Do distortion 's affect enjoyment of speaker?

I am in a good position to offer an opinion as I started out with Infinity Reference series speakers which have a basic wood cabinet, and comparing those speakers to my current Magico S5's and other extremely inert speakers like Crystal Arabesque which I have experience with, my view is yes speaker distortion does negatively impact your enjoyment of music.

Firstly, cheaper wood cabinets can 'sing', in effect adding harmonics to the sound which distorts the original signal. In terms of driver distortion, ported designs like Wilson in my experience suffer from bass overhang which creates a bloated sound as the cone is unable to follow the signal as accurately as Magico's sealed design. This smears the upper frequencies which reduces the speaker's coherency and can lead to listener fatigue.

The Magico S5's for example use extremely rigid cabinets made from 1/2" thick aluminium extrusions. The S5's, like all Magico speakers also benefit from a sealed design as I mentioned which allows the bass drivers to operate in perfect piston motion and more accurately follow the signal. But of course there is no such thing as a free lunch, and the trade off is usually lower efficiency.

With Magico speakers (perhaps more than any other dynamic speaker i've heard) your ears need time to adjust due to the absolute lack of any perceptible distortion products, the accuracy of the drivers & exceptional resolution. You hear more of the information in the recording, including subtle background information and layering in the music which adds a whole new dimension to the music in terms of realism. A wordy response, but hope that helps.

08-06-14: Bifwynne
@Melbguy1 -- I've had my ears (pun) on the Magico S3s or S5s, for many of the reasons you just mentioned. And in time, I may wind up there. But right now, I'm obsessing over a type of distortion that many do not speak about or understand ... time coherence.

Both the S3 and S5 are amazing loudspeakers in their own way, given the right acoustical environment. I agree with your view of the Vandy 5a Carbons & Vandy 7. Yes, they are very good speakers, but I don't think i'd trade my S5's for even the 7's. I agree with your view that time coherence is important, though of course there are different ways you can achieve that. I recall asking Magico if the S5's are perfectly time and phase coherent & received this response - "If the question is, are the drivers summed in phase and the phase is perfectly aligned in the crossover region? Then yes." Subjectively i'd have to agree, the S5's are very coherent and well balanced.

Bombaywalla, thanks for your comments. I think however you're jumping
conclusions based on one comment Magico made in isolation. Fyi, I
had earlier received this response from Magico - "The S5 are both
time and phase coherent." Maybe not perfectly time coherent, but I
think you're clutching at straws here. If you read any of the many reviews
on the S5's, including Martin Colloms review for Hifi Critic, there is no
suggestion the S5's are anything but the most coherent sounding of
speakers. And my own experience also reflects that. I've heard Avalon
Transcendent which sounds very coherent. I would say no more so
subjectively than S5. In saying that, it is doubtful any box speaker whether
Vandersteen, Avalon or Magico is going to sound quite as overall coherent
as a panel speaker like your Scintillas. Though no loudspeaker is perfect,
and the Scintilla's have their own demons.

Bombaywalla. You invested much time in pressing your point labeling the
S5's as time IN-coherent as you put it. Somehow I find your comments
overly-forensic and rigid (which is I suspect how you like your music to
sound). Let's ignore all the rave reviews of the S5's, let's ignore thier strong
sales. Let's ignore the fact I own a pair and have over 500 hrs logged
listening to them and could not possibly have a well considered view of
their sound. Let's even ignore the fact you own panel speakers and
could not possibly be heavily invested in a completely divergent point of
view. Indeed let's pretend you are open minded and completely objective
for a moment. If I had to choose the viewpoint of a well respected reviewer
with over 20 years experience who spends more time listening to speakers
than someone who spends every waking hour reading Freshman textbooks
on acoustical engineering or staring at waterfall plots, whose view do you
think i'm more likely to respect?

Bombaywalla, I acknowledge your fair comments. However on the one
hand Magico are telling me the S5's are time coherent, and on the other
you are telling me they are not. One might ask who do you believe? May I
pose this question to you, Is a speaker either time coherent or not? Or can
there be different degrees in between? And are (objective) measurements
more important than (subjective) listening in assessing the overall
coherency of a speaker?

Bifwynne, I understand the general thrust of what you're saying regarding use of high order crossovers, but it's not that simple. I see you pulled out that favorite red herring whenever this subject comes up in Magico discussions; Atkinson's measurements of the Q5. Firstly Magico themselves never claimed the S5 was 100% time coherent (though I suspect it gets close).

Secondly, Q5 was released over 4 years ago and was the first model in the Q series. The S5's crossovers (like Q7) are an evolution of the Elliptical design in the Q5, though obviously tailored for that speaker. You described the 4th order crossover used in the S5's as a design compromise as though the crossover design was a conventional 4th order crossover. It is not. Martin Colloms provided this summary of S5's crossover technology in his review for Hifi Critic -

"Crossovers are tailored to deliver flat pass-band responses with superior and symmetrical phase summation, and faster out-of-band roll-offs using modified 'elliptical’ filters. Copper foil inductors and special Mundorf capacitors are used", and further noted in conclusion - "..it’s clear that the S5 is the product of years of careful research into materials technology, room matching, decay resonance, group delay and distortion control, a concertedly global approach to total loudspeaker system design to try to make the loudspeaker disappear and thus not constitute the usual, recognisable and characterful link in the sound reproducing chain. In achieving this very high standard of natural dynamics, very low distortion, vanishingly low coloration, very low fatigue, exceptional transparency and an almost magically powerful, speedy, upbeat bass, the Magico team should be applauded."

With the above said, achieving absolute time and phase coherency does not guarantee good sound as Doug Schneider noted in this article relating to the Soundstage review of the S5's - http://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/reader-feedback/668-magico-s5-review-and-time-and-phase-accuracy

Agreed re: Wilson.

Bombaywalla, I tell you what. If you're as wise and smart as you claim to
be, then we will see you designing and manufacturing leading high end
loudspeakers in the near furture which out-perform Wilson, Rockport,
Magico, Tidal etc right? And prepared to subject your designs not only to
rigorous testing and analysis, but to brutal market forces. Then post about
why owners of those speakers are backing the wrong horse mate,
otherwise you're just another philosopher espousing thier beliefs.

Bifwynne, no I don't agree that the GMA speakers look like Praying Mantis bugs, minus the antennae and eyes, I think the GMA speakers look like Praying Mantis bugs, minus the antennae and eyes which have been run over by a Mack Super-liner!