Entirely different speakers - in fact you are unlikely to find two different speakers anywhere.
Magico is of the accuracy detail type and, to some like me, can come across as perhaps a bit brittle, dry and uninvolving, but due to the very low resonance fast, very uncolored, and articulate. The Tannoy is full, rich, involving, and musical but with not the articulation and detail of the Magico.
I actually wouldn't get either - I would try for a speaker that combined the strengths of both - such as Rockports, Ridge St Audio Sason, or Lenehan ML2 Limited (I have a pair of those on the way) - but that's me. I was at a recent meet where some speakers similar to the Tannoy were and while I liked them the guys there were going ga ga over them. Many there have heard my speakers which are more along the line of Rockports etc, and I thought mine were definitely better, but all except one other (he also owned my speakers) much preferred the speakers at the meet.
Its a personal preference thing - listen to both and decide what floats your boat. Of the two I would go for the Tannoy - the Magico's are a little brittle for me.
Thanks
Bill |
Hi Dan
Thats the exact reason I prefer Rockports and Lenehan's to the Tannoys - they seem to be as musical and satisfying as the Tannoy and yet have the detail of Magico's. But there are plenty who don't agree - viva la difference I say.
Thanks
Bill
|
It really is interesting how everyone here has such a good word for Rockports. The Rockport Mira 2 and my new Lenehan ML2 Limited are my two favorite speakers - but the Lenehans are more of an Australian thing - if you aren't in Australia auditioning them is a problem. The more expensive Rockports are of course fantastic as well but their cost makes my eyes wince - ouch.
Thanks
Bill |
I contributed earlier in the thread, but am scratching my head about some of the latest comments.
Look, these are two entirely different speakers. I prefer the Tannoy - but that means Jack Shite.
They are both quite expensive and if spending that amount of your hard earned dosh you owe it to yourself to hear both and make up your own mind.
Basically that's all there is to it. The only purpose of threads like this is to figure out if its worth the time and effort to do that.
IMHO, for these two speakers, it is.
Happy listening.
Thanks
Bill |
'It means Jack Shite because you have no empirical data to support why you prefer it. Why would anyone prefer a higher THD, trainwrack frq and power response, lack of extension, bloated bass loudspeakers to one that is the exact opposite?
It will be very difficult to explain why would anyone prefer an inferior speaker, but that is hi-fi for you.'
Dear oh dear - its obvious you have a long way to go in your Hi Fi journey.
Here is the truth. The purpose of Hi Fi is to trick the listener into thinking this is real. That is an emotional response not accounted for by measurements. I have heard plenty of gear that measured ho hum that sounds glorious, as well as plenty of gear that measures impeccably but sounds - well ho hum. And conversely as well - plenty of gear that measures dubiously and sounds that way, and plenty that measure impeccably that sounds fantastic. No hard and fast rule here.
There is a guy in Sydney Australia, by the name of Steve Garland, that has what many people that have heard it say is the best system in Australia - it simply sounds so beguilingly real. Some people from the states who had heard everything under the sun were on a holiday and called in to hear it. They left shocked - it was better than anything they had heard state-side.
It has a Axiom 80 driver in a cabinet that acoustically is a joke - its as resonant as hell. It uses a hand built and tuned valve amp and DAC. Many many hours have been spent getting it to sound just right - and it was by ear - no measurements at all. It will likely measure terribly - but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Forget measurements - you hear music - not measurements.
BTW my speakers are the exact opposite - technically a tour de force - but that is another story. Some people actually prefer a system I know the uses the same speakers as mine to Steve's - and having heard that particular system many times I wish I could get mine to sound as good. But the guy installs systems for a living and has spent many hours getting it just right using his many years of experience.
Its all in how you react to what you hear. Check out the following review of exactly the same speaker to see what I mean:
http://www.stereomojo.com/LENEHAN%20ML1%20REFERENCE%20SPEAKER%20REVIEW/LenehandML1ReferenceSpeaker.htm
For one person - the best he has ever heard - and he is a speaker builder of many years experience - for another - ho hum - and he is a very well respected audio engineer. The speaker measures impeccably - yet we have two different reactions.
BTW they were my personal speakers that were reviewed and I obviously side with the speaker builder. But the other guys view is equally valid. There is only one way to know which camp you fall into - listen for yourself.
Just as an aside those speakers are quite famous here in Australia, with many like me liking them a lot. But it wasn't until that review was published quite a few people came out of the woodwork saying they sided with the Audio Engineer, but were intimidated by the loyal following it had and were afraid to say anything.
The moral is its VITALLY important to always use what you hear as the measure - not what others hear.
Thanks
Bill |
Melbguy - I ask you to look at what I said.
I acknowledged even for products I am positive towards some don't like them, and was very concerned some were not saying what they thought because they were intimidated by people like me.
These days I try very hard to be even handed and get people to forget what those positive or negative towards a bit of gear think.
Regarding this thread I pointed out I prefer the Tannoy, but deliberately refrained saying why. I even pointed out my view meant nothing. You must hear them and make up your own mind.
I really do feel, compared to some in this thread, I have been very fair. The last post I did was a distillation of many years experience listening to gear. I pointed to a review you never see, one where one person pans a product, and another is the exact opposite to get the point across.
To be blunt I believe my comments were very neutral and unbiased.
Thanks
Bill |
'inevitably return to how Lenehan speakers are equal to, if not the best sounding speakers in the world, and that tubes and diy gear beats $30 and $40k Vitus, Dartzeel etc, I lose interest and walk away.'
Oh dear. How you get that from what I wrote is beyond me. I said nothing even remotely like that, nor did I mention any of those names.
Methinks you have a chip on thine shoulders.
Thanks
Bill |
'If you do, you then must agree with me that what will determine how real and enjoyable our experience will be is how accurate the system that reproduce it.'
Your logic is flawed and erroneous. The purpose of Hi Fi is to provide enjoyment to the listener - not to fulfil preconceived ideas that measured accuracy a-priori somehow always attains that goal.
If you think so then I strongly suggest you listen to more gear with others and take on board what they think.
Thanks
Bill |
'Bill, to be fair I haven't heard your speakers & so I don't know why you have such big wraps on them, so i'll make you a deal.'
You are missing the point of my post. I like my speakers, but as I carefully point out others not so much. That's why its vitally important to listen for yourself.
Magico is exactly the same as any speaker, or any piece of audio gear - some go ga ga over them and others don't. The same with my speakers.
If you really want a speaker comparison I heard the other day Southport Hi Fi wants to hold a speaker GTG - undoubtedly Steronet will announce dates etc if it goes ahead. Such will likely be interesting - but prove nothing - except - audio gear tends to polarise.
Thanks
Bill |
'If Bill feels strongly about Lenehan audio speakers and wants to promote them, why is that seen as a problem?'
In the past I used to do that, but am much more circumspect these days because I now understand its more complex than what I like, but also it does annoy others which is not my intent.
That said its not what I did here. I have been very careful to point out its quite variable what people enjoy. That's its point and relevance to this thread which is about Tannoy and Magico.
Both the Tannoy and the Magico are very good speakers, the choice of which must be made by listening to them.
As I mentioned a number of posts ago I prefer the Tannoy - but that means nothing - its not my ears in my system that will be listening to them.
Thanks
Bill |
'You can like what you (think) you like, but it has already been proven that in a control environment, tested blind, most people prefer a better engineered loudspeaker'
Untrue.
It has been proven, for example, in controlled studies, and this is well known to speaker designers, that more accurate speaker alignments are NOT preferred. A QTC of .5 is the most accurate, being called transient perfect. But most people find it lean and anaemic - its the most accurate - but most designers - yes even your beloved Magico - shy away from it using an alignment of .6 or .65 because people like it better.
But even aside from that accuracy involves many parameters. Which is the most important? For example, early transistor amps had extremely low distortion - so low it was hard to even measure. This was achieved by HUGE amounts of global feedback - yet they sounded like the life was sucked out of the music. Why? I don't think anyone conclusively found out but it was recognised that there is a lag between when distortion occurred and feedback corrected it and that was likely an issue. So transient response became important to reduce that lag. So what is it that determines how an amp will sound - distortion measurements or transient response? BTW most amp designers now use feedback very judiciously and concentrate on its application locally.
The interaction between measurement and what people prefer is a very complex one not accounted for by simplistic platitudes such as accuracy is better.
One must ALWAYS listen to gear - that is the only measure.
But even aside from that exactly what your beef is has me beat. All myself and others are saying is listen to both and make your own mind up. If Magico is so obviously superior then the outcome is not in doubt.
Thanks
Bill |
Charles wrote:
'People have test driven(heard) the Magico and were not impressed.They don't impress me, but so what, just my opinion. I totally get the point that you and usermanual find the Magico to be your Porsche standard, others simply do not. It doesn't matter, the Magico S5 suits your needs and desires so other's opinions have no bearing on your satisfaction. I say congratulations to you for finding a sucessful speaker for your system. I hope you enjoy them for a very long time. I feel the same toward those who've gone in another direction as well. Tannoy for instance. In truth, just be happy with your choices and ignore the criticism of others.'
Spot on Charles. Its self evident really. I am scratching my head why there is any debate.
Thanks
Bill |
'QTC is not a scale for determining how good a speaker is, it is simply an indicator of how the speaker behaves at its resonant frequency.'
Dear oh dear. Your knowledge of speaker design needs work I am afraid.
A QTC of .5 is called transient perfect for a reason - it reproduces transients (ie with the least amount of ringing) the best of any alignment. It is the most accurate - but most people do not like it - it sounds a bit lean and thin. Higher QTC's are not as accurate - ringing more - but sound more real to most people. There is a brain interpreting this stuff - and that is precisely what you are ignoring.
I know it blows a hole in your view of Hi Fi - but its a fact Jack.
I suggest you get a copy of Vance Dickensons the Loudspeaker Cookbook:
http://www.amazon.com/Loudspeaker-Design-Cookbook-Vance-Dickason/dp/1882580478
Thanks
Bill |
'All things being equal, a Q of 0.5 (0.577) will start rolling off sooner than a Q of 0.707 (which will give you flat, most extended frq response).'
Although I forgot to mention it, because it was I thought reasonably obvious, the tests were done frequency compensated.
Thanks
Bill |
'Would love to read about these tests, could you please point me (us) to their whereabouts?'
They were done by a speaker designer I know. He also said a number of other designers, such as Dunlavey, did the same tests with the same results.
However even without such formal tests its well known eg its mentioned in Vance Dickensen's book on speaker design.
From an Audiogon discussion on it:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1106229169
'Having said that, many people find a very low static Q ( .5 ) to sound TOO tight and dry, even with the slight boost of Q that occurs during actual driven conditions. Raising the static Q will produce more apparent bass but it does so at a slight loss in transient response. The more that the static Q climbs, the more apparent bass that you have and the worse the transient response gets.'
'Much of this is covered in Vance's book to a great extent. Interpreting the trade-off's involved in each approach becomes a matter of personal design decisions'
If you want to pursue it further get Vance's book. It helped me understand a lot about speaker design such as this issue, although I don't personally build and design speakers.
But it does mean I can have enlightening conversations with those that do, like the guy that told me about those tests.
Thanks
Bill |
