LOL
I read Stringreen's comment and had a hunch.
It proved true when I saw his system.... Vandersteen speakers.
And I agree!
None of these lines, Magico/Wilson/YG/etc. can claim to be "anti-audiophile" speakers compared to the Vandersteens. All things being relative. |
"Both Wilson and Evolution are very impressive products, but both are heavily "voiced" and have very little to do with the "Fidelity" part of the phrase "High-Fidelity"."
To be fair, so is Magico.
Just one example. Taking a beryllium tweeter and placing it in the center of a 10"-15" wide Aluminum baffle. (Width depending on Q5 or Q7) will absolutely have tons of hard diffraction distortion. This is a simple law of physics. And the gentle contour of said baffle is not nearly enough to compensate for this.
In other words, Magico is "voiced" as well, in order to compensate for this.
I have extensive experience with both Wilson and Magico and neither one is of greater "Fidelity" than the other across a large spectrum of music. Just different flavors.
For what it's worth, I usually prefer Magico between the major players. (heavy emphasis on usually.) But ultimately none of them are of any greater absolute Fidelity.
But as Stringreen said, what do I know? LOL. |
Taking a closer look at the entire Q line, a few things become obvious.
A) They all use the same tweeter/midrange
B) All of the drivers come from the same family of design
C) All cabinets are of the same rigid aluminum construction
D) Crossover parts are all the same
E) Aside from the Q1, they are all four way designs
So the only differences will be the size of the mid-bass driver and the size of the pair of the woofers.
What this means, practically speaking, is that the entire Q line should sound the same with the exception of total linearity in the bass. Bigger drivers = more efficient coupling with the room they are in = greater dynamic linearity = the ability to play louder without any sense of strain.
I would be very doubtful that, for instance, the Q5 and Q7 sound much different given a sound level that didn't push the Q5 to it's limits. (assuming the same associated equipment and room size) If they did sound much different, I would be either very wary of their design or vary wary of the validity of the listener's abilities.
Also, in the endless arguments over the various big time speakers, the most fundamental differences are so often overlooked!
Magico=Carbon Fiber drivers
YG=Aluminum drivers
Wilson=some sort of ridgid phenolic
Evolution Acoustic=Ceramic
THIS singular point is going to be THE overriding quality that dictates their sound. Not so much cabinet construction and what not. (They are all sufficiently herculean in that regard.)
To me, the EA sound great but with an obvious ceramic quality. The YG can sound pretty decent, but with an obvious aluminum quality, and so on and so forth.
Nothing more than design choices. Nothing more than flavors.
So the arguments over which is higher "Fidelity" is pointless.
(though the EA does have arguments in this area, but for different reasons and ones that are masked by the ceramic colorations. different topic, different thread) |
"the Q7 have completely different drivers (magnet)than rest of the range"
Highly, HIGHLY doubt it. Looking closely at them, I have no reason to believe this.
Perhaps you can try to explain the differences. But I believe there to be none of any significance.
"I believe that defining a speaker by the drivers material used is a bit simplistic"
Not as it pertains to this discussion. The EA sounds different from all the rest of the ceramic based speakers because it at least makes some attempt to preserve the time domain. (Ie. 1st order slopes, time alignment) THIS is the reason for sounding different from other ceramic speakers. But it does not eliminate the ceramic flavor of the EA.
I am quite experienced with all of these speakers. Of them, the EA is by far my favorite (because, considering the time domain, it is of significantly higher fidelity than the rest. This is indisputable.) But, try as I might, I can't quite get past the ceramic flavor that influences the sound.
The relative similarities of the type of things that MOST impact the sound of a speaker between the rest does, pretty much, boil down to driver material. Not exclusively, obviously, but is of very high significance.
The carbon fiber cones tend to impact the sound less than ceramic or aluminum, which is probably why I would gravitate towards Magico as a close second to EA.
However, for my expectations, neither are worth owning long term. |
I stand partially corrected regarding the driver design. Stronger magnets will, indeed, increase the efficiency. But more than likely, it's just the woofers that make up that difference.
Tweeters that produce 94dB is easy, especially with neodymium. The same with midrange.
Woofers are little more difficult. More than likely, the original tweeters and midrange are now able to perform without being attenuated to match the woofers in the Q5.
This is a good thing, no matter how you look at it. Removing or reducing resistor value does help with dynamics.
Higher spl does usually equate with greater dynamics, all else being equal.
So I'll split the difference. I still think the tweets and midrange are the same. Bigger and badder woofer design now help in more ways than size alone.
As far as my musical tastes go, it is literally everything. Which is why none of these speakers find they way into my home on a permanent basis. It's difficult, but I require my speaker to perform well on all types of music. |
From one of the Sounstage articles on CES2012.....
"The point here is that these new ultra-powerful magnets have allowed Magico to design and build drivers so efficient that the overall sensitivity of the Q7 is rated at 94dB, which is quite high for a sealed-box design."
Now, see, I really respect a lot of what Magico does. But this quote just frustrates me. What's left to respect about the writer when you look deeper into the truth?!
Magico obviously uses the 1W method of measuring their SPL for marketing reasons. (See Stereophile measurements of Q5 as a reference.) This means that their ACTUAL sensitivity is more like 91dB. This is still on the higher side of average. And still much higher than the Q5. But it just proves that the writer isn't remotely experienced enough to be making the claims he does.
For the record. It was almost 20 years ago (Long before Neodymium was being used) that Dunlavy was getting true 91dB sensitivity from cheap, off the shelf drivers, that used plain old and typical magnet materials. It was also a sealed box design.
Note: I'm not endorsing Dunlavy here. Just using them as an example in making a point.
This kind of BS just makes me roll my eyes and wonder why I even bother with "high end" stuff. |
Usermanual,
The vertical symmetrical array is not what gives the boost, per se. It's the doubling up of drivers. Depending on where the microphone is set-up when measuring, the location of those drivers is irrelevant.
Even then, it's only 3dB, not 6dB.
VSAs do achieve their optimal performance at the point where all the drivers integrate. For the Dunlavy, this was 10ft. Even so, you're only talking about -1dB differences when measuring significantly closer than this.
With regards to Magico, changing to stronger magnets (This is precisely what higher grades of neodymium does.) does not change eddy currents so much. It's the shape of the magnet and it's structure that effect this. Stronger magnets are useful in 1)overcoming heavier diaphragms, 2)Overcoming stiffer compliance of driver suspension. Thats it.
Even so, comparing the Q5 and the Q7, the only obvious difference is a slightly larger Midbass unit as well as a pair of larger woofers. Ie. the Q7 is moving more air than the Q5. This by itself does not equate to the significantly increased sensitivity. For a given driver, heavier (Ie. larger) diaphragm = lower sensitivity. Thus the need for stronger magnets.
Regardless, none of this has to do with my point. The point of my last entry was the relative ignorance of the press which seemed was assigning cause/effect relationships regarding the Q7 that were more or less not relevant.
I have not doubts that the Q7 is better than the Q5, in an overall sense. But, as I originally stated, I believe these differences are probably more relative to the associated room and it's bass coupling, not breakthroughs in driver technology and what not. The two speakers are still going to sound more similar in sound than not. |
Stereotaipei,
I don't need to be arguing with anyone in order to express an opinion do I?
I think all you just did was say what I've said in a different way.
Why is this an issue? |
