Magico Q5

[richidoo]

Metal cabinet. Posh marketing. High price.

Watch for more "product of the year" awards. Magico is to TAS what Porsche is to R&T, bread and butter.

[mdconnelly]

Rich, I saw that on AVGuide today!  Beautiful speakers.  While the $54k pricetag is still way beyond the financial boundaries of my Christmas list, a guy can still dream....

I didn't see any indication on the size of those speakers - hard to tell from the picture...

[richidoo]

That's where I saw it too Mike..

It looks similar to the existing M5 in driver allotment. I think the Q series is supposed to be a lower cost version of the wooden M5? 54k? What a deal!

[mdconnelly]

But at $54k, it's $35k less than the M5!  What a deal! 

[richidoo]

Yes, this one definitely looks $35k better.  Could it sound that much better?

[richidoo]

This is what's inside:



Any NASA engineer would be proud. But is all that really necessary to enjoy a record?

[Carlman]

Necessary?  What hobby are you in, man?   
What really is necessary?

[richidoo]

I recently enjoyed Beethoven 9th symphony on a clock radio while I scrubbed the bathtub. I went to a dance recital last night, which used Bose sats. I thought they sounded incredible. My wife said, "You want those, don't you..." I nodded and said, "Do you think they'll trade with me?"   

It's Robb Report Syndrome. More better toys is never enough to fill the void within. Audiophile distraction is not emotional satisfaction.

[rollo]

Wow. I heard through the grapevine Magico uses Odyssey amps to voice his speakers. If so then 54,000 less the mega amp price might be considered a good value at that spectrum of our hobby. Tye Magico Mini at $29,000 was a delight to listen to with VAC gear at the last show in NY.
  For an additional 35K how much different or better could they be ? BMW or Magico tough decision.


charles

BTW great photos.
 

[rollo]

I recently enjoyed Beethoven 9the symphony on a clock radio while I scrubbed the bathtub. I went to a dance recital last night, which used Bose sats. I thought they sounded incredible. My wife said, "You want those, don't you..." I nodded and said, "Do you think they'll trade with me?"   

It's Robb Report Syndrome. More better toys is never enough to fill the void within. Audiophile distraction is not emotional satisfaction.

  Funny you should say that about the Bose speakers. I had the same experience a while a go at a party with a D.J. Several days later we we at the Mall and golly gee a Bose store. The HT was quite impressive. I had just bought a CD and asked to hear it in two channel. He asked why would I listen to two channel. Clueless  Anyway sounded very good no issues not tubes but the ol toe was a tapping.
  IMO Bose got a bad rap when they decided to market as they do. They did not want the retail game and fought the rags at the time. Politics is what IMO caused their reputation of a non audiophile product by the rags and the big time audio salons. They hated Bose why? Cause they offered a VG product for the money. Ever hear Bose with a good tubed amp ? you may just change your mind as what we have been told for years.


charles

[richidoo]

These sats played low and loud and ballsy. It was the dual 4" cubes, not the microdot things. In a small cabinet like that you can get the resonance up high and then boost the hell out of the bass if the driver can take it. It takes a lot of power and boost EQ but that's why you use the BOSE head unit. I think they discovered that the satisfying midbass is more valuable than smooth highs so cheapo amp with lots of power for the boost is a winning combo.

When we build Carl's subs it will be the same concept. Lots of small fast drivers in a very strong but small volume to raise the resonance above the bandpass. Add 3kW for boost and you have one slammin crystal clear sub.

[Black Sand Cable]

I must be dreaming here.......did I really just read positive comments about Bose?

If I'm dreaming, where the hell is Megan Fox & Brooke Burke? Usually when I'm dreaming they are front and center doing very naughty things.....

[richidoo]

You, John, are a closed minded BOSE denier. You will be sued for defamation. I am gonna turn you in right now.

But you have a point about Brook Burke  


I think you are trying to get bare naked ladies into every active thread on AN.

[tmazz]

Bose always had nice sounding drives.Their problem from an audiophile standpoint was one of coherence and imaging.  While people like Jon Dahlquist were working time alignment to lock in an accurate soundstage, Dr. Bose was pointing drivers in all kinds of directions at once which of course got sound to you in all kinds of confusing time differences because of the different length of the paths traveled. The drivers themselves were actually decent quality. I have a pair of Bose Roommates hooked up to my PC. The each contain one of the Bose 901 drivers and actually sound quite nice.

While Bose did not produce an "audiophile product,  he actually produces something that was quit sellable to the mass market. Bose realized that most speakers of that time did not have very accurate tonal response. By building a speaker with relatively good tonality he got the attention of the mass market consumers. he also realized that most people did not have a room that they could set up for sound and therefore would never be able to set up a pair of stereo speakers in a manner that would give them good imaging. By using his direct/reflecting philosophy he was able to get sound from a large area. Even though the speakers did not project an accurate, distinct or stable sound image most mid-fi people were impressed because it was "big". By giving people "more" sound (although not "good" sound) he was able to suck in a lot of mid-fi consumers. Along the same line, how many people will go to an all you can eat buffet were the food is all cheap junk and think they are getting a bargin because the get a large volume of (crappy) food, but wouldn't take that same amount of money ad spent is on a 9 oz Fillet Mignon because it is to small. It is the old quantity vs quality argument. And while we can argue that Dr. Bose did not know how to build speakers that sound good from our perspective, we have to admit that he found a market and was very good at building and selling speakers to his target market (which wasn't to audiophiles). Put another way, Bose will never be Usher, but then again they never wanted or tried to be.
So when looked at from the perspective  of who his products were designed for and what they did for that population (as well as how well they met the needs of and sold to that target market), I think that the Bose speakers are much more successful than audiophiles give then credit for. They don't meet our needs simply because they were never intended to in the first place (remember that old saying that there is a lid for every pot.)

[richidoo]

Floyd Toole's new book shows his blind testing research proving that most people prefer significant sidewall reflections compared to the accuracy of recording studio type reflection damping.

How about the Gallo sphere's? Aren't they similar to BOSE in philosophy? Small driver in a small cabinet? But the dual cube BOSE deliberately shoots HF beams direct and to the side, whereas the spherical cabinet of Gallo only beams direct HF, and eliminates diffraction. So I guess they are not really the same.