Wilson use separate modules to isolate drivers from internal standing waves. Wilson Benesch use different design solutions depending on the model. The closest model in size/cost to the S5 Mk2 (Act One Evolution) uses a separate ported midrange/tweeter enclosure. Whilst Magico use a Computer-modeled midrange enclosure designed to optimally isolate the midrange from the backwave of the bass drivers & breakup internal standing waves, so it works a bit differently.
Yes melbguy thanks. It appears that even a company so focused on aluminum recognizes excellent enclosures can be made from other materials; as Wilson has advocated the benefits of composites and used them for years. Interesting departure for Magico I feel, and sensible. But I wonder it detract from the "permanence" of the all-metal efforts?
Companies like Wilson, Wilson Benesch and Rockport have long experience designing composite cabinets. Similarly Magico have long experience using aluminium cabinets. Most loudspeakers have some compromise to balance cost and performance, whilst Magico’s M3 and Rockport’s Lyra are more cost no object designs. If Magico used the M3’s composite carbon cabinet for the S5 Mk2, it would probably add $15k to the price.
I can certainly attest that the Magico S5 mk2’s aluminium cabinet is highly inert, even on energetic music passages. That is due to a number of design features incl: sheer mass (1/2" thick cabinet walls), a curved cabinet, heavy bottom plate with 4 point outrigger feet, machined 3D convex top plate etc. Though being aluminium, the cabinet still needs a little help. So Magico use 5-layer damping mats to prevent any audible ’excitement’ from the cabinet.
The proprietary polymer material used for the midrange enclosure would have been chosen as it provides all the right qualities to meet the design goals, without the need to use more expensive moulded carbon fiber, or carbon composite material. You can see a frequency response curve of the S3’s midrange enclosure here - http://magico.net/product/s3.php
I think it’s just a plastic dish of a specific size, which is likely filled with some damping material (of celestial origins no doubt). Here is a video of the S3; discussion (and picture) of the polymer housing for the midrange is at about 9:45 mark.
As stated above, many manufacturers isolate the midrange in a closed/damped housing or chamber.
@cdk84, Magico were using Black Hole 5 or a similar product for the S5 Mk1. Here is a pic of the damping mats applied to an S5 - http://audioshark.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=10892&stc=1
I don’t know specifically which product they’re using for the S5 Mk2 as there hasn’t been any internal photos of an S5 Mk2 in the factory posted yet to my knowledge.
keithtexas100 posts02-18-2017 9:43amKeith, the shape of the enclosure is first designed using SOTA Finite Element analysis modelling tools, then then ultimately formed using a proprietary polymer material.
You're right, most high end manufacturers isolate the midrange driver using either an isolated module (like Wilson) or midrange enclosure. Magico were using a midrange enclosure for the S5 Mk1 for example, though it was made of aluminium and had a no parallel surfaces. The S5 mk2's custom polymer enclosure takes it a step further and has much lower harmonic distortion.
Thanks melbguy. I looked at the graph and comments.
They claim " The unique shape and carefully chosen materials, when combined, create the ultimate "sound pressure absorption device.".
I can't help comparing it to B&W's very simple 'tapered tube';which they claim
" Nautilus tubes taper to make the sound from the rear of each driver disappear."
I can't understand a containment device being a sound pressure "absorption" device,except in a very limited fashion - compared to B&W simple system, using the horn principle in reverse.
Magico always seemed like a company that was started by someone with knowledge of sophisticated manufacturing techniques but who wasn't a particularly good speaker designer. They used their knowledge to create wildly overpriced products because they didn't have the experience to know how to apply their knowledge. In any case, super high-end stuff is mostly about talk. It's fun to discuss all the fancy techniques used even though we have no idea how much it really improves audible performance. Sure costs a lot, though.
Big money doesn't always mean great sound Magico speakers are good at 40% off or so.I sure hope there service got better.This being said there are many great sounding speaker out there many companies don't get the press Magico gets or the hype that Valin who gets everything for free gives them.Great sound to everyone enjoy!!
Yes, I know I was super-oversimplifying, in saying that the chamber looked like a plastic dish shape.
I realize that their design goals and manufacturing tolerances are all done toward state-of-the art results. At this level and with this company, I'm sure that nothing is done/included in the final product that is not for an engineering, quality, [and resulting sound] reason.
They are now using a ’polymer’ sub-enclosure in their S5 MK 11 - for the ’critical’ midrange
There is a difference between building the entire cabinet from a polymer, a very damp material, not suitable for optimal bass and highs enclosure and drivers coupling, and using it as an internal midrange enclosures, which a polymer damping characteristic is ideal for.
Without precisely addressing the "damping" properties of their
polymer sub enclosure-- as the
"specs" of the polymer are unknown to me-- I feel the shape of the
sub enclosure is of more benefit in breaking up other backwaves in
the overall cabinet enclosure, rather than benefiting the elimination of the
mid range backwave. Here is a paragraph from a piece done by Doug Blackburn
which I find appropriate and succint;
" Undamped backwave energy can bounce around inside the speaker several times, eventually hitting the back of the driver’s cone again. When the backwave hits the back of the cone, the cone radiates some of that sound into the room as distortion. The backwave sound is delayed and decorellated. It is no longer related to the sound on the original recording; it has become distortion. The delayed backwave sound did not exist in the original recording, and this makes it distortion."
The laws of physics are what make cones radiate the same amount of
sound to the rear as well as the front.
Perhaps Magico has a magic stuffing material?
Where does that energy go?
Another interesting Magico thing (to me anyway) is the Magico factory pic I saw in a mag someplace that clearly shows an inexpensive QSC GX3 pro power amp sitting there…I love mine for concert gigs (monitor amp usually), and can assume Magico loves theirs…it cost me around 200 bucks new (Guitar Center price matching score). I don't recommend these for home audio as the fan noise is somewhat intrusive, but if you want 300 plus watts per side in a 30 pound amp, there ya go.
ptss OP1,295 posts03-10-2017 11:56amWithout precisely addressing the "damping" properties of their
This is speaker building 101, any "box" loudspeaker has to deal with that issue. If you wish to know how successful Magico is in doing so, look at the THD measurements of the S5, the lowest ones the NRC ever measured ( http://soundstage.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1043:nrc-measurements-mag...).
Thanks hc707. Agreed re speaker building 101;precisely why it's brought up.
Absolutely magnificent results.I have never questioned the speakers specs.
I brought up the design to discuss the the physics of the design.
My final comments were about stuffing material within the mid enclosure; with
the question 'where does the energy go?".
It remain a very reasonable enquiry.
Do you know anything about what's inside the enclosure?
Either materials or internal design?