Magico vs Logan………..

I thought I'd give everybody a glimpse into a thread on another forum whereby the Montis (10k) is being compared to the mighty Magico Q7 (200k)……………..

http://www.audioaficionado.org/magico/25355-q7-vs-montis.html

Very interesting read. Toga's comments reflect what I experienced when first heard the Montis. I knew I had to have them even though I didn't have the $$$ at the time.

I heard the Magico Q7 driven by VAC gear in a 2-channel system purported to be worth $500,000 and I was underwhelmed. imho, Magico's sweet spot is the S5, a very fine speaker for far less money than the Q7.

My experience with the CLX has really changed my impressions of speakers in general. I dropped by the hi-fi store and gave a listen to a nice MAGICO S5 set-up with all the newest SIM-AUDIO MOON equipment (big mono-blocks, pre-amp, CD player, all higher end NORDOST interconnects ETC) and a REL subwoofer. I had my sights set on maybe getting the S5’s as a higher resolution speaker over my Dyn Audio C4’s, but before that could happen, I was introduced to the Martin Logan products and purchased the CLX’s.

Before I go too much further, comments on speakers and equipment (I do use the MOOM W-8 amplifier) in unfamiliar rooms and associated equipment should be tempered somewhat, your impression may vary from your own audio space and to the better or worse side of things. When it’s better in the store than you hear at home, you at least know what ultimate potential they may have in your room. If they sound worse, it’s hard to tell completely what the room or equipment might be doing.

That said, the “gap” between the S5’s and what I hear on my CLX was larger than I’d like to think the room could be responsible for. The room wasn’t too soft at all, but it was larger for sure. The general sound was typical of the constraints I hear, and the CLX make VERY easy to hear, on dynamic driver speakers. The resonance in the drivers seems to reverberate across all frequencies and “blend” the soundstage together into a more smeared soundstage with little space between each instrument. The tweeter sounded like a tweeter, with little of the reach across cymbals wide sonic spectrum that makes them sound “whole” and not played in parts. The chesty colored nature to mid range was very apparent. The sound stage was overly compressed and the expanse of the soundstage was very narrow with little depth of field. I used a CD I listen to all the time for evaluation purposes, so all the songs were well known, so WHAT I was hearing was well referenced to the CLX at home. Still, WHY it was so far off isn’t maybe completely the speaker.

MAGICO speakers are much less effected by this than most dynamic driver speakers I’ve listened to (there are plenty of speakers out there that I haven’t heard!) so I was sort of taken aback by the lack of resolution and overall crimped soundstage. No, the speakers were away from the rear walls and sidewalls. I even sat almost near field, which usually improves resolution at the expense of the sound stage size. The lower you went in the music, the better it got until I realized I really, really, like that REL subwoofer! The very deep bass was like cords of granite coursing through you. Not a fudged reverberation to be heard. It was dead nuts on every time. Now THAT would be nice with my CLX’s!

I found out there can be MUCH better bass than my Veleodyne DD10+ subs, and that the CLX are vastly more resolving than I even was aware of (you get used to your stuff!). So the S5’s aren’t nearly what they used to be in my ranking after owning the CLX. I do want to listen to the S5’s in a different room to figure out how the room may be influencing the overall sound. The gap that I heard tells me some performance is still on the table for the S5’s, but the large difference in resolution and sound stage is likely to be in the CLX’s advantage.

But, this emphasizes in-home audition on expensive speakers. The differences can be much more than you might expect, and can go either way in performance. The big CLX won’t take too kindly to small rooms, for instance. I’ve heard the Martin Logan products in three different places (Summit-X’s and CLX) and they always have retained their resolution and coherent sound with uncanny separation and a massively wide and deep sound stage. If you like the Martin Logan presentation, there seem to be few, if any, other products that duplicate it.

FYI, one of our local audio club members hosted a meeting yesterday with his new Magico S5's, driven by Pass XA 160.5 monoblocks, Pass XP-30 preamp, plus two JL Audio F112 subs! That was the closest thing to stats I've ever heard dynamic speakers sound! The integration of the Magico beryllium tweeter, midrange, and woofers was superb, and extraordinarily fast and revealing. He also used a Pass XVR-1 outboard crossover to dial-in his JL Audio subs. When he played the finale of Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition (organ transcription, but I forget which one), it sounded (and felt) like I was sitting in the middle of the pipe organ. On Jim Keltner's famous drum improv (Sheffield Drum and Track disc), the resolution of the cymbals varying tones was likewise astonishing. Granted, some of that extraordinary sound should be attributed to his reference Pass gear and superbly integrated subs. *IF* I ever wanted to replace my Summits with a dynamic speaker, the Magico S5's would certainly be on my "short list" for a listen. However, the Summits still reign supreme for WAF in my shared family/listening room setup.

I'd love to hear a properly set up CLX based system.

One of these days. Maybe I will go and visit my friend Roberto.

GG

Gordon Gray said:

I'd love to hear a properly set up CLX based system.

One of these days. Maybe I will go and visit my friend Roberto.

GG

Click to expand...

Or, keep your eyes open for another ML "Truth in Sound" demo closer to you... http://www.martinlogan.com/truth/index.php

sleepysurf said:

When he played the finale of Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition (organ transcription, but I forget which one), it sounded (and felt) like I was sitting in the middle of the pipe organ.

Click to expand...

But then, would that be your preferred choice of seating?

Bernard said:

But then, would that be your preferred choice of seating?

Click to expand...

Probably not, but I've never before experienced such palpable bass!

As a Q3 owner, that Q7 - Montis comparison got me really curious so I managed to secure a home audition of the Montis, mano y mano with the Q3. On a macro level, the q3 is the more refined speaker, smoother, cleaner, and to my surprise threw a more holographic, layered soundstage. In the crucial midband, it was a give and take. The Montis was superior in creating an illusion that vocalists were in the room with me, it was downright spooky. I've had lots of traditional cone type speakers in my room, and I've never heard such an astounding illusion of placing a vocalist RIGHT THERE. But this came at a price, a touch of midrange roughness/hardness compared to the q3's ultra clean rendition. What I found strange is that while the q3 had a weightier lower mid/upper bass which normally lends more "flesh" to images, the q3 simply could not bring vocalists in the room the way the Montis did. As I have stated, the q3 threw a wider, deeper and more layered soundstage, with the Montis spotlighting images at the front of the stage at the expense of those at the rear. The Montis had a stronger, punchier bass courtesy of the powered woofer vs the Magico's more controlled, tighter bass response. Overall, yes the Q3 is the better speaker but I now keep on looking for that elusive, life like "presence" that the Montis recreates, so much so that vocalists thru the Magico now sounds a touch hollow, a character I would have never attributed to the Magico's sound, at least until I experienced the Montis in my own system. It seems that despite the heroic efforts of Magico to eliminate the cabinet thru its complex, ultra heavy and inert construction, I'm now hearing it! So what's to do next when the Magico defended its turf but was bruised by its inability to match the Montis in that so vital, for me, "you are there" presence region?

Dafos, just to rub salt in your wound, i thought I might write that the soundstage width and depth you have heard from the Montis most likely will be much better after a couple of weeks optimization and experimenting with their placement, rake and toe-in .

I've not really experimented much with placement save for using the flashlight technique to set toe in. They're actually now at about 12 feet apart, positioned to the outside of q3's which are about 9.5 feet apart and which I'm hesitant to move for the time being cuz they're so heavy.

Dafos, upon reading your initial post on the differences between Montis and Q3 comparisons, I also had the suspicion that a lot of your issues with soundstage width, depth, and 3-dimensionality probably had more to do with careful placement and setup than with limitations of the speaker itself. ML's are very dependent on precise placement, toe-in, and room acoustics to get the most out of their capabilities.

I don't know how far back you are seated while listening but inside the Q3s would probably be better placment.

dafos said:

As a Q3 owner, that Q7 - Montis comparison got me really curious so I managed to secure a home audition of the Montis, mano y mano with the Q3. On a macro level, the q3 is the more refined speaker, smoother, cleaner, and to my surprise threw a more holographic, layered soundstage. In the crucial midband, it was a give and take. The Montis was superior in creating an illusion that vocalists were in the room with me, it was downright spooky. I've had lots of traditional cone type speakers in my room, and I've never heard such an astounding illusion of placing a vocalist RIGHT THERE. But this came at a price, a touch of midrange roughness/hardness compared to the q3's ultra clean rendition. What I found strange is that while the q3 had a weightier lower mid/upper bass which normally lends more "flesh" to images, the q3 simply could not bring vocalists in the room the way the Montis did. As I have stated, the q3 threw a wider, deeper and more layered soundstage, with the Montis spotlighting images at the front of the stage at the expense of those at the rear. The Montis had a stronger, punchier bass courtesy of the powered woofer vs the Magico's more controlled, tighter bass response. Overall, yes the Q3 is the better speaker but I now keep on looking for that elusive, life like "presence" that the Montis recreates, so much so that vocalists thru the Magico now sounds a touch hollow, a character I would have never attributed to the Magico's sound, at least until I experienced the Montis in my own system. It seems that despite the heroic efforts of Magico to eliminate the cabinet thru its complex, ultra heavy and inert construction, I'm now hearing it! So what's to do next when the Magico defended its turf but was bruised by its inability to match the Montis in that so vital, for me, "you are there" presence region?

Click to expand...

It's that Martin Logan "presence" that just seems to elude other speakers...and keeps me coming back, at a very reasonable price in comparison I might add!!!

I really have no idea how many hours this Montis has but the dealer, or more accurately sub dealer, didn't seem to use use it much in his showroom, preferring to showcase his other brands, Dynaudio and Wilson. Could this coarseness I hear in the mid to upper mids be a break in issue? I guess its time to roll up my sleeves and reposition the Montis to give it a fair shake in this audition.

Hola. I saw the Magico inside at the CES. The quality of the parts and also the framework, the skeleton of the speaker is very well designed and precision built. There are a lot of variables that were taken in care regarding the furniture and a possible resonance, the job here is superb! The only problem that I did find was that the overall sound there lacked magic to my ears...they sound nice, crystal clear, very dynamic, tons of resolution, but again, did not get the goose bumps that I usually get when I listen to my CLXs. Please understand that this is my liking, and not necessary yours. It is a super good product, with wide and enormous sound stage. But I do not get the intimate moments with the musician(s) as I get with my speakers. The voices are projected with the right size, female and male voices, and the lower mid-range is very impressive. But I think, with all respect, there is still a lot of inertia at the cone speakers. Remember that the diaphragm of ML weighs less than the air that it moves! Here we have no inertia at all, so the movement of the diaphragm will be as fast as the applied signal with the lack of phantom signals.

My CLXs are not perfect, but what you pay for them and what you get from them, makes me wonder and begs me to question my hearing whether I am right or wrong. Still getting the goose bumps very frequently. Happy listening!

Roberto, we love those 'goose bumps' !!

Roberto, many have ascribed that non involving quality to the Magico sound when listened to on its own or compared against all types of speakers. Certainly it belongs to the top tier of dynamic speakers currently available and it's sonic aberrations, where present, are vanishingly low. Otoh, the Montis has flaws that are way more apparent but yet, it's strengths are so captivating that when I listen to the Q3 now, I'm constantly looking for the missing ingredient. Strangely, and it could be the novelty, it seems easier to forgive the Montis' faults because of the things it does so well. And of course, I still don't own it so I'm getting a free ride here for now. Btw, I'm not new stats or planers, having owned an ESL 63 and a Maggie 1.6qr. Neither, in my opinion, comes close to the Montis and I assume to the CLX.

Fix it, don't explain it away.

dafos said:

Roberto, many have ascribed that non involving quality to the Magico sound when listened to on its own or compared against all types of speakers. Certainly it belongs to the top tier of dynamic speakers currently available and whose sonic aberrations, where present, are vanishingly low. Otoh, the Montis has flaws that are way more apparent but yet, it's strengths are so captivating that when I listen to the Q3 now, I'm constantly looking for the missing ingredient. Strangely, and it could be the novelty, it seems easier to forgive the Montis' faults because of the things it does so well. And of course, I still don't own it so I'm getting a free ride here for now. Btw, I'm not new stats or planers, having owned an ESL 63 and a Maggie 1.6qr. Neither, in my opinion, comes close to the Montis and I assume to the CLX.

Click to expand...

It seems everyone hears the same issues I hear with one of the best cone driver speakers, MAGICO. That "The Montis had a stronger, punchier bass courtesy of the powered woofer vs the Magico's more controlled, tighter bass response" is puzzling because the lack of something isn't control in my book. The bass captures the peaks or it doesn't. Q's are noted for issues in the bass that is explained away. I say explain what needs to be improved, so they do it! The CLX are weak here, so why act like it isn't an issue? We must know our weaknesses to improve! Thank God the CLX came after the previous full range effort, which needed much improvements.

That midrange quality in the Q's is the darn drivers coloring the sound as the resonate past what they should be doing. And yes, once you hear a good electrostatic speaker, its hard to give-up the wonderful, "it is right here in the room" sound in the critical mid band. My audiophile life is throught he mid range on up, and the CLX do a fantastic job for the money. To me the midrange HAS TO BE right. Even with the new balanced force 212 sub price thrown in (Im going to get one eventually) they are over achievers. OK, I lose some mid bass PUNCH, but the rest is SO SO GOOD.

I also laughed when a Q5 owner "grunted" out the issue moving them! Yes, THAT can keep those Saturday tuning sessions short...of physical energy! The ability to easily move a CLX is an unspoken advantage.