing in the middle of our homes. Those with dedicated listening rooms may have less restriction. With the advent of good acoustically-transparent video screens and the increased interest in combination audio/HT environments, aesthetic speaker design will play a smaller role. Perhaps now those "super" digital speakers will have another chance. I, for one, will applaud any advance of significance in SOTA audio reproduction. I certainly have no agenda except to further discussion about how to achieve that best sound. Unfortunately, discussions about defunct products and technologies that are not well-exposed/marketed seem to dominate and derail those conversations, courtesy of the usual suspects.

My main point of the post above is that this is the $20K+ forum. I thought that certain criteria for inclusion were implied. Jewelry/watches was a bad choice of analogy, automobiles is more appropriate.

Thanks,

Lee

Audiophiles are quite conservative and tend to stick to orthodoxies...

If the new orthodoxy states that active digital rules, then you'll see the shift occur. Because we rely on our ears, we actually understand that we can often believe that something sounds better because is it different, when it really isn't better. It takes both time and exposure in our own listening environments to take that type of leap, since the expenditure at this level is not insignificant.

Seeing comments about the future of speakers coming from guys like you, Frantz, it's apparent that this technology will soon come under much closer examination by the community.

Lee

On the subject of the value of Active Digital corssovers I beg to differ.. The Technology was available from VERY good manufacturers and is now available from really serious manufacturers and they are the harbingers of the future, I predict that soon we will see the usual High End Heavyweights jumping on this bandwagon..

JBL Pro has been doing active digital speakers for awhile...one does wonder if Revel will introduce the same, in time.

I don't think anyone really argues with some of the basic premise of these advancing technologies. Like you mentioned, a number of forum contributors are Professionals including many with advanced Engineering credentials who are far better able to appreciate the positive impact these could have (than some dinky dealer's conjecture based on graphs and specs alone).

However, its not the solution to every single thread about speakers.

The individual that doesn't know when its time to move on after having made a point once (or twice tops), needs to get a f#$%^&* life.




On the subject of the value of Active Digital corssovers I beg to differ.. The Technology was available from VERY good manufacturers and is now available from really serious manufacturers and they are the harbingers of the future, I predict that soon we will see the usual High End Heavyweights jumping on this bandwagon.. Look at what is happening with Music Servers which have now obtained their High End Audio creds with some declaring they have heard from these the best Sound they have heard... Audiophiles are quite conservative and tend to stick to orthodoxies... The SigTecjh has been there since the 1990s but was not well received by the Audiophile community although its performance was extremely good... So was the RDP Z-1 and the Tact has been around for a good while.. Europeans are taking the lead on Active Digital crossovers .. with Companies such as Ascendo and the Formidable behold electronics.. What one has to understand is that passive crossovers introduce errors that can entirely be corrected in digital.. DSP has matured and we will see these more and more often...

RBFC

I never advanced that the SOTA is now populated by digital crossovers... I am simply advancing that on a purely theoretical ground Digital Crossovers are superior to Passive... and that they will replace Passive crossovers. We are not yet at the point where they are widely used but they will be.. It is not terribly difficult to convert current SOTA speakers to use Digital Corsovers instead of Passive ones... This will be done and soon... I would like Jeff Fritz to tell us if he is not planning this exactly... since this is parts and parcels of the behold system which by the way is COMPLETEY digital up to the output power stage... The time is now and you will see it soon.. Tact is already there and those who have used it and some REALLY in the High End audio( I think one of Ob's friend use TacT and so does Morbius and Michel Fombellida of this forum, among many others) will not go back to use anything else... We may resist some but they are there and will come.. There some serious assault on the Ultra High End using these.. One a speaker from somewhere down under ( NZ or Australia) using the DeQX.. I don't think it is an orthoxy it is a fact .. whether we accept it or not Digital is upon us from the Video we watch to virtually Any music we now hear.. I personally would say that I listen now to 95% digital .. The Analog gear and I think I have a more than decent one ( Bsic TT/Graham/Koetsu/Burmester Phono Stage)s is used only on these Nostalgic moments were only a TT will do... I surmise that most here listen to more Digital than analog...

Point taken. I'm just a sucker for value at any price. The more value it has, the more I like it.

Again, you are not getting it.

you happen to define value as "Lowest cost with highest performance" others can have totally different definitions. where one finds value is what defines it.

if i feel that a 5k pair of speakers sounds fantastic, that means i find value in it. others may call me nuts for spending too much, or nuts for ignoring their "obvious" flaws.

the whole equation of value is the money vs. what i feel i get out of it. so if i decided to spend 130K for a pair of amps (complete and utter lunacy to most) because i felt that they were "worth it" then guess what... FOR ME... there is value there. and in many cases far greater percieved value as i forked over a f*$k of a lot more money there.


i know a forum member that to my reckoning has lots of money and can afford whatever he wants. but at the same time is a really cheap SOB. he saw a demo of one product that many feel has tremendous "value" due to what it does. but he could never buy it due to the fact that he felt the value was low due to his various perceptions about it. another product came along that many others feel is (while very cool) overkill and not providing tremendous value to a good system, but he dropped the money in a heartbeat (and it was much more than the other product) because he found value.

Value has nothing to do with the $ cost of something. it has to do with its perceived worth.

your definition john should read value= "as cheap as i can find while still sounding good"

And for the record that is also mine. but i could never see myself saying that one thing sounded "worse" because it was too expensive. The same as i could not when talking about a bottle of wine. (however i will ALWAYS get excited by the 92 pointer that is under 20$)
:D :D

every design is one of trade offs.

In the long run, digital has more ability to minimize the trade offs. but like any tool... it can also make them far worse.

If the technologies for DSP-based crossovers, etc. were available from good manufacturers on products which could actually compete AND WIN in listening quality with the current "big guns", the intelligent individuals on this forum and elsewhere would be buying them with all those piles of money. They just haven't matured the technology to that market level yet.
Meridian have been making digital active speakers with DSP-based crossovers for years yet they are rarely mentioned. Is it because most people have not heard them?

i know a forum member that to my reckoning has lots of money and can afford whatever he wants. but at the same time is a really cheap SOB. he saw a demo of one product that many feel has tremendous "value" due to what it does. but he could never buy it due to the fact that he felt the value was low due to his various perceptions about it. another product came along that many others feel is (while very cool) overkill and not providing tremendous value to a good system, but he dropped the money in a heartbeat (and it was much more than the other product) because he found value.



smacks of a fellow BAAS member ;)

the whole equation of value is the money vs. what i feel i get out of it. so if i decided to spend 130K for a pair of amps (complete and utter lunacy to most) because i felt that they were "worth it" then guess what... FOR ME... there is value there. and in many cases far greater percieved value as i forked over a f*$k of a lot more money there

Today on E Network there was a show labelled "The Most Expensive"

There were cocktails starting at $80,000 and going up to almost a million. There was a dog collar for over $1.5 million. There were purses starting at 50,000 and going to $500,000. There was an Evian Water bath for $5000 and even a diamond massage for $1 million. They even had the new Bugatti for $1.8 million

There were people buying these without hesitation because they found some value in them. It was startling to say the least

ANdrew

Let it be clear that I am NOT defending the derailers.. but when someone opine he/she should be prepared to defend his/hers point of view... If for that person a given product utilzing a particular technology is superior to those being discussed I don't think there is anything wrong with that unless the person has NO experience whatsoever with the product (sometimes they don't even have ANY experience with both the products nor its supposed competition)... This is close to pathetic but yes we have seen that kind of behavior: Well for what it costs I will bet that the zybhyut Model 876 at $3,500 is definetely superior to the overpriced offering of WilsoMgicoRockShweikrt Model X-2VR9M6.... When the poster then add that he/she has not heard the Zybhyut nor the WMRVR speakers... This is too common and we are all tired of such bhavior but the fact that an item is >100K does not protect it from being overtaken in performance quality by another costing.. well $2500 and we should keep this in mind in our discussions >20K forum or not!!

Meridian have been making digital active speakers with DSP-based crossovers for years yet they are rarely mentioned. Is it because most people have not heard them?

This probably falls under the category of "well-exposed/marketed" that I mentioned in the previous post. I hear from others (haven't heard them myself) that they're quite good, by the way.

Lee

I will go to bed. else at this rate of posting I will reach 10K post in a year

:)

When performance is the stated goal it better be there.. The Bugatti will not be ran down by most any cars this side of a Formula One If Performance and Not Status is the metric then I need my car to go faster, corner better and overall provide a better experience than the cheaper car.. Nothing more humiliating than a 350Z overrunning a Ferrari Not Cool ..Not cool at all...

There some serious assault on the Ultra High End using these.. One a speaker from somewhere down under ( NZ or Australia) using the DeQX


You mean this $140k DEQXed Arvus:

http://www.arvusloudspeakers.com/images/storypic1.JPG
http://www.arvusloudspeakers.com/prerenaissance_specifications.html

BTW, better than the JBL/Revel example I suggested would be Dynaudio....their pro division, Dynaudio Acoustics, has an active digital series, the AIR series...maybe we'll see the technology applied to the consumer side, in time.

if we could please limit posts to the thread topic?

thank you

if we could please limit posts to the thread topic?

thank you
I've scrolled through 8 pages of this thread trying to find some meaningful discussion about the V3 - I've yet to find anything remotely concerned with this speaker. Does anyone have any experience with ii in a proper acoustic environment, and how does it compare with the sound of live music?

I've scrolled through 8 pages of this thread trying to find some meaningful discussion about the V3 - I've yet to find anything remotely concerned with this speaker. Does anyone have any experience with ii in a proper acoustic environment, and how does it compare with the sound of live music?

If it is any help, the room I heard them in was just as good as Jonathan Valin's room... He doesn't acoustically treat his room either, or at least he didn't while reviewing the Minis. Likewise some other glowing review articles were written under similar untreated circumstances as well.

He is asking about the V3, not the Mini you moron. What a bore…

I heard these a couple months ago in a dedicated listening room powered by Krell equipment (don't recall exactly). The dealer was still burning them in as they just arrived. They sounded quite revealing with a nice scale to the music.
Sorry can't recall much as I was in a hurry and listened for less than 10 minutes.

I look forward to auditioning the Mini's and the V3's soon with V.A.C. electronics. I'll let you know how it goes...

Did anyone else participate on rec.audio.high-end or rec.audio.opinion? Do they still have newsgroups? Reminds me of the days of the sock puppets with Steve Zipser and Brian McCarty...

All you need to do is search all posts made by HWoo:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/search.php?searchid=14848955

HWoo is a sock puppet...

We had an instance where I'd left a powered PJ screen down for several months and for several months I couldn't figure out why my speakers all sounded out of phase when they were clearly hooked up properly. Then one day, I looked at the screen, it looked at me, and I pressed the button on the remote, it went up and imaging went back to normal.
That is one of the reasons I use a woven AT screen.

Wow, why would anyone pull on this thread after an entire year?!

I haven't heard any Magico speakers since that last time I mentioned. I don't really see a need to go listen to anyone else's speakers anymore. I'm extremely satisfied with the Revel Ultima2 series I have. I'm especially pleased with how they sound in my rebuilt HT...

I will say, I think the look of the Magico Mini is exceptionally pretty. I wasn't overly impressed with their sound though, especially when compared to the Dynaudio Confidence C1 in a similarly sized and treated room. When you consider the cost difference and sound difference, there is no question in my mind which one I would buy...

I haven't listened to the Revel Gem2 in stereo positions, but considering how good the surround sound is in my new setup, I would wager they measure as well as the Confidence C1 and would warrant a comparison if someone is in the market at that price range. There is no question that the professional pedigrees of both companies, research-wise, are impeccable.

Wow, why would anyone pull on this thread after an entire year?!

I haven't heard any Magico speakers since that last time I mentioned. I don't really see a need to go listen to anyone else's speakers anymore. I'm extremely satisfied with the Revel Ultima2 series I have. I'm especially pleased with how they sound in my rebuilt HT...

Didn't you mention at one point you were probably go the pro route in your second build? What changed your mind?

I will say, I think the look of the Magico Mini is exceptionally pretty. I wasn't overly impressed with their sound though, especially when compared to the Dynaudio Confidence C1 in a similarly sized and treated room. When you consider the cost difference and sound difference, there is no question in my mind which one I would buy...

I haven't listened to the Revel Gem2 in stereo positions, but considering how good the surround sound is in my new setup, I would wager they measure as well as the Confidence C1 and would warrant a comparison if someone is in the market at that price range. There is no question the professional pedigree of both companies research-wise is impeccable.

How does Gem 2 compare to Salon 2 if you ignore the low-end?

Didn't you mention at one point you were probably go the pro route in your second build? What changed your mind?

I didn't think it was necessary to replace the Revels; they are excellent speakers all around. It would have been an unnecessary waste of money IMO. Also, the Gem2s are very well built width-wise; they fit easily into columns.

I did however change my amps to QSC and added the QSC 922s as well for signal processing. The setup is as close to an active speaker design that I think I will get while still using passive speakers.

How does Gem 2 compare to Salon 2 if you ignore the low-end?

The surround field doesn't have any incongruities as far as I can tell in terms of tonal quality. The subwoofers in my setup (4 JL Audio Fathom F113s) handle the majority of the very bottom frequencies all around for all the speakers. If I knew I would end up with a room like the one I currently have, I would have gone with three Studio2s and the six Gem2s, instead of three Salon2s and six Gem2s. I think the bottom end on the Salon2 is likely wasted in my setup since the Fathoms cover everything sufficiently. Thunder, like the thunder at the beginning of the second Pirates of the Caribbean, literally shakes your insides!

I haven't done any direct comparisons with the Gem2, Studio2 and Salon2 to say how any would do with stereo only when compared to one another.

How does Gem 2 compare to Salon 2 if you ignore the low-end?

As you are likely aware, it is not possible to ignore the low end, and in my setup I can't turn it off right now. I would imagine, since the tonal quality seems to be imperceptibly the same to me so far, that the difference would be the visceral low end power in a direct comparison, which is something that is very nice to have, but which is something that can be added with a subwoofer as well (sometimes with better results). I'm not sure how deep the Gem2 goes on its own (independent measurement wise).

As you are likely aware, it is not possible to ignore the low end

You actually can if you have some good separate subwoofers and in your case, you do.

I was just curious if any additional benefits Salon 2s offered other than having deeper bass.

Thanks for the response.

You actually can if you have some good separate subwoofers and in your case, you do.

I was just curious if any additional benefits Salon 2s offered other than having deeper bass.

Thanks for the response.

What I meant was: you can't ignore it in my setup because I don't have the ability to turn off the low end right now. Likewise, if it is in the signal it isn't ignorable as it is integral to the entire harmonic sound. You can focus in on different frequency ranges, but your comparison is still clouded by the sound difference. If you set a crossover and cut out the low end, then you can do a uncolored comparison. Otherwise, human perception gets in the way...

I haven't directly compared the two, but I don't notice any tonal differences offhand. As per the above though, it isn't an exacting apples to apples comparison...

What I meant was: you can't ignore it in my setup because I don't have the ability to turn off the low end right now. Likewise, if it is in the signal it isn't ignorable as it is integral to the entire harmonic sound. You can focus in on different frequency ranges, but your comparison is still clouded by the sound difference. If you set a crossover and cut out the low end, then you can do a uncolored comparison. Otherwise, human perception gets in the way...

I haven't directly compared the two, but I don't notice any tonal differences offhand. As per the above though, it isn't an exacting apples to apples comparison...

I understand what you mean now. This still helped. Thank you.

Another thing to keep in mind, without a direct midrange comparison, I wouldn't be comfortable saying the Gem2, Studio2 and Salon2 are interchangeable. Now that I think about it, I may be getting more detail/nuance in the midrange with the additional cone. So I guess I was incorrect, I wouldn't switch from the Salon2 to the Studio2 without a direct comparison...