there are. do a quick search
86 responses Add your response
"As an owner of the Tidal Piano Cera, I have no problem with the reviewer comparing my $23,000 retail loudspeaker to the $39,000 Magico."
"the Tidal seemed to add a faint scrim of noise to each note, a single flaw that became a sonic roadblock: I couldnt ignore it."
I understand, but the problem is that Tidal's Diacera Contriva (same price category than the Q3 or more expensive) is doing exactly the same ...
I personnally dislike this kind of lacquer put on the music which makes it sound "nicer" for certain type of audiophile freak. This is not working and even disturbing for a musician or melomane listener.
Clavil, I only attempted to point out the unfairness in comparing one design that retails for 65% more, and where one is less likely to get a discount. If I came out with a new speaker product, I would want a reviewer to compare its performance to more expensive designs, not lower cost product(s). What is the sense in that? The Contriva Diacera is a more expensive than the Q3 and that comparison makes more sense to Magico IMO. Are you suggesting that the Contriva Diacera and Piano Cera have the same issues?
Well, I had read Jeff's review and was amazed at his euphoria about the Magicos. I have only had limited opportunities to hear both the Q3s and the Tidal Piano Ceras, but I heard nothing like what he described from either speaker. I've never thought much of any Magico, with the exception of the V3 and know a guy who sold his V3 to buy Tidal Contriva Diacera SEs.
All I can really say is that my conclusion would be the opposite of Jeff's. He must be very impressed, however, as the Magicos replace his Rockport Arrakises.
"I would want a reviewer to compare its performance to more expensive designs, not lower cost product(s). What is the sense in that? The Contriva Diacera is a more expensive than the Q3 and that comparison makes more sense to Magico IMO."
I believe he just compared the Magico to the Tidal because that is the last speaker he had in his room. He did the same thing when he compared the B&W 803diamond to the Tidal.
FWIW. When I had my V3, it was actually the Piano Cera which prompted me to order the Contriva. If anything, it was the previous Magicos I owned that had that faint scrim mentioned. An ever present lingering haze to their upper bass through mid which held back from my ultimately enjoying the system, more so the V3, and to a lesser extent the Mini2. Listening to the Piano minus those artifacts was a revelation then.
Upon receiving my Contriva, I was then asked to describe differences by fellow members, which I reluctantly commented simply by just saying--more connectedness to the music and felt as if veils have been lifted--finally! Yes, it is imo that much better, but then again so what, that it too cost much more comparing them would be meaningless based on pricing alone.
Now, the Q series I'm sure is a different and much improved animal. And if they are what they are reputed to be--would make a much more valid comparison. But still, we all hear things differently. And as far as me goes, I have neither the urge nor wants to make that comparison anymore. I've hopped off the speaker-go-round. Hope and pray! ;))
Re the Piano sounding loose, there is this variogain bass tuning incorporated. I see that in the review the reviewer chose the setting with that slight bass boost rendering a slightly relaxed yet looser presentation. Having one port plugged, could actually tighten things by quite a bit, less boost, but bass will tighten and go down noticeably deeper too. I guess the reviewer's room is on the large side thus dictates/preferred the use of previous setting.
Bvidman, I had forgotten that the Piano Cera review had used the (variotuning) bass boost setting as opposed to the flat/neutral setting which users in the small to medium sized rooms will prefer. Unlike the Contriva series, the Piano series does not have a provision for port plugging. BTW, don't want to see this thread turned into a Tidal vs Magico discussion. No doubt that both brands are world class.....
Ebm, I welcome your opinion, but no sale here. I do admire the Q3 cabinet, but I feel no vibrations with my Contrivas. Also I hear no magic in the Magicos that I hear with the Contrivas. Incidentally I doubt that the crossover in the Magicos can match that in the Diaceras.
I am not on a crusade for the Tidals, but I find the hype about the Magicos shockingly at odds with what I hear.
Look, he is the first reviewer, in a long time, that just said it as he heard it. I give him credit for that.
To my ear, the bigger Tidal sound exactly as he described the smaller one, plus, IMO some bass integration issues that the smaller one may not have. They are beautiful, however, and prompt "proud of ownership" feel that works quite well with certain people.
Tbg - Not here to defense Ebm or Magico, but if your posts about Tidal has not been Tidal greatest sales efforts, I am not sure what has. If there were ever any hype that is "shockingly at odds" with performance , Tidal hype will certainly wins, hands down.
;)) Guys, give it a rest.. I think they both are genuine and gallant efforts by two very competent manufacturers in the industry. We hear/buy what we like, no need to trash on other people's choice or preferences. Opinions are just that.
It is the norm that any brand which happens to be in the limelight to always be the most susceptible target. It happened to Wilson, as well Magico, and of recent, Tidal. I guess in a way it's better to lay low like some other excellent manufacturers, hence stirring less animosity in the market.
Holenneck, I own Tidal Contriva Diacera SEs and have never had Magico or Rockports in my room, but have had 27 other speakers in my rooms. I don't know how that really matters. All that I am saying is that I would not have bought my Tidals were I not greatly impressed and that I hear none of what Jeff talks about. Why he hears such and I do not also matters little. I also hear nothing in the Magicos that would cause me to buy them. The Rockports, however, are very impressive.
It is quite clear to me by now why some people do not "get" the Magico sound. It is the least hifi sounding loudspeaker out there. In comparison, some speakers, like the Wilson, sounds like a "Disneyland ride" and are much more exciting to listen to, at least initially. The experience we gotten accustom listening to hifi system is very different then the experience Magico offers. JV, JF and even PM all talks about that in their reviews of the Q5/3. If you looking for, or gotten used to, added "dressing" in your music listening environment the Magico will disappoint you.
for me the Contriva has an own sound .... every note of music coming out of this loudspeaker has some king of lacker put on it ...
it's like if a cook would be using all the time the same spice on every different dish ...
this is particularty disturbing if you hear mostly classical music as I do ...
it seems to me obvious that the Magico's Mini II is fare more neutral and shows a lot more details ...
I agree with Clavil about the Magico sound. I find it to be less "hifi". I first heard the V2 and then the Mini II. I bought the latter and listen mostly to classical music. I have since heard the Q3 in an excellent setting at my local dealership. It sounds less like a box than any box speaker I've ever heard. It is an incredible speaker and I wish I could afford to own it.
Lots of people don't like Magico speakers, and that's fine.
Tbg, I wasn't sure how to reply to your post. You really do not sound like you are "welcome" of anyone opinion or "glad" I found a speaker I like (Which I have not yet, that is why I am here, trying to learn more about the Q3). Since you got me going, I thought you may find this interesting as well - Randall Smith, another writer thoughts on the Q3's sound (Taken from whatisbestforum):
"Well, heard the Q3 for the second time last night and I must say that I am impressed. I have read Jeff's review and talked to him extensively about what he has been hearing, so I knew what to listen for. I must admit that the Q3 was a far better speaker than the Tidal. I heard far more ambient information through the Q3's than I have ever heard through any other speaker. The information seemed more forward or pronounced than I am accustomed to and was also more precise within the soundstage. I felt the Q was also a more composed speaker. At loud volumes, where too much energy can smear vocal images or blur the image of sharp guitar string, I felt the Q3 reproduced these sounds much better. Midrange was more clear and textured. I found the bass to be cleaner and clearer..."
This will be my last comment on the Tidal. Sorry if I offended anyone. I was simply impressed that a reviewer will stick his neck out so far and say it as he hears it. The Tidal are fine speakers, just not for me.
"I was simply impressed that a reviewer will stick his neck out so far and say it as he hears it"
I have to agree, Ultra Audio and Soundstage! are the only review publications I trust at all these days. I have heard a number of speakers they have reviewed and I tend to agree with them on almost every point. You also have to commend them on using the "National Research Council of Canada" to measure some of the speakers they review.
Tbg - Where are the measurements of anything coming out of Tidal? I find it interesting that these speakers have never been measured by any publication, at least non I could find. As if Tidal chooses who to give its product for review. Looking at Tidal Technology page, I was struck by the lack of real empirical information of any kind. I particularly like the conclusion: "It should not be difficult to confirm with one's own ears that a TIDAL speaker perfectly masters these disciplines. Hilarious, IMO.
Tbg- it's been repeatedly shown that mdf is poorer to other materials. I'm sure JA's measurements on a Tidal will clarify that as well at some point in the future.
But considering the price Tidal charges (24k for a 2.5 way and on up)--- I personally expect more. Magico's V2 has a better cabinet at 30% less (both 2.5 ways).
I'm sure the Tidals sound good---but my guess is that yet another mdf speaker with ceramic drivers won't make a push like Magico into the upper echelon. Perhaps i will be wrong, who knows.
Ramzika, I actually expect any manufacturer's website to be complimentary to one's own products. Sometimes bordering on a bit of hyperbole. Check out Wilson's advertisements in Stereophileas an example. I don't fault them one bit (whether Magico, Tidal, Wilson and YG). I mean if a manufacturer doesn't advocate for its own products either directly on its own website or through paid advertising, who will? FWIW in the case of Tidal, I don't recall ever seeing a print ad for Tidal.
Keith, in all fairness, I think we have to look at it both ways. Magico might be the better value for U.S consumers, likewise, the Tidal for those residing in Europe (Countries of origin). But for us in countries whereby both these products are equally imported, price of Tidal Cera nett just slightly below (few $Ks) that of the V2 (both brand new and discounted).