Was extremely skeptical going in for the listening session that lasted for an entire evening. Best system I have ever heard and best system my business partner has ever heard, full stop. Sources were Studer A80, EMT 950 turntable and Naim streamer.
The Studer ruled
(No beaming btwy just a scale, force and musicality I was not prepared for.)
The Studer ruled
(No beaming btwy just a scale, force and musicality I was not prepared for.)Attachments
Last edited:
Hard to see from the photo but seems to be nice mid horn, some super tweeter thing going on and those woofer towers, three way system? Whats below the mid horn, fridge full of beer?:d Mid horns look good to eye, good mouth termination and construct doesn't seem to be close and thus interfere mucho.
That ALE-based system seems more thoughtful/logical compared to the plethora of mid/high drivers combined with Aura woofer + bass-tube in the Magico Ultimate.Was extremely skeptical going in for the listening session that lasted for an entire evening. Best system I have ever heard and best system my business partner has ever heard, full stop. Sources were Studer A80, EMT 950 turntable and Naim streamer.
The Studer ruled
It may be indicative of Magico's philosophy: relying on static data (bandwidth, among others) and believing that you can forge a coherent system based on that. While anyone with basic knowledge of horn loudspeakers can intuitively feel that you need to carefully match the core characteristics of individual driver (+ horn) sections. This certainly applies to Salmon-type horns as used in the Magico.
Last edited:
Can you please tell a bit more about what all are considered as static data in loudspeaker design, especially with respect to horn loudspeaker design?
Also, if possible, could you elaborate a bit more about what are the considerations/design methodologies one should keep in mind in such a design if one is to design a coherent system?
Static data: parameters, passbands, number of drivers, individual measurement (performance) data (per driver/horn), footprint/dimensions etc.
Preferably one should possess a broad understanding and experience with horn loudspeakers to get an idea of what's possible within certain defined design objectives. It seems to me that the Magico Ultimate is the result of the idea to develop a full-range, largely horn-loaded, multi-way system by cramming as much vintage (high-end) horn technology as possible into a given footprint.
The bass tube seems to be a misplaced afterthought. I'm not saying it can't work, but it's far from ideal and imo definitely an unacceptable compromise in a $700.000 system.
Compared to the system airvoid posted, the Magico is much smaller, but nevertheless contains more ALE compression drivers, so more crossover points including all the headaches. Not to mention the directivity issues involved. Each driver in the Magico covers a small band, which meets the ideal of the multiple horn system on paper, but is notoriously difficult and very time-consuming to get right.
This is the domain of dedicated horn aficionados, commonly found in Asia. Such systems are so complex that personal vision/preference will inevitably play a major role. For these and other reasons, I was not surprised that the Magico Ultimate was received extremely critically.
I would never develop such a system from a commercial point of view, but opt for something that is more 'manageable'.
Preferably one should possess a broad understanding and experience with horn loudspeakers to get an idea of what's possible within certain defined design objectives. It seems to me that the Magico Ultimate is the result of the idea to develop a full-range, largely horn-loaded, multi-way system by cramming as much vintage (high-end) horn technology as possible into a given footprint.
The bass tube seems to be a misplaced afterthought. I'm not saying it can't work, but it's far from ideal and imo definitely an unacceptable compromise in a $700.000 system.
Compared to the system airvoid posted, the Magico is much smaller, but nevertheless contains more ALE compression drivers, so more crossover points including all the headaches. Not to mention the directivity issues involved. Each driver in the Magico covers a small band, which meets the ideal of the multiple horn system on paper, but is notoriously difficult and very time-consuming to get right.
This is the domain of dedicated horn aficionados, commonly found in Asia. Such systems are so complex that personal vision/preference will inevitably play a major role. For these and other reasons, I was not surprised that the Magico Ultimate was received extremely critically.
I would never develop such a system from a commercial point of view, but opt for something that is more 'manageable'.
Last edited:
It is difficult to give an unambiguous/universal answer, since it strongly depends on the objectives.
A direct radiating woofer section + waveguide/horn requires a different approach than a fully hornloaded system. And between/outside these 2 categories, different variants are conceivable.
Perhaps my post after the next one can provide a little more insight, based on listening experience.
Last edited:
If distortions are down...then what is the missing character...I suspect a high efficiency system to be the system that delivers this missing factor? There must be some other measurable component that reaches your expectations.....It is obviously direct energy, right? The Magico, maybe Its like being one step closer to headphones in comparison to the large accumulation of Sd and Horn/waveguide Mouth area in the largest high efficiency systems....As known, people have tried to re-introduce the physical signal that is sometimes included in bass, in real life, and with many large transducers involved. When you listen to a a rock track and the snare cracks in your favorite song.....If you've ever been in the presence of a drum set in real life...or in a performance setting meant for acoustic drums....you likely will feel the snare through your body....As flat of a FR the system may produce with such little distortion....if the system can not re-create the pressure needed to induce the same tactile experience as the real snare drum.....You body knows it, and you notice a difference, in particular if you are very familiar with the real life experience.... I'm guess that this is mainly an issue of the peak transient being clipped? Or is it something to do with radiation mass size affect on the balance between spl and the air movement involved to create the spl? Maybe more of the first and a little of both. I believe on some level we can hear "size" and with a speaker system, the creator of the signal is somewhat fixed where as in real life the signal creator, is its own size and shape, as well. So the instruments that suffer most, are the ones that are larger than the transducer?
Its just a direct energy bath...... Here ya go....How much direct energy can you create in a way that shows respect the aspects of proper design.....
They say you cannot locate bass in a anechoic chamber..... Have they experimented with small vs large bass drivers within the direct field and everything in between?
Last edited:
Whered the beaming go? The mid horn was crossed before it took place or you just were able to sit back far enough? Judging by how offset some of the sources are, I'd imagine you'd have to sit back a decent amount. Either way, it'd be nice to know the Xo points!
I'd choose beaming over Banding, any day
Troy Crowe is working on a bass unit that would work in 2 way with the right driver and horn, IMHO: https://josephcrowe.com/blogs/news/design-study-front-horn-loaded-reflex-cabinet
Modern Monitors
2 well-known quotes from F. Nietzsche:
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed."
"There are two different types of people in the world, those who want to know, and those who want to believe."
With regard to the first quote, it can be considered that absolute truth is not attainable to man.
Mindful of the almost religious, cult-like group of measurement minions and those shortsighted by 'science' on ASR, I'd like to share our impressions of 2 highly regarded monitor systems:
The rooms of both brands were next to each other, which allowed for an almost direct comparison.
In the photo of the Kii room, Kii Three BXTs are visible. In front of the opposite wall a pair of Kii Three's without the sub modules were set up and - luckily - these were demonstrated when we entered the room.
A classical piano piece was played and it was immediately clear that the piano sounded more like a real piano than we experienced a few minutes earlier through the much larger loudspeakers of the well-known piano manufacturer (Steinway Lyngdorf Model A > unbearable boom boxes).
Few speakers have generated as many positive reviews and comments as the Kii Three. And admittedly: despite my skepticism about the unconventional, fully technology-driven approach, the Three lived up to my (high) expectations.
The cardioid sound dispersion pattern works as promised/expected and the integration of the different drivers is extremely good.
If you're looking for a compact active monitor system for a small to medium-sized room, for which 100dB is sufficient, then you can buy the Kii almost blindly.
I hesitated... but am going to launch it anyway, the term 'natural sound'. Since I pointed this thread to my brother (there are several WBF threads related to this term), he uses it extensively to characterize a system.
(Funny detail: the OP of the long thread owned both Magico Mini II and Q3s before swapping his modern high-end set for some vintage equipment.)
It goes too far to define the term, so I'll leave that to intuition.
Is the Kii Three capable of (re)producing 'natural sound'?
Judging by the limited first impression, I'd say: it's probably better than many high-end speakers and studio monitors.
My brother had more doubts. Our buddy - who's less into audio technology, thought the Kii were among the best speakers at the show.
After an introductory story about the new MU1 streamer by Eelco Grimm (Guido Tent was standing next to me) a piece of music by Aaron Copland (Fanfare for the Common Man - Minnesota Orchestra) was played, an excellent recording. This was followed by another track with a female singer, if I remember correctly. Due to the cabinet design, the wide baffle and the separate subs, the LS1 can be used (free standing) in larger spaces. The dispersion is also wider than that of the Kii and the speaker sounds more spacious as a result.
My expectations were high and the Grimms could only partially meet them.
Although the coherence between the LS1be and the subs - placed near the walls, was quite good, I still had the impression of listening to different driver signatures, especially in the mid/highs. I've always had my doubts about beryllium, and those doubts have been confirmed rather than dispelled.
The homogeneity of the Kii was lacking and the Copland track sounded somewhat artificial. In our opinion, the Grimm loses out to the Kii in terms of 'natural sound'
2 well-known quotes from F. Nietzsche:
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed."
"There are two different types of people in the world, those who want to know, and those who want to believe."
With regard to the first quote, it can be considered that absolute truth is not attainable to man.
Mindful of the almost religious, cult-like group of measurement minions and those shortsighted by 'science' on ASR, I'd like to share our impressions of 2 highly regarded monitor systems:
- The Kii Three
- The Grimm Audio LS1be.
The rooms of both brands were next to each other, which allowed for an almost direct comparison.
In the photo of the Kii room, Kii Three BXTs are visible. In front of the opposite wall a pair of Kii Three's without the sub modules were set up and - luckily - these were demonstrated when we entered the room.
A classical piano piece was played and it was immediately clear that the piano sounded more like a real piano than we experienced a few minutes earlier through the much larger loudspeakers of the well-known piano manufacturer (Steinway Lyngdorf Model A > unbearable boom boxes).
Few speakers have generated as many positive reviews and comments as the Kii Three. And admittedly: despite my skepticism about the unconventional, fully technology-driven approach, the Three lived up to my (high) expectations.
The cardioid sound dispersion pattern works as promised/expected and the integration of the different drivers is extremely good.
If you're looking for a compact active monitor system for a small to medium-sized room, for which 100dB is sufficient, then you can buy the Kii almost blindly.
I hesitated... but am going to launch it anyway, the term 'natural sound'. Since I pointed this thread to my brother (there are several WBF threads related to this term), he uses it extensively to characterize a system.
(Funny detail: the OP of the long thread owned both Magico Mini II and Q3s before swapping his modern high-end set for some vintage equipment.)
It goes too far to define the term, so I'll leave that to intuition.
Is the Kii Three capable of (re)producing 'natural sound'?
Judging by the limited first impression, I'd say: it's probably better than many high-end speakers and studio monitors.
My brother had more doubts. Our buddy - who's less into audio technology, thought the Kii were among the best speakers at the show.
After an introductory story about the new MU1 streamer by Eelco Grimm (Guido Tent was standing next to me) a piece of music by Aaron Copland (Fanfare for the Common Man - Minnesota Orchestra) was played, an excellent recording. This was followed by another track with a female singer, if I remember correctly. Due to the cabinet design, the wide baffle and the separate subs, the LS1 can be used (free standing) in larger spaces. The dispersion is also wider than that of the Kii and the speaker sounds more spacious as a result.
My expectations were high and the Grimms could only partially meet them.
Although the coherence between the LS1be and the subs - placed near the walls, was quite good, I still had the impression of listening to different driver signatures, especially in the mid/highs. I've always had my doubts about beryllium, and those doubts have been confirmed rather than dispelled.
The homogeneity of the Kii was lacking and the Copland track sounded somewhat artificial. In our opinion, the Grimm loses out to the Kii in terms of 'natural sound'
Last edited:
You can see the chair I was sitting in in the pic, I’d say about 4m, give or take.
All drivers are physically aligned, physical impact made most systems sound like matchstick models and that includes my own FIR controlled speakers with 10” BMS coax and 12” bass. Music played was appropriate elderly man stuff like Jimi Hendrix, Dylan and Peter Gabriel on vinyl and classical on 1/4” tape. Two horn loaded subs with dual 21” drivers by NNNN where also present below 80Hz.
This is the best speaker ever - full stop. Absolutely acoustically invisible to the audience! ;-)
People like Dr. Geddes have long stated that distortion figures of drivers are only relatively important > IOW most (Pro) drivers have distortion figures that are insignificant for normal listening conditions. That doesn't mean that they are completely irrelevant, but that they no longer fundamentally determine the experience. Naturally, things like diffraction, directivity, room characteristics etc. are equally important and also affect the experience.
In this thread many (sub) topics have been highlighted, often on the basis of scientific literature.
What I try to do is touch and map the bigger picture.
It has long been clear to me that you can't ignore the rest of the chain up to the source.
However it's beyond the scope of this thread to go into further detail about this.
Ultimately, my views and experiences are of course strictly subjective.
There are many people who've come down a similar path, often through a lot of experimentation.
Recently, I came across an interesting project. A group of DIYers who, in collaboration with a local loudspeaker manufacturer, developed a completely revised version of an existing 12" woofer. The re-engineering of the motor and moving parts was done with the parameters of the best high-end 12" woofers from the 1970s/80s in mind, like those produced by TAD and Coral.