Michael reviewed the Magico Q5 and basically said it didn't have the bass punch he liked. Given this speaker is rated to 22hz and is extremely expensive that might be a death knell and if not then it will surely hurt sales to some degree.
In Magico's response they nailed it. They said they built a flat speaker. They went on to say if you want elevated bass buy another speaker - maybe a ported one. If you look at the measurements of the speaker and one from Wilson in Michael's room you can see the Wilson has tipped up bass. Now before you think it's the Wilson read the text. Michael says he moved them there to get that tip up he likes. He also says he moved the Magico from where the manufacture placed them to get that tipped up bass too but apparently he couldn't distort them enough. How does a magazine that preaches true to the source or live music allow this? It would have been fine if Michael said the speaker pays music extremely faithful to the original but would pass on it for his own use because he likes an unnatural tipped up bass. But that's not what he says and that's not what the editor let by. (All of this after Michael goes in to a story about having his hearing recently "refreshed" by live music). While Michael does say the speaker gets out of the way of the music and that it doesn't have a personality on its own he taints that by saying the bottom octaves are "subtle" and that the speaker is best for acoustic music (with lower bass demands). Of course Magico rightly read in to this as I did and objected. Maybe Michael would have done OK if he has a preamp with a bass control? No see that's not a good thing in high end. (But manipulating a speakers set up to pump up the bass is?). Stereophile and Michael owe the readers and Magico a huge apology or at least a complete restatement of the goals of a high end system. Sure it's just fine if Michael has personal likes and a bias but that should not affect -IN ANY WAY - his conclusions. He has the right to mention and enjoy any type of sound he wants but they should not influence his conclusions. If you don't apologize or restate and you choose to ignore this or highlight the parts of the article that appear to counter our assessment you will have given up any shred of the high end ground you still stand on.
Michael reviewed the Magico Q5 and basically said it didn't have the bass punch he liked. Given this speaker is rated to 22hz and is extremely expensive that might be a death knell and if not then it will surely hurt sales to some degree.
In Magico's response they nailed it. They said they built a flat speaker. They went on to say if you want elevated bass buy another speaker - maybe a ported one. If you look at the measurements of the speaker and one from Wilson in Michael's room you can see the Wilson has tipped up bass. Now before you think it's the Wilson read the text. Michael says he moved them there to get that tip up he likes. He also says he moved the Magico from where the manufacture placed them to get that tipped up bass too but apparently he couldn't distort them enough. How does a magazine that preaches true to the source or live music allow this? It would have been fine if Michael said the speaker pays music extremely faithful to the original but would pass on it for his own use because he likes an unnatural tipped up bass. But that's not what he says and that's not what the editor let by. (All of this after Michael goes in to a story about having his hearing recently "refreshed" by live music). While Michael does say the speaker gets out of the way of the music and that it doesn't have a personality on its own he taints that by saying the bottom octaves are "subtle" and that the speaker is best for acoustic music (with lower bass demands). Of course Magico rightly read in to this as I did and objected. Maybe Michael would have done OK if he has a preamp with a bass control? No see that's not a good thing in high end. (But manipulating a speakers set up to pump up the bass is?). Stereophile and Michael owe the readers and Magico a huge apology or at least a complete restatement of the goals of a high end system. Sure it's just fine if Michael has personal likes and a bias but that should not affect -IN ANY WAY - his conclusions. He has the right to mention and enjoy any type of sound he wants but they should not influence his conclusions. If you don't apologize or restate and you choose to ignore this or highlight the parts of the article that appear to counter our assessment you will have given up any shred of the high end ground you still stand on.